I decided to do a bit of investigating over at Fred Perry's website (which was a tad slow) and found that most of the shoes offered by the firm are retro inspired. I own a pair of Chuck Taylors, and if I played basketball, I wouldn't play in those - the technology isn't the same as a pair of basketball shoes. My point here is that shoe technology is going to have some part to play in whether or not the top players wear the product. I have never worn a pair of Fred Perry shoes, but I am guessing that they can not hold a candle to Nike's offerings. My main reason for this hypothesis is the fact that Andy Murray wears the Nikes rather than the shoes of his main sponsor and the fact that only three pairs of the shoes on their site are made of leather.

So, would it be worth Fred Perry's while to make shoes that Andy Murray would wear in competition? Honestly, I don't think so. Fred Perry is an iconic brand - in England. Did you know that Fred Perry made shoes before reading any of the recent articles? I did, but that is kind of my job. It just wouldn't make sense for the British company to start making performance athletic shoes, because that is not what they are known for. If someone is going to buy Fred Perry shoes, it is for the retro styling. Perhaps the casual tennis player would wear these shoes, but it sure looks like the company uses the same styling used when Fred Perry last won Wimbledon in 1936.

I admire Fred Perry, the company seems to understand that its niche is not in performance footwear. Therefore, it would make no sense for the company to try and compete with the big boys of the footwear world. I don't think the British firm is going to lose too much money if Andy Murray wins because he is wearing Nikes. His picture will be splashed all over the British papers, and you will see the iconic Fred Perry wreath right there on his chest and wristbands (that is if he can beat Andy Roddick).