Metrosexual Priorities #2: The Case of Federer’s Shoes

Posted: June 28, 2013 in Fashion, Masculinities, metrosexuality, Metrosexy, Sporno
Tags: , , , ,


Last year I commented on Rafael Nadal‘s adventures  – not his shock defeat in the second round at Wimbledon, but his panic when a designer watch he was sponsored to wear at the French Open was stolen (and later recovered).  This year, though the metrosexual champ fell at Wimbledon’s first hurdle tennis-wise, he did not make the headlines for suffering any sartorial crises.

But Roger Federer has. In his first round match Federer sported orange-soled tennis shoes but was banned from wearing them in further matches.

‘Tournament rules state that competitors “must be dressed almost entirely in white” and the powers-that-be have deemed that brightly-coloured soles were a step too far.’

Whilst my readers know I am one of the most enthusiastic promoters of metrosexuality there is, Roger does look a bit sad having fussed about with fashionable footwear now he is out of the competition. A question of misplaced priorities? Also I and others have wondered if Serena  Williams’ bright red shorts under her white Nike tennis dress would also break the rules. This picture fails to show off their flamboyance well but when she is lurching for a ball and her dress flips up you can see them bright as day.


So far the Women’s Champion of the world has not been reprimanded for her fancy pants. Maybe there is some sexism here with women being allowed to get away with a bit more glamour than men on court? Or maybe Serena,  unlike Roger who is another casualty of this year’s curse of the top seeds, is allowed to get away with it because she’s so brilliant a player.

Whatever the reason for this (metro)sexual inequality, I think it highlights it’s time for the All England Club to relax its clothing rules. It is making waves with other initiatives such as equal prize money for men and women. And Andy Murray emphasised just how much better women’s tennis is getting when he only half-joked on twitter that he’d like to play a match against Serena. So allowing a bit of colour on court seems the least the Board can do.

If the authorities want to ban something, though, why not those speedophobic long baggy shorts all the men players are wearing this year? I can barely get a glimpse of ass!


  1. redpesto says:

    Maybe (women’s) underwear does not count towards the ‘all-white’ rule. Besides, if you want mad metro colour palettes, you’d have to look at the other Grand Slam tournaments: Wimbledon is all about ‘tradition’ which means the devil is in the sartorial detail, like a good men’s suit.

    • QRG says:

      I know its underwear but it clearly shows up colour more than the bottom of shoes, when serena’s (very) short dress flips up when she moves. but she is out now too so maybe this year is the curse of the metrosexuals! Murray and Djokovitch are decidedly unfashionable…

  2. Ghosti says:

    The clothing rules were set in Victorian times. They dress in white partly because its cooling and partly to preserve the purity of the sport. The shorts are baggy specifically to make it more challenging for the competitors as Wimbledon was design to be a great challenge and a feat of athleticism. Fashion on the green matteres little, hence why there was originally no women players at Wimbledon.

    • QRG says:

      Hi Ghosti
      Interesting stuff about the history of Wimbledon.

      But re: men players’ baggy shorts, this ‘tradition’ is not very old. Look at the short, tighter shorts that 70s players like McEnroe and Borg wore:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s