Not a fan of any of the "Big 3", Nike, Adidas or UA.

I will give UA more credit for their stance on child labor. Nike and Adidas and their morality towards this is very disturbing.

Nike is bleeding more money than UA, yet is still signing schools and paying these Lebron type deals. Their savings are paying off with their labor system in place. Shoe companies are a dirty business, just like everything else has become that's sports related.

Dog eat dog world, do what you can to survive and come out on top.

(06-29-2020 09:40 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:10 PM)Cattidude Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:08 AM)f1do Wrote:  Looks like they are also moving to drop Cal's contract (no longer listed on their website as a partner team).

https://247sports.com/Article/California...148621989/

Under Armour now only lists Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Maryland, Boston College, Utah, Hawaii, Auburn, Texas Tech, Navy, South Carolina, Northwestern, Colorado State, Cincinnati and Temple among the brand's college partners.

Temple is dropping Under Armour. It was announced earlier this year

It already happened and Temple signed with Nike (which takes effect July 1st).

Surely at way less money too.

(06-29-2020 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2020 10:27 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Cancel ND's contract please. Our stock options seem real stupid now. Jack you screwed up again.

I read an article yesterday by a UCLA alum, I think an athlete, who said that he thinks the UA deal, while financially very lucrative, has hurt UCLA recruiting because the kids do not like UA shoes and apparel, it doesn't have the "swag appeal" of some of the other providers, so he thinks getting out of the UA deal could help in that regard.

It was Matt Barnes, former UCLA and NBA player. The news is not getting better for the Bruins. Learfield/IMG College wants to revise or terminate their agreement with UCLA. UA pays UCLA $9 million annually and Learfield pays UCLA $15 million annually. Both UA and Learfield are having financial issues that are being exasperated by the Covid-19 crisis. New athletic director Martin Jarmond, who officially becomes the AD on Wednesday, is walking into a mess.

(06-29-2020 12:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:40 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:10 PM)Cattidude Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:08 AM)f1do Wrote:  Looks like they are also moving to drop Cal's contract (no longer listed on their website as a partner team).

https://247sports.com/Article/California...148621989/

Under Armour now only lists Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Maryland, Boston College, Utah, Hawaii, Auburn, Texas Tech, Navy, South Carolina, Northwestern, Colorado State, Cincinnati and Temple among the brand's college partners.

Temple is dropping Under Armour. It was announced earlier this year

It already happened and Temple signed with Nike (which takes effect July 1st).

Surely at way less money too.

It’s not for way less money.

Temple requested to end the agreement for a lot of reasons and UA went along with it. The President of Nike Jordan Brand is a Temple alum (which helped with the deal).

(06-29-2020 07:33 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 12:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:40 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:10 PM)Cattidude Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:08 AM)f1do Wrote:  Looks like they are also moving to drop Cal's contract (no longer listed on their website as a partner team).

https://247sports.com/Article/California...148621989/

Under Armour now only lists Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Maryland, Boston College, Utah, Hawaii, Auburn, Texas Tech, Navy, South Carolina, Northwestern, Colorado State, Cincinnati and Temple among the brand's college partners.

Temple is dropping Under Armour. It was announced earlier this year

It already happened and Temple signed with Nike (which takes effect July 1st).

Surely at way less money too.

It’s not for way less money.

Temple requested to end the agreement for a lot of reasons and UA went along with it. The President of Nike Jordan Brand is a Temple alum (which helped with the deal).

Though without the numbers we don't know, I would bet it's probably for "way less" money. We know that the UA deal was signed in 2015 and for $3 million a year, that was the peak-year for these kinds of deals.

In contrast, last year, Nike signed a five-year deal with Memphis for about $2.1 million a year. Memphis is probably more valuable than Temple, so it's probably safe to say Temple's new deal is for about $2 million a year.

In my book, $2m a year is "way less" than $3m a year.

(06-30-2020 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 07:33 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 12:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:40 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:10 PM)Cattidude Wrote:  Temple is dropping Under Armour. It was announced earlier this year

It already happened and Temple signed with Nike (which takes effect July 1st).

Surely at way less money too.

It’s not for way less money.

Temple requested to end the agreement for a lot of reasons and UA went along with it. The President of Nike Jordan Brand is a Temple alum (which helped with the deal).

Though without the numbers we don't know, I would bet it's probably for "way less" money. We know that the UA deal was signed in 2015 and for $3 million a year, that was the peak-year for these kinds of deals.

In contrast, last year, Nike signed a five-year deal with Memphis for about $2.1 million a year. Memphis is probably more valuable than Temple, so it's probably safe to say Temple's new deal is for about $2 million a year.

In my book, $2m a year is "way less" than $3m a year.

Pretty good logic in my opinion. Nike would be pretty dumb to give Temple more than Memphis. No company would do that. A 33% loss is way less to me too.

(06-30-2020 10:56 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 07:33 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 12:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:40 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  It already happened and Temple signed with Nike (which takes effect July 1st).

Surely at way less money too.

It’s not for way less money.

Temple requested to end the agreement for a lot of reasons and UA went along with it. The President of Nike Jordan Brand is a Temple alum (which helped with the deal).

Though without the numbers we don't know, I would bet it's probably for "way less" money. We know that the UA deal was signed in 2015 and for $3 million a year, that was the peak-year for these kinds of deals.

In contrast, last year, Nike signed a five-year deal with Memphis for about $2.1 million a year. Memphis is probably more valuable than Temple, so it's probably safe to say Temple's new deal is for about $2 million a year.

In my book, $2m a year is "way less" than $3m a year.

Pretty good logic in my opinion. Nike would be pretty dumb to give Temple more than Memphis. No company would do that. A 33% loss is way less to me too.

It’s not logical at all actually and has little to do with the value of Memphis. Temple was the one who asked out of the deal just under halfway of the 10 year contract. I can assure you those making this decision at Temple would never agree to a deal where they give up a million dollars annually for six years just to sign with Nike.

(06-30-2020 06:26 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 10:56 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 07:33 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 12:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Surely at way less money too.

It’s not for way less money.

Temple requested to end the agreement for a lot of reasons and UA went along with it. The President of Nike Jordan Brand is a Temple alum (which helped with the deal).

Though without the numbers we don't know, I would bet it's probably for "way less" money. We know that the UA deal was signed in 2015 and for $3 million a year, that was the peak-year for these kinds of deals.

In contrast, last year, Nike signed a five-year deal with Memphis for about $2.1 million a year. Memphis is probably more valuable than Temple, so it's probably safe to say Temple's new deal is for about $2 million a year.

In my book, $2m a year is "way less" than $3m a year.

Pretty good logic in my opinion. Nike would be pretty dumb to give Temple more than Memphis. No company would do that. A 33% loss is way less to me too.

It’s not logical at all actually and has little to do with the value of Memphis. Temple was the one who asked out of the deal just under halfway of the 10 year contract. I can assure you those making this decision at Temple would never agree to a deal where they give up a million dollars annually for six years just to sign with Nike.

Assuming you were in charge of finances at your own sports apparel company, would you give more money to Temple than Memphis? If yes, for what reason(s)?

Looks like Under Armour and BC are about to part ways.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/06/30/...ssion=true

Whether for more or less money, the optics of UA just suck right now, and probably does have a repulsive effect on student athletes and recruits. And who knows what happens with the company over the next few years? They could still pay as an obligation, but the product might be utter trash.

There’s other value to have with a known entity like Nike.

(07-01-2020 06:59 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Looks like Under Armour and BC are about to part ways.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/06/30/...ssion=true

With the caveat that I'm not a contract lawyer and haven't seen the contract details, from my armchair perspective these UA moves look like pretty brazen moves to break valid contracts.

Normally, this would mean easy court wins for the schools, but in this case, UA seems to be pretty obviously struggling financially, and you can't squeeze blood from a stone, so I bet there are settlements that basically leave these schools getting far less money than the contracts call for. Basically, UA is likely to largely get away with it.

(06-29-2020 09:22 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:20 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2020 10:27 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Cancel ND's contract please. Our stock options seem real stupid now. Jack you screwed up again.

I read an article yesterday by a UCLA alum, I think an athlete, who said that he thinks the UA deal, while financially very lucrative, has hurt UCLA recruiting because the kids do not like UA shoes and apparel, it doesn't have the "swag appeal" of some of the other providers, so he thinks getting out of the UA deal could help in that regard.

Imagine being so dumb that you choose or disregard a school based on “swag appeal” you might get for 4 years.

It happens, a lot.

Definitely. Doesn't hurt so much with football (there's so many UA camps and UA is fundamentally a football oriented brand) but it hurts SC with basketball. There are a lot of guys out there that won't give us the time of day because we're UA. And in Olympic sports the quality of material is a big deal and UA hurts us in sports like track and XC because UA doesn't make great shoes, which is critical in those sports.