forums

Nike deal

PhenomCane said:
Wasn't that bridge burned when Jordan's kid refused to wear their shoes?
Click to expand...


Jordan's son's store in Orlando. Notice which brand is not present?

www.trophyroomstore.com

TROPHY ROOM STORE

TROPHY ROOM STORE
www.trophyroomstore.com


1687273381583.png

1687273413824.png
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
Adidas is not exiting CFB deals. Lol. In fact, they’ll most likely be going hard after UCF in 2024.
Click to expand...
didnt Adidas have UCF before and switched to Nike bc Marcus wanted to wear his dads shoes or something like that.

if Im UCF I probably stick with Nike but I imagine Adidas will outbid Nike on that one (realistically speaking Nike has much larger schools with a. bigger brand and aren't really gonna worry about losing UCF to Adidas esp if Adidas PAYS big time for them).
 
hoops156 said:
didnt Adidas have UCF before and switched to Nike bc Marcus wanted to wear his dads shoes or something like that.

if Im UCF I probably stick with Nike but I imagine Adidas will outbid Nike on that one (realistically speaking Nike has much larger schools with a. bigger brand and aren't really gonna worry about losing UCF to Adidas esp if Adidas PAYS big time for them).
Click to expand...

Correct, & I, too, think Adidas will outbid them for a couple of reasons, namely Adidas would like to have another P5 school. Right now, only KU is an Adidas branded school in the B12, & in total, they only have like 9.5 teams in P5 (BC is 1/2 Adidas & 1/2 NB).
 
hoops156 said:
didnt Adidas have UCF before and switched to Nike bc Marcus wanted to wear his dads shoes or something like that.

if Im UCF I probably stick with Nike but I imagine Adidas will outbid Nike on that one (realistically speaking Nike has much larger schools with a. bigger brand and aren't really gonna worry about losing UCF to Adidas esp if Adidas PAYS big time for them).
Click to expand...


Come on, man. UCF is the second largest university in the country, by enrollment size.

That's a lot of customer. Nike will re-up with UCF.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Come on, man. UCF is the second largest university in the country, by enrollment size.

That's a lot of customer. Nike will re-up with UCF.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, K, UCF did re-up w/ Nike for only two yrs. The AD thought he was going to get a higher bid which didn’t work out. Their AD is trying to create a bidding frenzy after the 2024 season.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
Bingo.
Click to expand...

I used to work with a guy who used to work for UA in Baltimore (Finance). I was complaining to him one day about how a simple return to the store took an eternity because the store computer terminal had to jump through hoops to process it. He told me one of the main reasons he left (back in 2015) was that their systems were a disaster - everything from supply chain to front end finance was a cluster.
 
Rellyrell said:
From what I understand, K, UCF did re-up w/ Nike for only two yrs. The AD thought he was going to get a higher bid which didn’t work out. Their AD is trying to create a bidding frenzy after the 2024 season.
Click to expand...


Understandable. You're talking about the guy who came over from Arky State, right? If so, he's trying to pull a Beta Blake "put my stamp on this" kinda bull****.

Look, I'm going to be honest, UCF got lucky that they had the Jordan brothers. It got their foot in the door. And I'll be the first to point out their MASSIVE enrollment, as my nephew is just one of the 70,000-plus.

BUT...you also can't overplay your leverage. You've got to acknowledge that UCF is not the highest priority for ANY apparel contract.

And you know what else? UCF would be smart to go with a royalty-heavy deal. 70,000 students and god-knows-how-many alums can buy a LOT of merch.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Here's the thing (and I'm going to be nice).

You are equating lack of competition with "a subpar deal". And that's just not true.

In fact, in an ideal situation, here is EXACTLY what happens:

Nike/JB offers us a tiny guarantee (i.e., the value of the equipment and merch provided to the teams) and does a HEAVY royalty deal. Then, you do not have to even WORRY about the offer, you know that you will make money on every item you sell. And if you perform well, and if you market properly, you will make a ****-TON of money.

Chef's kiss. Because Nike is incentivized to sell and UM is incentivized to sell. The more you sell, the more money that BOTH PARTIES make. Everybody is happy. Nobody gives a **** if the "guarantee" was six million per year or seven. **** all that.

Look, I don't know if you are really believe that capitalism and economic models are so simple ("ya gotta have competition, dude") or if you are just trying to win an argument. But the competition is BETWEEN SCHOOLS. We are all on Fanatics. We are (mostly) all on Nike. So now the "competition" is about who wins more, who sells more, whose stuff looks better. And the competition is NOT "oh, does adidas want us more".

I don't know where you've been for the last 50 pages (and 100 pages on the other thread), but we are simply NOT SELLING AS MUCH MERCH WITH ADIDAS AS WE DID WITH NIKE. So if you want to keep blowing that ***-trumpet about "guaranteed money", you'll be the only one doing so.

As I've pointed out, the differential of a couple of million dollars per year (in the "guaranteed" portion of the contract) is ***-wiping money compared to our NIL budget or our TV and conference shares. Meanwhile, our fans are buying less merch and the recruits are hesitant to rock adidas for 3 to 5 years. AND WE COULD EASILY MAKE UP THE GUARANTEE DIFFERENTIAL WITH MORE SALES AND MORE ROYALTIES.

So what's it going to take for you to embrace economic realities? While you are yapping about "we need a competitive bidder", we are losing recruits and we are losing merch sales.

Are you really going to die on the hill of "but but but, we need three competitive bidders to enter into any contract because that's the only way we can get paid"?

Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Strange Use of the word IDEAL there. Cause In an idea situation we have a guaranteed contract that pays us more than any other school in the country without having to sell as the #1 school lol. Yall keep preaching as if backend money is better than upfront money even if the up front money is higher. Would I rather have guaranteed #1 pay up front, or have to perform on the backend to hopefully get paid #1? hmm such a difficult question. I mean you said IDEAL right?... Simply put, The closer you get to up-front Guaranteed #1 payout, the less sense you make talking about back-end royalties being better. Would back-end focused deal be better than getting paid #20 up front? Yes. Better than top 5? No - especially if it scales with time. The entire discussion all yall have been making regarding MONEY between Nike and Adidas has been completely uncompelling. If the up front offer is high enough, I'd prefer that, period. And in this situation Nike would be heavily incentivized to sell as much of our **** as possible to make sure they profit. See how this is the "IDEAL" deal FOR US.

At the end of the day the reality of your argument is ONLY 2 pretty factual things: Nike will have better (and more) merch for fans and it will be better for recruiting. And some of you also hold the opinion that Nike Uniforms are better - which is completely subjective and I disagree with. Thats it. I really don't know why yall keep wanting to make it so much more than that as if the cash is ALSO one of the reason to switch from Adidas to Nike/JB when it so obviously isn't. Yall value Nike/JB as intrinsically worth a ~$2M/yr advantage over Adidas/UA/whoever else. The cherry on top of this debate is: Did I ever disagree with that? lol. Thats the funniest thing about all this. I prefer our current Adidas uniforms to anything we've had since 01. And I think we are making more money from them. So I've been fine with Adidas. The amount of recruits that are put-off by Adidas for recruiting likely isn't more valuable than $2M. How many quality player can an additional $2M in NIL buy? lol... If the money is similar, the uniforms don't get ****ed, and we switch to nike/Jordan will I be happy? Yes.

Lastly you saying the competition is between the schools, just obviously makes no sense whatsoever in relation to what I was saying. Sure the competition in merch sales and obviously on field performance is between the schools. And that may be the difference in one school selling as the #1 school and #10... But if Nike doesn't have quality competition, what is stopping them from lowering the royalties on those sales in future contracts leading to less TOTAL revenue. You can still be the #1 selling school, and making LESS total money in that case. Or are you going to argue that undeniable fact? Please don't, because I really don't want to read paragraphs from you making up reasons monopoly power would be good.
 
Rellyrell said:
Bad book keeping, Covid, & programs & players they invested in (sans Steph) not creating the returns they hoped for. It’s caused ramifications:

auburnwire.usatoday.com

Auburn's contract value with Under Armour down $8.23 million

[jwplayer XoGfsbI9-er0jUifI] Bad news on the financial front for Auburn’s athletic department as its value in the deal with Under Armour has fallen by 11 percent. From Sportico: “Back i…
auburnwire.usatoday.com auburnwire.usatoday.com

Their stock is currently at $6.95/share. They have continued to plummet in their valuation at a rate I’ve not seen before. To go from $55/share to $7 in a matter of 24 months? Sheesh
Click to expand...
Silicon Valley Bank did a speedrun going from $267.83/share to $0.40/share in 20 days...
 
Advertisement
calinative umstudent said:
Strange Use of the word IDEAL there. Cause In an idea situation we have a guaranteed contract that pays us more than any other school in the country without having to sell as the #1 school lol. Yall keep preaching as if backend money is better than upfront money even if the up front money is higher. Would I rather have guaranteed #1 pay up front, or have to perform on the backend to hopefully get paid #1? hmm such a difficult question. I mean you said IDEAL right?... Simply put, The closer you get to up-front Guaranteed #1 payout, the less sense you make talking about back-end royalties being better. Would back-end focused deal be better than getting paid #20 up front? Yes. Better than top 5? No - especially if it scales with time. The entire discussion all yall have been making regarding MONEY between Nike and Adidas has been completely uncompelling. If the up front offer is high enough, I'd prefer that, period. And in this situation Nike would be heavily incentivized to sell as much of our **** as possible to make sure they profit. See how this is the "IDEAL" deal FOR US.

At the end of the day the reality of your argument is ONLY 2 pretty factual things: Nike will have better (and more) merch for fans and it will be better for recruiting. And some of you also hold the opinion that Nike Uniforms are better - which is completely subjective and I disagree with. Thats it. I really don't know why yall keep wanting to make it so much more than that as if the cash is ALSO one of the reason to switch from Adidas to Nike/JB when it so obviously isn't. Yall value Nike/JB as intrinsically worth a ~$2M/yr advantage over Adidas/UA/whoever else. The cherry on top of this debate is: Did I ever disagree with that? lol. Thats the funniest thing about all this. I prefer our current Adidas uniforms to anything we've had since 01. And I think we are making more money from them. So I've been fine with Adidas. The amount of recruits that are put-off by Adidas for recruiting likely isn't more valuable than $2M. How many quality player can an additional $2M in NIL buy? lol... If the money is similar, the uniforms don't get ****ed, and we switch to nike/Jordan will I be happy? Yes.

Lastly you saying the competition is between the schools, just obviously makes no sense whatsoever in relation to what I was saying. Sure the competition in merch sales and obviously on field performance is between the schools. And that may be the difference in one school selling as the #1 school and #10... But if Nike doesn't have quality competition, what is stopping them from lowering the royalties on those sales in future contracts leading to less TOTAL revenue. You can still be the #1 selling school, and making LESS total money in that case. Or are you going to argue that undeniable fact? Please don't, because I really don't want to read paragraphs from you making up reasons monopoly power would be good.
Click to expand...

Not “in short” ☝🏼
 
Rellyrell said:
Correct, & I, too, think Adidas will outbid them for a couple of reasons, namely Adidas would like to have another P5 school. Right now, only KU is an Adidas branded school in the B12, & in total, they only have like 9.5 teams in P5 (BC is 1/2 Adidas & 1/2 NB).
Click to expand...
bingo.

I think UCF matters more to a company like Adidas especially if miami is leaving to nike in the next few seasons.

fwiw, if im Nike I go all in to try and steal the MLS rights bc Messi coming to Inter Miami is BIG TIME MONEY
 
Advertisement
hoops156 said:
dont think they will but I. meant specifically MLS rights. its not like MLS is a crown jewel and Nike does sponsor some national teams already, but the money to be made off of Messi miami is huge
Click to expand...


Yeah, I realize that they are strong in soccer elsewhere, but I believe that most other Euro type leagues allow teams to strike individual deals with companies (and yes, adidas is the worldwide leader in soccer), but the MLS deal is for the entire league.

So while I agree that Messi is going to drive interest in Miami, the other 30-odd teams are also starting to raise their profiles, sell merch, and sign bigger/better players. Once MLS gets a COMPARABLE profile to the EPL or the Spanish league or Bundesliga, there will be a TON of money to be made by MLS, not just in Miami.

I have waaaaay too much OCSC merch (100% adidas). I still have to buy the new home kit for 2023. OCSC comes to ATL soon.
 
Advertisement
hoops156 said:
bingo.

I think UCF matters more to a company like Adidas especially if miami is leaving to nike in the next few seasons.

fwiw, if im Nike I go all in to try and steal the MLS rights bc Messi coming to Inter Miami is BIG TIME MONEY
Click to expand...

It’s still crazy to me why & how Messi left Nike for Adidas b/c of his pops. And if I read correctly, his pops pushed him to MLS.

None of this will happen for Nike.

1. Adidas’ bread & butter is futbol, & they r not giving that up

2. Adidas has already invested $830m into the MLS, & this contract won’t end until 2030.

3. Part of the reason Messi is coming to Inter is b/c he’s going to receive a portion of Adidas’ MLS revenue as their premier athlete, & no doubt, he’ll increase their portfolio on American Land.
 
calinative umstudent said:
"They have continued to plummet in their valuation at a rate I’ve not seen before."

I was giving an example of another significant plummet.
Click to expand...

I’m both perplexed & vexed by this. U do understand context, don’t u?

This thread about apparel, so y would u use the financial market? This is not a general market discussion, & the financial industry has plummeted numerous times throughout American/World History. So I’m confused by ur logic in attempting to change my POV regarding this specific topic.
 
Rellyrell said:
I’m both perplexed & vexed by this. U do understand context, don’t u?

This thread about apparel, so y would u use the financial market? This is not a general market discussion, & the financial industry has plummeted numerous times throughout American/World History. So I’m confused by ur logic in attempting to change my POV regarding this specific topic.
Click to expand...
“ur logic in attempting to change my POV regarding this specific topic.”

Lol not everything is an attack/criticism. I wasn’t trying to change your opinion about anything. I read what you wrote and it made me curious what SVBs stock was before they crashed.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top