forums

Couple things on Adidas deal

View as article
Advertisement
I swear, @Rellyrell , we have a ton of dopey porsters who think that the highest monetary offer is the issue that should win the day.

Same dopey porsters who CAN grasp the concept that Miami has been paying a "suck tax" on all NIL offers in an effort to get players to sign with a school that has NOT finished in the Top 25 in a while...somehow can't figure out that adidas has to pay a "suck tax" too, because they are the Burger King of shoe/apparel companies.

The reason I am somewhat pessimistic right now is that I tried to converse with someone connected to UM who has told me that the goal of the collective and NIL (over the next couple of years) is to NOT have to pay the "suck tax". And I told him that we would not have to pay the "suck tax" if we sign with Nike over adidas. Because most high school athletes want to buld their brands wearing Nike. And I got a very bland response. So I knew I was ****ing up a tree at that point.

Yes, even people closely connected to UM can fail to see the big picture. And while I don't purport to speak for everyone I (AND ONLY MYSELF) have argued for taking LESS money from Nike, in order to reinstate our historic relationship and to eliminate one reason why some HS athletes don't even consider putting Miami in their Top 10 (the TWO primary reasons are conference and apparel company).

I know, I know, we still have the "if we win, everyone will come" posters. We still have the "apparel company doesn't matter" posters.

The reality is that I have seen all the adidas broken promises and premature terminations over the last two decades. In NASCAR. In the NHL. With numerous universities. Outside of soccer, adidas still hasn't been able to figure out what makes each sport tick. They think if they splash around the money and the logo, everything will fix itself.

I'm aware that dip****s like Calinative like to mock our discussions about royalties. But we know that the individuals and the schools that have made THE MOST MONEY over the past 40 years in the sports apparel partnerships are the ones that have bet on themselves, relying on their own ownership and ROYALTY payments.

It's like a doctor or a lawyer or an accountant saying "No, don't make a partner in the firm, don't give me all of that financial upside, I just want you to pay me an annual salary for the next 12 years, and I want NO equity and NO opportunity to make more than my salary already calls for."

Whatever. No matter what we say, you are still going to have short-sighted people demanding steady, reliable money with no upside.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I swear, @Rellyrell , we have a ton of dopey porsters who think that the highest monetary offer is the issue that should win the day.

Same dopey porsters who CAN grasp the concept that Miami has been paying a "suck tax" on all NIL offers in an effort to get players to sign with a school that has NOT finished in the Top 25 in a while...somehow can't figure out that adidas has to pay a "suck tax" too, because they are the Burger King of shoe/apparel companies.

The reason I am somewhat pessimistic right now is that I tried to converse with someone connected to UM who has told me that the goal of the collective and NIL (over the next couple of years) is to NOT have to pay the "suck tax". And I told him that we would not have to pay the "suck tax" if we sign with Nike over adidas. Because most high school athletes want to buld their brands wearing Nike. And I got a very bland response. So I knew I was ****ing up a tree at that point.

Yes, even people closely connected to UM can fail to see the big picture. And while I don't purport to speak for everyone I (AND ONLY MYSELF) have argued for taking LESS money from Nike, in order to reinstate our historic relationship and to eliminate one reason why some HS athletes don't even consider putting Miami in their Top 10 (the TWO primary reasons are conference and apparel company).

I know, I know, we still have the "if we win, everyone will come" posters. We still have the "apparel company doesn't matter" posters.

The reality is that I have seen all the adidas broken promises and premature terminations over the last two decades. In NASCAR. In the NHL. With numerous universities. Outside of soccer, adidas still hasn't been able to figure out what makes each sport tick. They think if they splash around the money and the logo, everything will fix itself.

I'm aware that dip****s like Calinative like to mock our discussions about royalties. But we know that the individuals and the schools that have made THE MOST MONEY over the past 40 years in the sports apparel partnerships are the ones that have bet on themselves, relying on their own ownership and ROYALTY payments.

It's like a doctor or a lawyer or an accountant saying "No, don't make a partner in the firm, don't give me all of that financial upside, I just want you to pay me an annual salary for the next 12 years, and I want NO equity and NO opportunity to make more than my salary already calls for."

Whatever. No matter what we say, you are still going to have short-sighted people demanding steady, reliable money with no upside.
Click to expand...

I bolded ur point about Adidas paying the “suck tax.” I’ve told ppl b4 Adidas is & has always been known to overspend, but they’ve consistently had tricky language to allow them to find loopholes to protect their vested interest.

However, here’s what I’m going to be paying attention to starting 2026: In both UTenn & PSU’s AD press release, Adidas promised them the same thing. I’ll be paying attention to their recruiting moving fwd.
 
Last edited:
Rellyrell said:
@TheOriginalCane

I’ve tried to explain this business strategy a 1b + 1x, which is y I’ve asked how r teams w lower apparel deals more valuable in evaluation. Ppl r so enamored w the front end $$ & lose site of the big picture.



Which is y:

Click to expand...

But they are not making a big enough offer bro.... it comes down to mas dinero ..... or is it..... Mas dinero...
 
Angry Ibis said:
But they are not making a big enough offer bro.... it comes down to mas dinero ..... or is it..... Mas dinero...
Click to expand...


Nike hasn't made an offer at all. They can't. Contractually. No matter what certain people claim.

I understand your schtick. You believe people when it fits what you want to believe. And you act like you are soooo skeptical when you want to attack people you don't agree with.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Nike hasn't made an offer at all. They can't. Contractually. No matter what certain people claim.

I understand your schtick. You believe people when it fits what you want to believe. And you act like you are soooo skeptical when you want to attack people you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Weren’t you the one last year claiming it was a done deal and we were going back to Nike after the contract was up? So which is it? Done deal back to Nike or no contract has been offered. Little confused here. Please be brief in your reply.
 
Advertisement
rascon said:
Why wouldn’t we want to open it up with a RFP? Adidas isn’t going to lower their price if it goes to RFP. Lmao.
Click to expand...
The athletic department is totally incompetent but I don’t feel they are so incompetent that it won’t be RFP’d… there is no way
 
One9 said:
Click to expand...

Lmfao Adidas made the call. But the Internet is forever.

IMG_1568.jpeg
 
Advertisement
GrozDozer said:
Weren’t you the one last year claiming it was a done deal and we were going back to Nike after the contract was up? So which is it? Done deal back to Nike or no contract has been offered. Little confused here. Please be brief in your reply.
Click to expand...


I have never said it was a "done deal" in terms of an actual contract. I've never said that at all. I have always stated the date when Miami could have open negotiations with other companies (January 1, 2026).

I have said that with guys like Mario and Jai, who have prior relationships with Nike, as well as Radakovich (Clemson was a Nike school), it was pretty much a done deal that anyone with a voice in decision-making would favor Nike.

I underestimated the Mas brothers and a couple of other alums, who really should NOT be guiding this process.

As for your request to be brief, kindly and respectfully **** off.
 
KANE said:
New deal paying LESS than the old deal? TF?! That math ain’t mathing. If that’s the case, you HAVE to walk, right? What does that mean? Was PSU somehow losing money? Not selling as much merchandise?
Click to expand...

A couple of ppl know my sources from PMs, but let me explain what gets reported:

Understand the media, particularly team media, will get spoon fed talking points. When a school has a long relationship w an apparel company, & all of a sudden they make a change that’s going to ruffle the feathers of their core fan base, it needs to be justified. We’re in the era of sensationalism vs. journalism, especially when it comes to journalistic integrity.

Nike refused to address the rumors, but made a public statement valuing their relationship w PSU & wishing them the best. This is what I know:

1. While Nike valued PSU, PSU wanted O$U and UofM treatment from ONE CFP qualification.

2. Nike’s offer was actually more than PSU’s current contract, however, PSU wanted a lot of personal things that r reserved for Nike’s elite programs. PSU was no longer considered in that designation; they were in the tier 2 category.

3. Now this one can’t be 100% substantiated, but apparently Nike x Kraft (AD for PSU) = no bueno. Nike had a very nice working relationship w Sandy Barbour, while Kraft had been associated with Adidas for a long time from his time at Indiana, Loyola (before they switched to Nike), & most recently Boston College.

Apparently, similar to Blake James, bro wanted to create a mark on PSU. The verbiage he continued to parrot was “doing what’s in the best interest of the school” (Sounds familiar?). Again, I’m not sure if this is 100% factual, just something that was floated.

4. Adidas promised PSU to be its marquee program, including helping them w NIL opportunities. Ironically they promised UTenn the same. The rumor was initially $300m for 10 yrs, but now it’s being rumored anywhere between $100 - $300m. Here’s why I find this so interesting:

When UTenn was reported to leave Nike, the media said it was a $200m contract. Again, sensationalism w zero journalistic integrity. They had to make it bigger news than what it was to sway the minds of the resistance; the actual contract? Approx. $10m/yr in cash & product, a far cry from $20m/yr. Lol.

5. What Nike was not going to do was
-Be Bullied into something the ROI didn’t justify
-Pay them more $$ than either O$U or UofM when PSU only has 2 chips in its history, w the last one coming in 1986

So now with this report, now u have PSU fans saying out of no where the same thing we said here: Nike didn’t care about them; they only care about Oregon, Ohio St, & Michigan (ironically all of their rivals), when in actuality PSU was Nike’s testing school on a lot of products, & their merch was constantly in stock.

Lastly, pls understand this is the same school that terminated its long time partnership w Coca Cola for Pepsi b/c Pepsi paid more. So they went from being associated w #1 beverage company in the world to now the #3 beverage company, & the #1 apparel company in the world to the #4 apparel company. Fans r still miffed that they switched to Pepsi & r begging to go back to Coca Cola.

I’ve also heard from a cat that freelance covers PSU via IG that Franklin is not happy, along w other athletic coaches.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top