How can net profit take such a dive, but sales are only off 2%? But, fortunately, sales were up in the US. Their CEO sounds like my company: "I am confident that our results will improve as we go through the remainder of the year." I'd assume Michigan has to be one of the more profitable sponsorships, but I wonder if that opens up any more spots for UnderArmor.
Adidas Profits Down 95%
Guarantee all were a factor as a result of a drop in demand due to economy.
also could be "one-time" restructuring charges in the period. I didn't look at their P&L, though.
I think this is much more due to the economy as a whole than to market share issues. Under Armour stock isn't doing that well, so I doubt they're much more profitable.
You need to take Acct 271 with Klemstine
(shuddering at the memory)
I had Williams.
Although they are a German company, they probably still have to publish financials. You could sift through the 10-K (or equivalent) to find out. But according to a Yahoo Finance article I read, they had some 1-time cash hits (World Cup Advertisements) and some operating cost issues.
[mutters something inaudible]
[tugs at collar]
[mutters something else]
[hunches over projector]
but I couldn't really care any less about adidas losing profit. Again, I hate to say it, but I would almost be happy if the company went down the crapper. I'm sure they won't, but if they did go under then maybe we could get Nike back for our sports teams.
Atleast with Adidas we are not playing second behind Oregon like we would be with Nike.
To tell you the truth, all I care about is quality of products and the look of the products (adidas loses both of these). As long as they never screws us over, which I don't recall this ever occuring, then I would prefer we stay with Nike.
Some of you Nike fanboys are like addicts suffering from withdrawl. We have a seven-year deal with Adidas. Are you going to pine over Nike for this whole time?
Let's be clear about this. The notion that Nike has some lofty, unsurpassed standard of quality is a figment of your imagination. Nike, Adidas and Reebok all outsource to the same production company in China. The exact same people stitch together Nike, Adidas and Reebok products. Consumer magazines have found no discernable difference in performance of these brands. There is no rational reason to believe that the products of any one of the three is functionally superior to the other two. So the only real consideration, from Michigan's standpoint, is getting the best deal we can from any of them.
Nike offered us the same deal we had before - $3.75 million a year - and said it was their final offer.
Adidas offered us twice as much money ($7.5 million per year), the richest deal in NCAA history, AND promised to match any other university's apparel deal, should one exceed this figure.
It would have been insane of Martin not to take the Adidas deal. We signed with Nike in 1994 because they, at the time, offered the best deal. In 2007, it was Adidas.
Though it's not precisely on-topic, and the fact that Adidas' US sales were up indicates that their sponsorship of Michigan probably isn't faltering, I think a lot of Michigan students still feel butthurt about the T-shirt. First, Adidas failed to poll the student body on which shirt design we wanted to see. Secondly, the "winning" design was not created by an M student, as had been the custom previously. Third, and most importantly, the design that they picked sucks gigantic balls, and clearly was born out of a PR factory.
DAMN IT EVEN ADIDAS IS SCREWING WITH OUR TRADITIONS. FML!!!...
Seriously though, at least we could do that with Nike. Not to mention the fact that Nike has better stuff. 'Nuff said.