Michigan's athletic apparel/equipment deal
As many of you know, Michgian's current athletic apparel/equipment deal with Adidas expires on 7/31/16, which means this upcoming football season is the last one covered under the current contract. Many alumns and fans have expressed a desire for Michigan to switch apparel/equipment providers (or at least explore the idea of switching) to either Nike or Under Armour.
I decided to take a look at how Michigan's Adidas deal compares to other schools. I'll let you all draw your own conclusions from the data as to what the liklihood is that Michigan switches providers. But here are a few obvious points:
- Michigan's deal with Adidas is easily the largest among the Adidas schools and second only to Notre Dame/UA among all athletic apparel deals
- Nike's biggest contract (which is with FSU) is worth HALF of what the Michigan/Adidas and Notre Dame/UA contracts are worth. In other words, Nike doesn't shell out $$$ for apparel deals like Adidas and UA do.
- While UA's deal with Notre Dame is similar in value to the Michigan/Adidas deal, UA's next biggest deal (which is with U. Maryland) is only worth $4.3mm/year. So while UA shelled out big bucks for Notre Dame, they're not in the habit of doing that, and may not be willing to undertake another enormous deal like the Notre Dame deal.
Adidas:
Nike:
Under Armour:
*List does not include Notre Dame's new deal with UA, which is worth $90mm over 10 years ($9mm/year)
Big Ten:
December 31st, 2014 at 12:24 PM ^
I've posted this story once, and I'm reluctant to post it because I know the board is worn out with the "my buddy said..." stories, but what the hell...my buddy was at the Nike Town in Chicago while wearing a UM Adidas polo and some Nike executives walked by, stopped him and asked him about UM and Adidas, said they were very nice guys. They ended the conversation with "well we're sorry you're going to have to get rid of all your adidas stuff after next season"
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 31st, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 31st, 2014 at 3:15 PM ^
This blog just needs to add an item or two to the FAQ:
Q: Does Nike own any shade of any color?
A: No. No, they do not.
December 31st, 2014 at 12:24 PM ^
December 31st, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^
December 31st, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
December 31st, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
I thought that I had heard that Hackett recently at least talked to the players about the Nike / Adidas debate to get their thoughts on the matter. Does anyone know if that actually occured? If so, do they have any general impression of what the players thought? It is entirely possible that the department wouldn't just walk away from a highly lucrative contract, but I find the idea that he would approach the players rather refreshing.
December 31st, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^
December 31st, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^
As long as it's maize and blue and says Michigan, does it matter what the brand logo on it is?
December 31st, 2014 at 2:24 PM ^
Where does your primary loyalty lie? With Michigan, or with an apparel company?
December 31st, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^
Nike fans, I wouldn't get your hopes up for a switch. That money goes a long way towards supporting all those varsity sports and keeping the Department in the black.
December 31st, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
I would think Nike goes hard after us, and I think that with a competitive offer, Michigan would switch. If UA has the clasue with ND like Adidas has with us, I'd be surprised if we landed them. What do I know though?
Personally, I am wearing my maise Nike Michigan hoodie right now though. I still have a disgusting sun bleached sweaty Nike Lloyd Carr hat like he wore his last season in my car. I'd be lying if I didn't say that I love my Adidas Memorial Day Michigan hat with the red white and blue block M and my highlighter yellow Adidas block M hat with the old school Adidas logo on the side and "Michigan" on the back though.
December 31st, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 31st, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^
December 31st, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^
Another thought to consider...
If the Adidas bid came in at $8mm+, then its likely that Nike's bid was much higher than the typical $4mm that they pay most big schools. In other words, its unlikely that Nike came in at their typical $4mm-ish, and Adidas just decided to double that. The value of the Adidas deal was likely at least partially the product of a bidding war. So, while Nike usually doesn't pay more than $4mm/yr for apparel deals, it's likely that they were willing to do so in Michigan's case back in 2008. Michigan is, after all, a different animal when it comes to the value of their apparel deal and much more in the category of Note Dame than the other schools.
December 31st, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^
It seems like Adidas has been more and more willing to let go of their college programs (I think there's one more ontop of Notre Dame who's left), and has been focused on raiding Nike's contracts in the EPL (Most notably Manchester United). They're probably unrelated, but I'd have to think Nike wouldn't mind stealing a big name from Adidas in the sport Nike dominates.
December 31st, 2014 at 2:07 PM ^
December 31st, 2014 at 3:50 PM ^