Michigan's athletic apparel/equipment deal

Submitted by Auerbach on

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:

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/threads_and_laces/2013/12/database-nike-adidas-under-armour-ncaa.html

MGoBoard

The_Mad Hatter

December 31st, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^

much about this area, but I do know that some pro-sports deals contain contract language dictating what people on the sidelines can wear.

I have to believe that Michigan (or any other national program) has the leverage in these contracts.  I just think DB didn't give a fuck about anything other than money.

Joined: 12/01/2014

MGoPoints: 5945

m1817

December 31st, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^

Nike may be out of the picture in terms of dollars, but I can see UA making a bid for the U-M contract.  UA is a newer brand and might be willing to pay the big bucks to expand its name recognition.  At the very least, Adidas will probably have to match the $9 million/year ND deal has with UA.  A milion here and a million there and pretty soon, your talking real money.

Joined: 01/15/2011

MGoPoints: 21326

Don

December 31st, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^

Unless I'm misinformed, there's no contractual obligation for Michigan to wear clowniform alternates; it's not as though Adidas put a gun to David Brandon's head and forced Michigan to wear bumblebee stripes—that was something Brandon and his marketing minions had to approve, and the only reason they did was to goose apparel sales. There was no significant pre-existing clamor from fans or the players to wear alternate unis.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148358

SuperWolverine40

December 31st, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^

I think it should be less about the money, and more about who the players/fan base want as their outfitters. Maybe a poll is in orders the athletic dept to see what the players want?

Joined: 12/30/2014

MGoPoints: 210

rjeasto

December 31st, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^

I find it surprising that Penn St. is not even in the top half of Big 10 schools in terms of mechandising deals.

Adidas would be fine if they didn't continually try to mess with things.  The maize continues to get brighter, the alternative jerseys continue to suck (except for the throwback baskeball jerseys), and the fan gear is way too flashy for my tastes.  Just keep it classy, Adidas, and you could be alllllllright. 

Joined: 07/31/2013

MGoPoints: 61

tlo2485

December 31st, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^

They may have some weird thing about releasing their info.. penn state has different state laws because of its commonwealth status (I think this was an issue in the Sandusky thing, and also why no one knew how much Paterno made)

Joined: 08/06/2010

MGoPoints: 7429

ih8losing

December 31st, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^

I wonder what other benefits would come from switching to Nike or even UA.

Nike and basketball camps and, in essence, helping guide talent to Nike schools. We all know Beilein finds gems but having more talent is likely to only benefit the program. 

Certainly not many schools, outside of Texas, Alabama and even OSU can claim to be at the level of Michigan but I find it rather surprising the discrepancy is that large from Adidas to Nike. Some other benefits have to be gained besides the annual contract compensation. 

 

 

Joined: 12/29/2013

MGoPoints: 15738

atparks

December 31st, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^

My wife works in the band management department for Nike, out of the Chicago office and there has been a serious push to get Michigan back in the fold.

A number of proposals are being developed to lure Michigan back to the swoosh and she's been told from the higher-ups in Portland that Michigan is the number 1 priority over the next year.

 

Avid reader, minimal poster.

 

Go Blue!!

 

 

Joined: 02/10/2010

MGoPoints: 9

Auerbach

December 31st, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^

Thanks for the info. I think its a given that all 3 major providers will at least bid for the Michigan contract once its up. The question is whether Nike and Adidas are willing to shell out the cash to make their bids competitive with Adidas. That's not to say they have to match or exceed the Adidas money, but that's an awfully large gap that has to be closed. Sounds like Nike plans to make a competitive bid. 

Joined: 12/15/2014

MGoPoints: 841

jblaze

December 31st, 2014 at 11:40 AM ^

Is it worth not receiving and additional $4M/ year just to have Nike over Adidas? The Adidas contract is great for Michigan and we only have 1 or 2 alternative uniforms a year, which has to be on the low end.

Unfortunately, if we give up $4M a year, the Athletic Department will have to make up the shortfall (increased ticket prices, increased concessions, more student fees...) None of that is desirable for a swoosh symbol. 

Joined: 08/29/2008

MGoPoints: 19316

michman54

December 31st, 2014 at 11:40 AM ^

I don't like the way there stuff fits, I'm a XXL and all of the tops are tight in the shoulders. I have a friend that played at M, and she said all the student athletes hate Addias. JMT....

Joined: 03/02/2012

MGoPoints: 245

Njia

December 31st, 2014 at 11:40 AM ^

I doubt another suitor would step in with the kind of dollars needed to displace Adidas. Just my humble opinion. I don't work with Adidas, but my company does do a lot of work with Nike and a couple of other sports apparel manufacturers. It will come down to the business case. One of the things we old farts don't like about Adidas is the highlighter pen yellow on the unis. If Nike is the owner of the maize color, it should be possible to do some kind of licensing agreement to get it incorporated into an Adidas design if the customer (Michigan) wants it badly enough. That should both preserve the Adidas money train and eliminate one of the things we (fans, anyway) dislike most about their product.

Joined: 09/15/2009

MGoPoints: 35773

Wolverine in The 614

December 31st, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^

I love having something different thatn Sparty and tOSU. I have a current household embargo on Nike products due to their affiliation with the enemy.  Get adidas to pony up for the right color maize, pay Nike for it if you have to have the registered color, and everyone will be happy.  We should be able to dictate enough of the details of how the stuff looks to make it right.  Stick with the brand with the 3 stripes.

Joined: 11/14/2011

MGoPoints: 563

Cake Or Death

December 31st, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^

will make any effing uniform we want them to make.  The University can tell them what shade of maize we want, and reject any design they don't like.  If the contract difference pays for 80% of our coach, no sane person/admistration would switch.

Joined: 11/03/2011

MGoPoints: 3706

MightyMatt13

December 31st, 2014 at 12:25 PM ^

I feel like much of the hate comes from the ridiculous one-off uniforms and the yellow. Realistically, quality concerns are about the same across these 3 companies. If the AD doesn't want special unis, we don't get them. If they don't want highlighter yellow, we won't get it. Nike may have a patent on that specific shade of Maize, but they don't own every dulled shade of yellow. Basketball camps may be one legitimate argument, but that doesn't seem to cover the rest of the contract, imo.

Joined: 02/26/2012

MGoPoints: 5791

AA2Denver

December 31st, 2014 at 11:46 AM ^

I'm an athletic wear snob, have been my whole life. If we can get UA just below ND's deal I'm for that. UA's stuff is close in quality to highend Italian made athletic wear. Also, UA's new cleats are better than Nike and Adidas. 

Joined: 02/01/2011

MGoPoints: 2257

UofM626

December 31st, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^

Bubble but, UA shoes are the worst on the market. They have completely re done there spine line and others cause of all the athletes complaining. How do I know this, cause my sons teammates father is the Western Regional Manager for UA and he tells me everything about there shoes. The sweaters etc are great but the shoes/cleats suck something serious

Joined: 01/02/2012

MGoPoints: 3443

GOBLUE4EVR

December 31st, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^

this before on here, but from working at the stadium for 4 season and meeting student athletes the general feeling was that adidas sucks... granted this was coming from the "olympic sport" athletes... now i do know that the adidas rep that was around from 2010 to 2012 was a douche bag so that might have been the problem, and i never heard about any issues when the new rep took over...

the main issue was that they had to beg the rep to get stuff, where nike would give them whatever they asked for... the one kid that i talked to the most told me that after 2 years of asking for extra gear adidas finally came through and the rep dropped off a garbage bag full of stuff for them... the over issue was how gear fitted on them, the placement of seams was a huge issue for the guys...

FWIW this same kid told me in 2011 that there were talking going on with Nike already to change back once the contract ended...

Joined: 01/09/2009

MGoPoints: 4282

TruBluMich

December 31st, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^

I pretty much figure all those numbers are fake after seeing that Oregon is getting, over a million dollars a year less than FSU, from Nike.  Nike pretty much pays for their entire athletic budget.  Now that I think about it, what Phil Knight does for Oregon, its really no different than what Ross does for Michigan.  Guess it does make a little more since.  Just seems real odd, that with all their uniforms, its under 3 million a year.

Joined: 08/03/2011

MGoPoints: 21953

Steve in PA

December 31st, 2014 at 12:05 PM ^

This morning on CNBC they were discussing UA's recent deal with a tennis player (Murray). In the conversation 2 things stood out. UA has now passed Rebok and is the #2 sports apparel behind Nike, although I'm not sure what metric was used. Also, the CEO of UA is committed to passing Nike for the #1 spot.

 

I think Michigan could get a good deal with UA. I don't know the age of the other UA contracts but if they are older it could be they just didn't have the free cash to burn at the time.

 

I also agree with the earlier post about kid's preference. My son is 18 and all his peer group prefers UA. Nike is losing its cool factor with the younger crowd.

Joined: 08/10/2009

MGoPoints: 6327

OccaM

December 31st, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^

Idc about the apparel sponsor... I just want the original Maize color back damnit! It's like Nike spite us by taking away one of our featured colors b/c we turned to Adidas and their "Sun" color... yuck

 

The highlighter drives me nuts. Although recently, Adidas has been a lot better with regards to actual shit I might wear. Their season T Shirts that come with student tickets were always horribly off when it came to the sizings... 

 

Joined: 11/10/2014

MGoPoints: 9158

Bigasshammm

December 31st, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^

Whoever gets Michigan will pay a ton of money. Michigan is one of the most marketable brands in the country. I've seen reports where more M merchandise is sold worldwide then any other sporting franchise college or pro. That was a while ago but I doubt it's changed much.

Joined: 07/03/2008

MGoPoints: 4612