📡 Predicting what Alabama's future apparel contract will look like.

[planomateo]

There have been some really large deals recently. Michigan, Ohio State, and Texas within the last year and all of them for big time money. Notre Dame also had one recently as well.

May 2015 - UCLA/Under Armour - 15yr $280M
April 2016 - Cal/Under Armour - 10yr $86M
April 2016 - Michigan/Nike - 11yr $127M
January 2016 - Ohio State/Nike - 15yr $252M
October 2015 - Texas/Nike - 15yr $250M

I believe Alabama's Nike contract is up in 2018...should be interesting to keep an eye on this one.



Adidas didn't play their immunity idol and now are being sent home with it in their pocket (Survivor analogy).



Damn.

 

[BamaFan334]

I own Under Armour stock and love to see them taking share in college football, but I sure hope we stick with Nike. I only wear Nike and love their Alabama products, for the most part. Our uniforms are killer with the technology and make of them, and I just think they offer the most to a program. If they kept Ohio State and Texas, I have no doubt they're going to throw everything and the kitchen sink at us considering the run we're on.

 

[TerryP]

There have been some really large deals recently. Michigan, Ohio State, and Texas within the last year and all of them for big time money. Notre Dame also had one recently as well.

May 2015 - UCLA/Under Armour - 15yr $280M
April 2016 - Cal/Under Armour - 10yr $86M
April 2016 - Michigan/Nike - 11yr $127M
January 2016 - Ohio State/Nike - 15yr $252M
October 2015 - Texas/Nike - 15yr $250M

I believe Alabama's Nike contract is up in 2018...should be interesting to keep an eye on this one.

If there's one thing everyone should take from this it's how much the dollar amounts with apparel companies have changed over the last decade.

At the time Bama signed the new deal with Nike it was reported to be the largest that company had ever signed. It didn't beat the Michigan signed with Adidias, "the shoe and apparel company that got bent over to the tune of $66.5 million over eight years by the Wolverines." (back in 2007.)

UA is getting their "share" right now, no doubt. You remember when we had the discussions about UA trademarks, how they were defending them, and the lady at the bakery who was selling cupcakes for $1.75 with the Script A? At that time—IIRC it was in 2012—UA was receiving over 10% of over 10 million in annual sales.

The current contract pales in comparison with these newer ones. The current state of college football pales in comparison with what it was a decade ago as well.

 

[rammerjammer]

My question is this.....with the money being so much larger. Do you go out and start courting the Addidas or Under Armour to come in and start making a pitch in order to get a new contract with Nike. 2 years could mean millions if you wait around for the next set of contract negotiations. Strike while the iron is hot. We are still riding a decade of dominance with the only end in sight being Saban's retirement.

 

[TerryP]

My question is this.....with the money being so much larger. Do you go out and start courting the Addidas or Under Armour to come in and start making a pitch in order to get a new contract with Nike.

In a simple, but complicated answer, it depends on the contract. Nike if famous for iron clad contracts; almost impossible to get out of in most cases.

If you take the time to read over the FSU deal with Nike, you'll see how restrictive they were/are when it comes to contract negotiations. As example, going back to your suggestion/thought, representatives of FSU can't enter into negotiations with any other appareal company as long as they are under contract with Nike. That extends 90 days past the last day of the contract and with a lot of the other schools that figure is 180 days. And then, Nike STILL has the right of first refusal to match. (That part shows up in a lot of contracts.)

FSU and Nike agreed to their deal the summer before they won the BCS.

Rivals

 

[TerryP]

BTW, the Ohio State deal was a renegotiation with Nike (their contract was set to expire in 2018 as well.) But, look at the length of that contract—15 years?

 

[rammerjammer]

I remember them (Nike) not being too happy with Jimbo's son having on an under armour shirt that had FSU logo on it, after one of the games.

Talking contracts.....sounds like they have you by the balls if you want to renegotiate. I remember the Tennessee deal going from Addidas to Nike was made a year before the Addidas contract was up........guess Addidas isn't as iron clad as Nike.

 

[OldPlayer]

A big reason those schools got massive contracts is the number of sports they sponsor. UCLA (21), Cal (28), Michigan (27), Ohio State (35) and Texas (17) all have more sports programs than Alabama (15). Although football has done well, the lack of teams will bring the sponsorship $$ down below the other schools.

 

[TerryP]

A big reason those schools got massive contracts is the number of sports they sponsor. UCLA (21), Cal (28), Michigan (27), Ohio State (35) and Texas (17) all have more sports programs than Alabama (15). Although football has done well, the lack of teams will bring the sponsorship $$ down below the other schools.

Then why was Bama's last contract the highest in Nike's history?

The point UA has been in the top five in apparel sales for years has a lot to do with the dollar figures. TV exposure does as well. None of those mentioned programs have more than Alabama for the exposure.

Texas Equestrian apparel, assuming they have one, totaled how much in their contract? Michigan Volleyball? Ohio State swimming?

 

[TerryP]

BTW, a point I'm seeing overlooked on more than one site today is the difference in royalty percentages.

Tennessee has left Adidas recently. They "left money on the table" by taking less cash, annually, from Nike. But, they are getting a bigger percentage; Adidas tops out at 9.5%, Nike at 14%. Nike is paying UT about a million a year, Adidas was paying roughly two million per.

Putting that in a bit of perspective:

Bama had 56.6 million in rights/licensing revenues in 2014-'15. That's Adidas paying UT over 5 million a year where Nike came to the table with an additional three million. (It makes that guarantee loss of a million a year piddly.)

 

[OldPlayer]

Then why was Bama's last contract the highest in Nike's history?

The point UA has been in the top five in apparel sales for years has a lot to do with the dollar figures. TV exposure does as well. None of those mentioned programs have more than Alabama for the exposure.

Texas Equestrian apparel, assuming they have one, totaled how much in their contract? Michigan Volleyball? Ohio State swimming?

How are you defining "highest?" Is it the highest per year? Highest total over the length of the contract? The Nike contracts usually represent the total value in cash and product.

Alabama extends Nike contract through 2018; agreement valued at $30 million

How much are colleges paid for sports apparel deals? Ed O'Bannon case offers details

 

[TerryP]

How are you defining "highest?" Is it the highest per year? Highest total over the length of the contract? The Nike contracts usually represent the total value in cash and product.

Tide now has most lucrative Nike deal in college sports.

We think.

Alabama announced yesterday that they had signed a seven-year contract extension with Nike that will keep all Tide teams swooshed through 2018.

The new contract is valued at $30 million in cash and product over the next eight years, making it the largest Nike haul in the country based on various reports of other schools’ compensation. Before the the Alabama deal, North Carolina had reportedly been the leader at just under $3.4 million annually; the Tide’s new deal works out to $3.75 million a year.

Tide now has most lucrative Nike deal in college sports

​

I realize I may be getting into semantics here, but if you have a contract that's the highest per year doesn't that mean it's the highest overall as well? Based on how this article is written, it's appearing it's done per year.

(The signing bonus for UA was two million in 2010. The signing bonus for Tennessee was two million in 2014. There doesn't appear to be a connection between contract overall which includes the signing bonus.)

I think I get where you were going with mentioning the other programs but I also believe you're missing part of the picture. A small example is apparel. One might think they are buying new uniforms for teams each season. They aren't outside of possible sponsor changes (IE: Adidas to Nike, etc.)

Another example might fall under equipment. But, let's not forget Nike isn't the only sponsor for programs at UA. Golf has a deal with Ping. Softball with Eason (as I recall.) Heck, football still has a deal with Riddell.

The point being with all of this ... if the last contract with UA and Nike was the highest recorded at the time it demonstrated the number of athletic programs has nothing to do with the amount of the contract. To me, it just makes sense. What benefit does a company like Nike get from Stanford Women's Lacrosse?

 

[OldPlayer]

​

I realize I may be getting into semantics here, but if you have a contract that's the highest per year doesn't that mean it's the highest overall as well? Based on how this article is written, it's appearing it's done per year.


I think I get where you were going with mentioning the other programs but I also believe you're missing part of the picture. A small example is apparel. One might think they are buying new uniforms for teams each season. They aren't outside of possible sponsor changes (IE: Adidas to Nike, etc.)

Another example might fall under equipment. But, let's not forget Nike isn't the only sponsor for programs at UA. Golf has a deal with Ping. Softball with Eason (as I recall.) Heck, football still has a deal with Riddell.

The point being with all of this ... if the last contract with UA and Nike was the highest recorded at the time it demonstrated the number of athletic programs has nothing to do with the amount of the contract. To me, it just makes sense. What benefit does a company like Nike get from Stanford Women's Lacrosse?

- A $3 million per year contract for 5 years (total of $15 million) is less than a $2.5 million contract for 10 years (total of $25 million).
- Teams have sponsorship deals for equipment that Nike doesn't produce (helmets, bats).
- Nike does equip teams with new uniforms (and other apparel) each year and will try to make a big hoopla about the team wearing new materials, design and technology. How many of the "new" coaches' shirts are bought each year?
- The benefit of Stanford's Women's Lacrosse team wearing Nike is visibility and branding. Every time a picture of a player is shown, regardless of the sport, they're wearing Nike. How many "free" ads does that make in a year?

I agree that outfitting some sports may not seem like a big deal, but various sports have greater or lesser following by school and geography. Wrestling is big in the Big10. Lacrosse is big in the ACC. Water sports are big on the West coast. It adds up.

 

[BamaFan334]

I am a Nike loyalists, so if we go with a freaking soccer company in Adidas, I will not buy one Alabama product until after that contract expires. As mentioned before, I own Under Armour stock as I feel they will continue to grow, but damn, I love our Nike stuff.

The First Team on XM was discussing if these contracts were taking the amateurism out of college sports as Taylor Zazour (sp?) was saying Under Armour only went with UCLA because of Josh Rosen. I could not disagree more, and McElroy came to the defense of my opinion on the matter with a really good rebuttal. It's definitely worth watching, and I expect Nike to go with us. We're their LeBron James of college sports. They will pony up and not lose us.

 

[riz]

Nike won't lose us.

 

[Bama Ravens]

I for one hope we stay with Nike, because they also have the best fan apparel and the best selection of it.

 

[EasyTider]

Hopefully deal will include white helmets. Personally, I'm hoping for tear-away jerseys.

 

[TerryP]

- A $3 million per year contract for 5 years (total of $15 million) is less than a $2.5 million contract for 10 years (total of $25 million).
- Teams have sponsorship deals for equipment that Nike doesn't produce (helmets, bats).
- Nike does equip teams with new uniforms (and other apparel) each year and will try to make a big hoopla about the team wearing new materials, design and technology. How many of the "new" coaches' shirts are bought each year?
- The benefit of Stanford's Women's Lacrosse team wearing Nike is visibility and branding. Every time a picture of a player is shown, regardless of the sport, they're wearing Nike. How many "free" ads does that make in a year?

I agree that outfitting some sports may not seem like a big deal, but various sports have greater or lesser following by school and geography. Wrestling is big in the Big10. Lacrosse is big in the ACC. Water sports are big on the West coast. It adds up.

All of this is true. However, it doesn't support your theory that Bama will get paid less due to the number of sports programs.

Years ago...back when I was part of GatorCountry's staff, I did some extensive research on sales when it comes to apparel contracts. Our's grew during DuBose. I looked at it again, in not as much detail, back in Shula's era. Regardless of success, the sales for Bama apparel is consistently a top 10 program.

As cited, I'm not the one saying it was the largest contract. You can cite me on this.

When Bama signs their next contract it will be equal to those seen. I dare say larger.

Back when I was doing that research I was working for Kirk, as well, at the time. The way the story has been relayed to me ... Nike approached about a dozen schools to be considered their "flagship" schools for apparel. Bama was one of those. Accepted. I want to say there were six original "flagship" schools.

It's my hope Battle negotiates this next contract. Chances are, he's already looking into it. Think about who we're dealing with here. (The concessions contract he negotiated for the stadium was a windfall.)

 

[TerryP]

@riz I'm harping on dollar amounts, again.

 

[BamaFan334]

Hopefully deal will include white helmets. Personally, I'm hoping for tear-away jerseys.

I could not imagine the sales in the southern states if Nike released a tear away style jersey. I have no doubt nostalgia would create a nice market. I'm only 32, so jerseys had started to change by time I got into high school, but if I came across a #3 Alabama tear away, it'd be on me every Saturday. And I'm a guy that dresses up for games in slacks and a buttondown.

 

[OldPlayer]

All of this is true. However, it doesn't support your theory that Bama will get paid less due to the number of sports programs.

Years ago...back when I was part of GatorCountry's staff, I did some extensive research on sales when it comes to apparel contracts. Our's grew during DuBose. I looked at it again, in not as much detail, back in Shula's era. Regardless of success, the sales for Bama apparel is consistently a top 10 program.

As cited, I'm not the one saying it was the largest contract. You can cite me on this.

When Bama signs their next contract it will be equal to those seen. I dare say larger.

Back when I was doing that research I was working for Kirk, as well, at the time. The way the story has been relayed to me ... Nike approached about a dozen schools to be considered their "flagship" schools for apparel. Bama was one of those. Accepted. I want to say there were six original "flagship" schools.

It's my hope Battle negotiates this next contract. Chances are, he's already looking into it. Think about who we're dealing with here. (The concessions contract he negotiated for the stadium was a windfall.)

I never said they would get paid less. I said that the number of athletic teams supported could make a difference in how big the contract is (it's also why Alabama is never in the hunt for the Capitol Cup). I would love for Alabama to have the biggest per year and over time. Alabama's national presence in football, gymnastics and softball is great for Nike. But let's do the math (making up the numbers). If Nike supplies each athlete $500 in apparel, and Ohio State has more than twice as many athletes due to the number of programs sponsored, it makes sense that Ohio State will get more money/apparel value than Alabama. The contracts usually include a dollar amount (cash paid) and an apparel/equipment amount. Add the value of both and you get the contract amount.

Nike/Adidas/UA get value via the exposure of the teams and the apparel sold. When apparel is sold, the school gets a negotiated royalty for use of the trademarks (script A, Crimson Tide, Bama). Make no mistake, the apparel company gets the bulk of the revenue. Every year, "new" t-shirts are created. Every year, "new" coaches shirts are created. Every year, "new" shoes are created. While Alabama has a national following, how big is it? Is it bigger than UCLA (which has a very large fan base in California, and the population of Los Angeles alone is almost as big as the entire state of Alabama).

 

[planomateo]

Outdated due to it being from 2014, but still a good look at the deals.

How much are colleges paid for sports apparel deals? Ed O'Bannon case offers details

Changing the subject a bit, don't know if you guys saw this, Pac-12 has some crazy high expenses running their network. They are paying 9 people in the Pac-12 leadership team more than the 2nd highest paid leader in the SEC. So all the money UCLA is making off the deal still doesn't keep them in the game like the others are.