I copied the quotes below from UA's Q4 earnings call. UA admitted (again - see my prior posts) that it is just trying to get out of long-term contracts that it doesn't like anymore. It is shifting marketing dollars into other things. There's nothing about Cal/UCLA doing anything to invalidate the deals. UA just doesn't want them anymore and is making up excuses to walk away from them.

"When considering our restructuring efforts on how that impacted or will continue to affect our overall cost structure, it's essential to remember that most of these efforts have been related to future cost avoidance versus current cost reductions. That said, we have realized underlying SG&A benefits in certain areas. However, it's not as simple as cutting costs to gain leverage. As we mentioned, early within our restructuring efforts, our main objective was to unburden ourselves of decisions and commitments made when we expected to be a much larger company than we are now. Within those scenarios, there was also an expected level of productivity that was never realized. As a business in pursuit of brand right growth, we will continue to invest in driving that growth and for us specifically that means marketing, IT, and elevating our international and D2C footprints. More simply put, while the absolute SG&A dollars may not change much in the near term, I'd underscore that the productivity and return on the investments that we are making are appropriately greater than just a few years ago, and should market factors impact our growth track in the near term, we're now also capable of flexing and managing our costs with greater discipline and optionality to maintain a more consistent profitability trajectory."

"From an SG&A perspective, as Patrik detailed, we believe we have appropriately rebased our cost structure and we believe the improved discipline and processes we currently have in place have instilled a more return-based approach to our investments that should drive greater prioritization into the areas that deliver the highest return and support our long-term growth opportunities. However, critical areas like DTC, international, and marketing will require us to continue investments to support our growth expectations. Therefore, we are planning on slight SG&A growth for the year."

StrawberryCanyon said:

---

I copied the quotes below from UA's Q4 earnings call. UA admitted (again - see my prior posts) that it is just trying to get out of long-term contracts that it doesn't like anymore. It is shifting marketing dollars into other things. There's nothing about Cal/UCLA doing anything to invalidate the deals. UA just doesn't want them anymore and is making up excuses to walk away from them.

"When considering our restructuring efforts on how that impacted or will continue to affect our overall cost structure, it's essential to remember that most of these efforts have been related to future cost avoidance versus current cost reductions. That said, we have realized underlying SG&A benefits in certain areas. However, it's not as simple as cutting costs to gain leverage. As we mentioned, early within our restructuring efforts, our main objective was to unburden ourselves of decisions and commitments made when we expected to be a much larger company than we are now. Within those scenarios, there was also an expected level of productivity that was never realized. As a business in pursuit of brand right growth, we will continue to invest in driving that growth and for us specifically that means marketing, IT, and elevating our international and D2C footprints. More simply put, while the absolute SG&A dollars may not change much in the near term, I'd underscore that the productivity and return on the investments that we are making are appropriately greater than just a few years ago, and should market factors impact our growth track in the near term, we're now also capable of flexing and managing our costs with greater discipline and optionality to maintain a more consistent profitability trajectory."

"From an SG&A perspective, as Patrik detailed, we believe we have appropriately rebased our cost structure and we believe the improved discipline and processes we currently have in place have instilled a more return-based approach to our investments that should drive greater prioritization into the areas that deliver the highest return and support our long-term growth opportunities. However, critical areas like DTC, international, and marketing will require us to continue investments to support our growth expectations. Therefore, we are planning on slight SG&A growth for the year."

---

The athletic apparel companies are all scumbags. Nike is the worst.

StrawberryCanyon said:

---

I copied the quotes below from UA's Q4 earnings call. UA admitted (again - see my prior posts) that it is just trying to get out of long-term contracts that it doesn't like anymore. It is shifting marketing dollars into other things. There's nothing about Cal/UCLA doing anything to invalidate the deals. UA just doesn't want them anymore and is making up excuses to walk away from them.

"When considering our restructuring efforts on how that impacted or will continue to affect our overall cost structure, it's essential to remember that most of these efforts have been related to future cost avoidance versus current cost reductions. That said, we have realized underlying SG&A benefits in certain areas. However, it's not as simple as cutting costs to gain leverage. As we mentioned, early within our restructuring efforts, our main objective was to unburden ourselves of decisions and commitments made when we expected to be a much larger company than we are now. Within those scenarios, there was also an expected level of productivity that was never realized. As a business in pursuit of brand right growth, we will continue to invest in driving that growth and for us specifically that means marketing, IT, and elevating our international and D2C footprints. More simply put, while the absolute SG&A dollars may not change much in the near term, I'd underscore that the productivity and return on the investments that we are making are appropriately greater than just a few years ago, and should market factors impact our growth track in the near term, we're now also capable of flexing and managing our costs with greater discipline and optionality to maintain a more consistent profitability trajectory."

"From an SG&A perspective, as Patrik detailed, we believe we have appropriately rebased our cost structure and we believe the improved discipline and processes we currently have in place have instilled a more return-based approach to our investments that should drive greater prioritization into the areas that deliver the highest return and support our long-term growth opportunities. However, critical areas like DTC, international, and marketing will require us to continue investments to support our growth expectations. Therefore, we are planning on slight SG&A growth for the year."

---

I'm aware that UA terminated the UCLA contract and that UCLA mitigated its damages with a new contract and sued. I'm also aware that UA reached a buy out with the University of Cincinnati. Basically the UCL:A was a crappy deal, and there was language in the contract that gave UA an out (or so UA's lawyers claim).

But can you point me to where UA invalidated, terminated, breached, or otherwise has walked away from the Cal contract? And why are 2021 Cal teams once again wearing brand new UA uniforms? Moreover, UA has 20 FBS FBS college sponsorship contracts and 2 FBS entire conferences, 31 FCS sponsor contracts, 27 Division 1 non-football sponsorship contracts, five entire Division 2 conferences, and a lot of small colleges, and professional and Olympic sponsorship contracts, none of which they seem particularly tying to "walk away from." Nor do I find "walk away" premise consistent with slight SG&A growth, as opposed to say a "material decline" to use the parlance of securities lawyers that write these things.

Afraid to compete.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm aware that UA terminated the UCLA contract and that UCLA mitigated its damages with a new contract and sued. I'm also aware that UA reached a buy out with the University of Cincinnati. Basically the UCL:A was a crappy deal, and there was language in the contract that gave UA an out (or so UA's lawyers claim).

But can you point me to where UA invalidated, terminated, breached, or otherwise has walked away from the Cal contract? And why are 2021 Cal teams once again wearing brand new UA uniforms? Moreover, UA has 20 FBS FBS college sponsorship contracts and 2 FBS entire conferences, 31 FCS sponsor contracts, 27 Division 1 non-football sponsorship contracts, five entire Division 2 conferences, and a lot of small colleges, and professional and Olympic sponsorship contracts, none of which they seem particularly tying to "walk away from." Nor do I find "walk away" premise consistent with slight SG&A growth, as opposed to say a "material decline" to use the parlance of securities lawyers that write these things.

---

Yes...it was covered on here months ago:
https://247sports.com/Article/cal-golden-bears-under-armour-contract-dispute-sale-of-old-nike-gear-grounds-for-termination-150451914/

The point is that UA's arguments are nonsense. The virus and the sale of old Nike gear have nothing to do with UA's move. It's just a business decision by UA's management. Thus, UA should have offered Cal some kind of buyout. Instead, it just told Cal that it intends to terminate the deal and then made up some nonsensical explanations to justify it.

I originally started posting this stuff because there was some discussion that UA must be in some financial distress. I even spoke to a person in the Cal Athletic Department (not someone knowledgeable about the deal) last year who thought this was the case. UA is not in any financial distress. UA's new CEO just decided that some of the deals were not worth the cost and then the company made up lame reasons to terminate them.

FWIW I have seen UCLA teams and coaches wearing UA gear as they have kicked off their spring seasons in the last few weeks

91Cal said:

---

FWIW I have seen UCLA teams and coaches wearing UA gear as they have kicked off their spring seasons in the last few weeks

---

UCLA Nike contract starts July 1, 2021. The UCLA UA uniforms are left overs. Cal, in contrast, received its 2020 and 2021 clothes shipments since its contract still is in effect. Now I guess the OP is upset because UA is actually living up to the terms of its contract with Cal, rather that providing a buy out.

My concerns are as follows:

- is Cal getting the annual $ as promised?

- is Cal athletics and fans getting access to the latest and greatest design and material that UA can come with?

One can make the argument that it's better to be on someone's first team (UA) rather than hanging around as a 2nd tier with the market leader (Nike). But 2nd tier with a 2nd tier is no bueno.

It's not what Cal signed up for (or didn't sign for as the case seems to be) and if I were Cal authorities I would be *****ing up a storm.

wifeisafurd said:

---

91Cal said:

---

FWIW I have seen UCLA teams and coaches wearing UA gear as they have kicked off their spring seasons in the last few weeks

---

UCLA Nike contract starts July 1, 2021. The UCLA UA uniforms are left overs. Cal, in contrast, received its 2020 and 2021 clothes shipments since its contract still is in effect. Now I guess the OP is upset because UA is actually living up to the terms of its contract with Cal, rather that providing a buy out.

---

The UCLA gear is new to the teams who received it in the last 6 weeks...different than the gear that they received last year. Are you saying that this was supplied prior to the notice being served?

I recall that the timing of the notice was last summer before many of the student athletes arrived on campus to even put in for sizing. Seems plausible that UCLA would have loads of extras, but not to completely outfit all the teams all over again and I can't imagine that UA would have shipped the gear for the following spring sports seasons. Did UCLA purchase from UA? Cant imagine that's the case???

91Cal said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

91Cal said:

---

FWIW I have seen UCLA teams and coaches wearing UA gear as they have kicked off their spring seasons in the last few weeks

---

UCLA Nike contract starts July 1, 2021. The UCLA UA uniforms are left overs. Cal, in contrast, received its 2020 and 2021 clothes shipments since its contract still is in effect. Now I guess the OP is upset because UA is actually living up to the terms of its contract with Cal, rather that providing a buy out.

---

The UCLA gear is new to the teams who received it in the last 6 weeks...different than the gear that they received last year. Are you saying that this was supplied prior to the notice being served?

I recall that the timing of the notice was last summer before many of the student athletes arrived on campus to even put in for sizing. Seems plausible that UCLA would have loads of extras, but not to completely outfit all the teams all over again and I can't imagine that UA would have shipped the gear for the following spring sports seasons. Did UCLA purchase from UA? Cant imagine that's the case???

---

I'm not sure where you got that information. Can you share your source?

Let's start with UCLA most recent court filings which states: "Under Armour has intermittently provided some of the promised products during the pandemic, but has intentionally withheld others and delayed deliveries to cause more harm to UCLA."


During the COVID season the football team wore the old stockpiled gear per Chip Kelly.
UCLA to still be outfitted by Under Armour despite lawsuitwww.espn.com college-sports story ucla-outfitted-ar...

In his presser announcing the new Nike deal, the UCLA AD said until June 30, UCLA would "wear uniforms with UA logos attached." I'm interpreting that to mean they had new uniforms made and attached the logos, or used old/extra uniforms like football. They get new Nike stuff on June 30. I assume the refusal to get new Nike stuff ASAP is related to the suit, since no where did I see anyone say the are using new UA uniforms, which Cal has said they have.

Lomiton said:

---

My concerns are as follows:

- is Cal getting the annual $ as promised?

- is Cal athletics and fans getting access to the latest and greatest design and material that UA can come with?

One can make the argument that it's better to be on someone's first team (UA) rather than hanging around as a 2nd tier with the market leader (Nike). But 2nd tier with a 2nd tier is no bueno.

It's not what Cal signed up for (or didn't sign for as the case seems to be) and if I were Cal authorities I would be *****ing up a storm.

---

Most of the Cal deal value is clothes/gear, which everyone agrees Cal is receiving. Cal gets around $3.5 million in annual cash per SB Nation on a 10 year deal worth $86 million, so doing the math that is $51 million in non-cash stuff, If they were not getting the cash payments, I'm assuming Cal would be required to make a stink by big brother UC, given how raw the UCLA deal turned, and somewhere in all those Public Record Act requests made by journalists would actually be some communication about non-payment.

So far, the Cal AD has acknowledged UA has stuck with its contract (last I heard he was still pessimistic on the UA deal over the long run). That said, share with us as to how UA breached its agreement,. I mean you just accused UA in a public writing about not living up to their contract, so please do provide something that indicates what exactly they did that the Cal athletic department should be complaining about. By all means be specific, rather than make a blanket statement exactly what Cal bargained for in its binding LOI contact that "Cal signed up for (or didn't sign for as the case seems to be)", and tell us your source. Better to be called out by me than UA's attorneys, yes?


.

StrawberryCanyon said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm aware that UA terminated the UCLA contract and that UCLA mitigated its damages with a new contract and sued. I'm also aware that UA reached a buy out with the University of Cincinnati. Basically the UCL:A was a crappy deal, and there was language in the contract that gave UA an out (or so UA's lawyers claim).

But can you point me to where UA invalidated, terminated, breached, or otherwise has walked away from the Cal contract? And why are 2021 Cal teams once again wearing brand new UA uniforms? Moreover, UA has 20 FBS FBS college sponsorship contracts and 2 FBS entire conferences, 31 FCS sponsor contracts, 27 Division 1 non-football sponsorship contracts, five entire Division 2 conferences, and a lot of small colleges, and professional and Olympic sponsorship contracts, none of which they seem particularly tying to "walk away from." Nor do I find "walk away" premise consistent with slight SG&A growth, as opposed to say a "material decline" to use the parlance of securities lawyers that write these things.

---

Yes...it was covered on here months ago:
https://247sports.com/Article/cal-golden-bears-under-armour-contract-dispute-sale-of-old-nike-gear-grounds-for-termination-150451914/

The point is that UA's arguments are nonsense. The virus and the sale of old Nike gear have nothing to do with UA's move. It's just a business decision by UA's management. Thus, UA should have offered Cal some kind of buyout. Instead, it just told Cal that it intends to terminate the deal and then made up some nonsensical explanations to justify it.

I originally started posting this stuff because there was some discussion that UA must be in some financial distress. I even spoke to a person in the Cal Athletic Department (not someone knowledgeable about the deal) last year who thought this was the case. UA is not in any financial distress. UA's new CEO just decided that some of the deals were not worth the cost and then the company made up lame reasons to terminate them.

---

The lame reason UCLA was "terminated" is set out if full glory in UA's response brief where UA's lawyers argue no liability can exist when a contract ends due to a "Force Majeure Event," or catastrophic event that prevents performance, such as a national emergency. If such an event lasts for more than 100 days, the agreement allows for termination by either party, which in fact, the force majeure provision in the agreement UCLA signed does expressly do (you can read the exact wording of the contract in the brief).

But even without such an event, Under Armour's lawyers argue UA had a right to terminate if a UCLA team fails to participate in at least half its season for any other reason, which by the way, the UCLA contract also expressly provides for. You can read that wording in the brief as well. Now maybe UCLA has some legal arguments to counteract the literal wording of its contract. But to call this contracts wording nonsense seems a bit presumptuous.

You mention that there were discussion about UA financial distress. Maybe that was based on what UCLA said in its filed complaint. For example, UCLA's lawyers consistently referred to UA as a"financially-troubled." How does this language strike you: "Following years of declining business, Under Armour's corporate leadership apparently decided that the UCLA deal was over-market and too expensive for a troubled company." Sounds like UCLA thinks they are in financial distress. I thought UCLA was right on my prior posts because they actually said this stuff.

There has been a lot of threads with lawyers posting as to how remarkably different the Cal and UCLA contracts are. Your understanding of what is nonsense and where Cal vs. UCLA stand legally might be enhanced by reviewing those threads.

wifeisafurd said:

---

That said, share with us as to how UA breached its agreement,. I mean you just accused UA in a public writing about not living up to their contract, so please do provide something that indicates what exactly they did that the Cal athletic department should be complaining about. By all means be specific, rather than make a blanket statement exactly what Cal bargained for in its binding LOI contact that "Cal signed up for (or didn't sign for as the case seems to be)", and tell us your source. Better to be called out by me than UA's attorneys, yes?


.

---

Oh WIAF, I don't have the UA/Cal contract. I was just assuming that Cal was smart enough to get put in "favored nation treatment" into it so they would get treated equal to or better than the rest of the top end of the UA college stable (Maryland withstanding of course). I mean, Cal athletics couldn't have been that stupid to agree to anything less than that with a second level supplier - could they?

So back to my question: Is Cal getting the "top tier" gear and design that all UA's top tier schools are getting?

If Cal didn't ask for that, those involved should be taken to the woodshed. If Cal did and it was agreed to, if I were Cal I would be dam sure UA was sticking to it.

My "source" is common sense and if UA attorneys wants me they know where to find me. I'm. Not. Sacred.

On the other hand, I am glad you are concerned about my well being. Sometimes I wonder...

Lomiton said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

That said, share with us as to how UA breached its agreement,. I mean you just accused UA in a public writing about not living up to their contract, so please do provide something that indicates what exactly they did that the Cal athletic department should be complaining about. By all means be specific, rather than make a blanket statement exactly what Cal bargained for in its binding LOI contact that "Cal signed up for (or didn't sign for as the case seems to be)", and tell us your source. Better to be called out by me than UA's attorneys, yes?


.

---

Oh WIAF, I don't have the UA/Cal contract. I was just assuming that Cal was smart enough to get put in "favored nation treatment" into it so they would get treated equal to or better than the rest of the top end of the UA college stable (Maryland withstanding of course). I mean, Cal athletics couldn't have been that stupid to agree to anything less than that with a second level supplier - could they?

So back to my question: Is Cal getting the "top tier" gear and design that all UA's top tier schools are getting?

If Cal didn't ask for that, those involved should be taken to the woodshed. If Cal did and it was agreed to, if I were Cal I would be dam sure UA was sticking to it.

My "source" is common sense and if UA attorneys wants me they know where to find me. I'm. Not. Sacred.

On the other hand, I am glad you are concerned about my well being. Sometimes I wonder...

---

so what you are admitting is that you made up a bunch of crap about UA and its contract with Cal. Reminiscent of a former President who seemed to make up stuff. That tends to catch up with people.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Lomiton said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

That said, share with us as to how UA breached its agreement,. I mean you just accused UA in a public writing about not living up to their contract, so please do provide something that indicates what exactly they did that the Cal athletic department should be complaining about. By all means be specific, rather than make a blanket statement exactly what Cal bargained for in its binding LOI contact that "Cal signed up for (or didn't sign for as the case seems to be)", and tell us your source. Better to be called out by me than UA's attorneys, yes?


.

---

Oh WIAF, I don't have the UA/Cal contract. I was just assuming that Cal was smart enough to get put in "favored nation treatment" into it so they would get treated equal to or better than the rest of the top end of the UA college stable (Maryland withstanding of course). I mean, Cal athletics couldn't have been that stupid to agree to anything less than that with a second level supplier - could they?

So back to my question: Is Cal getting the "top tier" gear and design that all UA's top tier schools are getting?

If Cal didn't ask for that, those involved should be taken to the woodshed. If Cal did and it was agreed to, if I were Cal I would be dam sure UA was sticking to it.

My "source" is common sense and if UA attorneys wants me they know where to find me. I'm. Not. Sacred.

On the other hand, I am glad you are concerned about my well being. Sometimes I wonder...

---

so what you are admitting is that you made up a bunch of crap about UA and its contract with Cal. Reminiscent of a former President who seemed to make up stuff. That tends to catch up with people.

---

Hey Frudo...IT'S A COLLEGE FOOTBALL MESSAGE BOARD.

If you don't feel like expanding your horizons feel free to ignore my messages.

On the bright side for UA...at least UCLA is still wearing the UA logo on their hoop shorts and shooting sleeves...should really generate sales with the Final Four. #karma

Lomiton said:

---

On the bright side for UA...at least UCLA is still wearing the UA logo on their hoop shorts and shooting sleeves...should really generate sales with the Final Four. #karma

---

Also UA logo on shorts, but they've covered up the logo on the chest.

You'd think Nike could ship something out for the Finall Four, even though the deal doesn't officially start until July.

Some more details on the Jordan contract - 6 years, $3 million a year in cash. (I don't really consider the apparel to be worth anywhere near what is reported as total value - it's made overseas for pennies on the dollar).

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2021/uclas-nike-contract-pays-less-than-prior-deal-with-under-armour-1234621138/

Lomiton said:

---

On the bright side for UA...at least UCLA is still wearing the UA logo on their hoop shorts and shooting sleeves...should really generate sales with the Final Four. #karma

---

UCLA to still be outfitted by Under Armour despite lawsuithttps://www.espn.com college-sports story ucla-ou...

Note date of article. Also, '91 indicates there may be deal which UA provided updated clothes.
[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwioocD1-dvvAhWrIDQIHcDYDSUQFjAAegQIAhAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.espn.com%2Fcollege-sports%2Fstory%2F_%2Fid%2F30127866%2Fucla-outfitted-armour-lawsuit&usg=AOvVaw1_qem2Q1NT4CjSie5kcXxu][/url]