Under Armour and UCLA
20,669 Views |
136 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by wifeisafurd
I'm guessing we already modified our deal with them on the quiet.
Here's a couple more articles on it if anyone wants more info:
https://thespun.com/pac-12/ucla/under-armour-attempting-to-terminate-apparel-deal-with-ucla
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2897938-under-armour-reportedly-trying-to-terminate-record-280m-contract-with-ucla
https://thespun.com/pac-12/ucla/under-armour-attempting-to-terminate-apparel-deal-with-ucla
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2897938-under-armour-reportedly-trying-to-terminate-record-280m-contract-with-ucla
We get two cases of UA face masks to hand out to first 100 in line for Cal Poly game.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Looks like Cal's deal is being terminated too. We are no longer listed as a sponsored school on UA's website.
donimoes 
GldnBr05 said:
Looks like Cal's deal is being terminated too. We are no longer listed as a sponsored school on UA's website.
So who makes our uniforms this season?
There's probably some contract issues with this but we probably just go with the UA ones we have for this season and sign a new apparel deal for next year, right? I mean I don't think there would be time to get new uniform sets designed and made in time for the season.
List of UA competitors we could go to, some already in the CFB game and some would be more out of the box. I'm leaving off nike bc I think their gear is trash: Adidas, Puma, New Balance, ASICS, Fila, Reebok
List of UA competitors we could go to, some already in the CFB game and some would be more out of the box. I'm leaving off nike bc I think their gear is trash: Adidas, Puma, New Balance, ASICS, Fila, Reebok
Not good, but I was happy with the way the LA Times referred to us in their report: "Under Armour currently possesses the second-strongest foothold in the Pac-12 Conference among athletic apparel companies, holding deals with California and Utah in addition to UCLA...."Bearly Clad said:
There's probably some contract issues with this but we probably just go with the UA ones we have for this season and sign a new apparel deal for next year, right? I mean I don't think there would be time to get new uniform sets designed and made in time for the season.
List of UA competitors we could go to, some already in the CFB game and some would be more out of the box. I'm leaving off nike bc I think their gear is trash: Adidas, Puma, New Balance, ASICS, Fila, Reebok
Yeah so good luck to UA with this case. They are going to invoke a force majeure clause on some schools and not others? Just not going to happen. This is a negotiating ploy.okaydo said:
UA paid Cal a $3 million signing bonus in 2016 and pays us an additional $3.5 million in cash every year. They also give us apparel and equipment worth about $4.8 million a year. It's not exactly chump change but far less than what they are giving UCLA. I'm guessing we are getting "terminated" as well to enhance their position but unless they are terminating Notre Dame, etc this ain't going to happen.
I would have thought that the force majeure clause would have been negotiated such that UA cannot back out of the entire contract, but just get out of payments for the extent of the pandemic when they have a loss in value.
It's not UCLA's fault UA has other business issues before the pandemic, and UCLA did have other large offers on the table when they agreed to the UA table.
The $20 million per year number is somewhat fictional as UCLA only gets $8 million cash from UA and $12 million in gear. $12 million is not the actual cost - what is the markup on overseas apparel labor these days? 10x? More?
It's not UCLA's fault UA has other business issues before the pandemic, and UCLA did have other large offers on the table when they agreed to the UA table.
The $20 million per year number is somewhat fictional as UCLA only gets $8 million cash from UA and $12 million in gear. $12 million is not the actual cost - what is the markup on overseas apparel labor these days? 10x? More?
okaydo said:GldnBr05 said:
Looks like Cal's deal is being terminated too. We are no longer listed as a sponsored school on UA's website.
So who makes our uniforms this season?
I'm going to forward Knowlton the contact info for that woman on Etsy who was doing the Cal masks. Great customer service and she has that entrepreneurial spirit!
So where are we going next?
It's a good guess that the annual cash payments to Cal and UCLA are due soon, maybe on July 1st, and that UA is desperately low on cash.Sebastabear said:
UA paid Cal a $3 million signing bonus in 2016 and pays us an additional $3.5 million in cash every year.
So can Cal (and UCLA) negotiate a lump sum payment to terminate and move onto a new partner?Sebastabear said:Yeah so good luck to UA with this case. They are going to invoke a force majeure clause on some schools and not others? Just not going to happen. This is a negotiating ploy.okaydo said:
UA backed out of their 10 year deal with MLB last year before it even started. Can't find out what that cost them - Nike ended up picking it up.
It's a good guess. Tough thing is it isn't exactly a seller's market out there for us (or any school) given the uncertainty around sports. Our last deal with Nike if I recall was $150k in cash and $2m or so in apparel. Pretty big delta between that and what we are getting now. We might just prefer to shorten the term or something.ColoradoBear said:So can Cal (and UCLA) negotiate a lump sum payment to terminate and move onto a new partner?Sebastabear said:Yeah so good luck to UA with this case. They are going to invoke a force majeure clause on some schools and not others? Just not going to happen. This is a negotiating ploy.okaydo said:
UA backed out of their 10 year deal with MLB last year before it even started. Can't find out what that cost them - Nike ended up picking it up.
Notre Dame announced it is playing football this season. Pac has not. Goodbye UCLA, Cal and Utah next? is this there way of saying no football, we walk?ColoradoBear said:So can Cal (and UCLA) negotiate a lump sum payment to terminate and move onto a new partner?Sebastabear said:Yeah so good luck to UA with this case. They are going to invoke a force majeure clause on some schools and not others? Just not going to happen. This is a negotiating ploy.okaydo said:
UA backed out of their 10 year deal with MLB last year before it even started. Can't find out what that cost them - Nike ended up picking it up.
Cal is not listed as one of UA's sponsored college teams.
Patience is a virtue, but I’m not into virtue signaling these days.
wifeisafurd said:Notre Dame announced it is playing football this season. Pac has not. Goodbye UCLA, Cal and Utah next? is this there way of saying no football, we walk?ColoradoBear said:So can Cal (and UCLA) negotiate a lump sum payment to terminate and move onto a new partner?Sebastabear said:Yeah so good luck to UA with this case. They are going to invoke a force majeure clause on some schools and not others? Just not going to happen. This is a negotiating ploy.okaydo said:
UA backed out of their 10 year deal with MLB last year before it even started. Can't find out what that cost them - Nike ended up picking it up.
ND cannot play against themselves though. If the P5 decides spring ball w/ no OOC games, ND is hosed.
Let's talk about the elephant in the room - where can I purchase some UA Cal gear at 90% off?
If UA is done with Cal, Nike or Adidas will do better with recruits IMO. Nike has always had nice things. Adidas has some shiny things as well the lightest gameday cleat iirc.
A Chapter 11 claim against UA when they file BK? Isn't their business on the brink?socaliganbear said:
So where are we going next?
goldenjax said:
If UA is done with Cal, Nike or Adidas will do better with recruits IMO. Nike has always had nice things. Adidas has some shiny things as well the lightest gameday cleat iirc.
Nike is more popular, absolutely. Cal's recent Nike lineup was also trash. We had terrible uniforms, even after the rebrand. If they're not going to lend us their design team, we're f***ed.
is it just Cal and UCLA? If so, wonder why? The contract with UCLA is substantial. Cal's is not. You wonder why Cal even would be on the radar given the size of other UA contracts. Again, I wonder if this reflects on the possibility of no football for the California schools, when everyone else is playing. The money for sponsors is in football. Otherwise, why would Cal be so unprofitable? It is not like UA is paying Cal the big bucks.
Somebody tweet at Steph. Abandoning Oakland and now Under Armour(of which he is the face worldwide) ****ing Berkeley??? Unhappy Warriors fans are growing fast
Did UA sue Cal? If so, why hasn't that information been made public?wifeisafurd said:
is it just Cal and UCLA? If so, wonder why? The contract with UCLA is substantial. Cal's is not. You wonder why Cal even would be on the radar given the size of other UA contracts. Again, I wonder if this reflects on the possibility of no football for the California schools, when everyone else is playing. The money for sponsors is in football. Otherwise, why would Cal be so unprofitable? It is not like UA is paying Cal the big bucks.
Otherwise, this is "sound and fury, signifying nothing" other than the schadenfreude re: UCLA's problem (just one of many at this particular time). Heck, earlier this year, the AD had to borrow (with interest) $18.9 from the UCLA General Fund to cover the Athletic Dept. deficit.
You're not kidding. It seems as if we received all of the failed experiments from Nike.
Not sure I get your point here '71. UA isn't suing Cal - They don't need to. They've just told Cal they aren't going to follow through on their contractual obligations. And yes, I know for a fact that has happened. If anyone is suing anyone (and we are) it's going to be Cal suing UA.71Bear said:Did UA sue Cal? If so, why hasn't that information been made public?wifeisafurd said:
is it just Cal and UCLA? If so, wonder why? The contract with UCLA is substantial. Cal's is not. You wonder why Cal even would be on the radar given the size of other UA contracts. Again, I wonder if this reflects on the possibility of no football for the California schools, when everyone else is playing. The money for sponsors is in football. Otherwise, why would Cal be so unprofitable? It is not like UA is paying Cal the big bucks.
Otherwise, this is "sound and fury, signifying nothing" other than the schadenfreude re: UCLA's problem (just one of many at this particular time). Heck, earlier this year, the AD had to borrow (with interest) $18.9 from the UCLA General Fund to cover the Athletic Dept. deficit.
UA's legal position is indefensible. There is zero chance that Cal and UCLA have different force majeure clauses than Notre Dame, etc. These things are boilerplate. They can't pick which contracts they want to terminate because of an act of God affecting the entire world.
To WIAF's speculation that UA is terminating the California schools only because we won't be playing football and everyone else will, I'd note they kept Utah and there is zero chance some Pac-12 schools are going to have a season and others aren't - the conference has already agreed it's all for one in this. If California (the state) goes completely bonkers there are plans to work around that including playing games elsewhere.
But even if that were the case, this decision is premature by several weeks. No one (including Cal and UCLA themselves) know what is happening with football this season yet. UA certainly doesn't have some inside scoop they are using to buttress their position.
This is just a renegotiating ploy. They made a bad deal and don't like it. Let the games begin.
Got it backwards. Thanks. Based on my reading of your comment, it does appear that Cal may have to a file a lawsuit to get their money from UA. Further, based on my observation of legal procedures, never bet on either side because sometimes judges interpret the law differently than what one would logically expect.Sebastabear said:Not sure I get your point here '71. UA isn't suing Cal - They don't need to. They've just told Cal they aren't going to follow through on their contractual obligations. And yes, I know for a fact that has happened. If anyone is suing anyone (and we are) it's going to be Cal suing UA.71Bear said:Did UA sue Cal? If so, why hasn't that information been made public?wifeisafurd said:
is it just Cal and UCLA? If so, wonder why? The contract with UCLA is substantial. Cal's is not. You wonder why Cal even would be on the radar given the size of other UA contracts. Again, I wonder if this reflects on the possibility of no football for the California schools, when everyone else is playing. The money for sponsors is in football. Otherwise, why would Cal be so unprofitable? It is not like UA is paying Cal the big bucks.
Otherwise, this is "sound and fury, signifying nothing" other than the schadenfreude re: UCLA's problem (just one of many at this particular time). Heck, earlier this year, the AD had to borrow (with interest) $18.9 from the UCLA General Fund to cover the Athletic Dept. deficit.
UA's legal position is indefensible. There is zero chance that Cal and UCLA have different force majeure clauses than Notre Dame, etc. These things are boilerplate. They can't pick which contracts they want to terminate because of an act of God affecting the entire world.
To WIAF's speculation that UA is terminating the California schools only because we won't be playing football and everyone else will, I'd note they kept Utah and there is zero chance some Pac-12 schools are going to have a season and others aren't - the conference has already agreed it's all for one in this. If California (the state) goes completely bonkers there are plans to work around that including playing games elsewhere.
But even if that were the case, this decision is premature by several weeks. No one (including Cal and UCLA themselves) know what is happening with football this season yet. UA certainly doesn't have some inside scoop they are using to buttress their position.
This is just a renegotiating ploy. They made a bad deal and don't like it. Let the games begin.
Lastly, I don't read anything into their actions that could imply the football season is in jeopardy. I agree 100% with your final paragraph.....
UCLA didn't perform as expected. Kelly was a gamble for UA
CAL Bears ??
CAL Bears ??
Maybe Under Armour didn't think they could dump one UC school and keep the other. If that's the case, Cal is collateral damage from UCLA's big contract.wifeisafurd said:
is it just Cal and UCLA? If so, wonder why? The contract with UCLA is substantial. Cal's is not. You wonder why Cal even would be on the radar given the size of other UA contracts. Again, I wonder if this reflects on the possibility of no football for the California schools, when everyone else is playing. The money for sponsors is in football. Otherwise, why would Cal be so unprofitable? It is not like UA is paying Cal the big bucks.
Eastern Oregon Bear said:Maybe Under Armour didn't think they could dump one UC school and keep the other. If that's the case, Cal is collateral damage from UCLA's big contract.wifeisafurd said:
is it just Cal and UCLA? If so, wonder why? The contract with UCLA is substantial. Cal's is not. You wonder why Cal even would be on the radar given the size of other UA contracts. Again, I wonder if this reflects on the possibility of no football for the California schools, when everyone else is playing. The money for sponsors is in football. Otherwise, why would Cal be so unprofitable? It is not like UA is paying Cal the big bucks.
Seems like legally, both Cal and UCLA are the 'UC Regents', so if there is litigation, they might be rolled into one case?
Featured Stories
See All
Cal Duo Earns Pac-12 Weekly Honors
by Cal Athletics
Cal Football - Post Spring Review
by Bear Insider
Bears Complete The Sweep Over 5th Ranked Beavers
by Cal Athletics
Bears Finish As National Runner-Ups
by Cal Athletics