Semi-OT: Texas reportedly offered $15 million per year by Under Armour

Submitted by EastCoast Esq. on

If this report is true, I imagine it's going to put a lot of pressure on Nike to up their offers. Regardless, $15 million is, what, almost double what we get from Adidas? That's bank.

Report: Under Armour to make record-setting apparel offer to Texas -> http://t.co/PI0ldaEELE pic.twitter.com/nPH75D9p6A

— Phil Hecken (@PhilHecken) May 28, 2015

beergut

June 4th, 2015 at 1:53 PM ^

There was games last season where they had less than 90,000 in attendance. Even for a prime time game against BYU, they only drew 93,000 and DKR's capacity is over 100,000.

timmons15

May 28th, 2015 at 3:06 PM ^

Should be interesting to see what Nike offers Michigan.  These numbers are starting to get out of hand with Adidas and UA.  Nike may have to start increasing their bids as money eventually does talk.

Wolverine Devotee

May 28th, 2015 at 3:23 PM ^

My opinion. Everyone and their brother is expecing Michigan to sign with Nike.

The guys at Rivals think it's happening. 

The athletes (the people who really matter here) want Nike

99% of fans want Nike.

Hackett is a smart guy who listens to input from others. It is my opinion that unless adidas offers an unprecedented amount of money, Michigan is going back to Nike. 

BRBLUE

May 28th, 2015 at 3:48 PM ^

Sam Webb has talked about the apparel survey on his show numerous times and said the coaches and athletes overwhelming want Nike.

gord

May 28th, 2015 at 3:58 PM ^

I guarantee you the small sports would rather have UA if it meant they could wear whatever shoes they want (which UA allows since they don't make wrestling shoes, volleyball shoes, etc.).  Nike makes garbage for most sports.  Their running shoes are horrible.  You don't see a lot of Nike at the Olympics unless they are paying athletes to wear it.

gord

May 28th, 2015 at 5:32 PM ^

Someone said Beilein wanted to stick with Adidas.  All of the current athletes committed to Adidas so how bad could it be?  I believe football might want Nike cleats and gloves, I doubt they care that much about the actual uniform.  Nike started making everything about 10-20 years ago (balls, baseball bats, swimming goggles, golf clubs, etc) and most of it is junk.  I've bought some of it because it had a swoosh and regretted it.  Other brands are much better for small sports.  If you watch the Olympics you'll see a lot of brands like Mizuno, Asics, etc.  Is the golf team going to have to use Nike clubs?  Is the baseball team going to use Nike bats?  I don't know.  UA only makes clothing and football, basketball, baseball and running shoes so all of the other sports could choose the superior brands.  I'd like to see us give UA a try.  If we go Nike we will just be like every other school and probably get their standard stuff.  I don't think they are going to put much effort into our contract.

7words

May 28th, 2015 at 9:30 PM ^

This is a bit of a flawed argument. Its an apparel contract, not an equipment contract.  No the baseball and softball teams won't have to use Nike bats.   Ohio State, a Nike school,  uses Wilson footballs.  Not Nike footballs.  So i don't think you have to worry about our lacrosse team being at a disadvantage because they would have to use some Nike stick if they start making those.  And the golf team will be able to use whatever clubs they want.  

justingoblue

May 28th, 2015 at 3:21 PM ^

I thought the ND contract required them to pay ND more than anyone else. If that's true this is more like a $20mm offer (plus their sunk cost of the original ND contract) to ND and Texas.

The Mad Hatter

May 28th, 2015 at 3:38 PM ^

or UA, or anyone else is offering us 2x or more than Nike is, then the AD would have to be a moron to sign with Nike.  Jim Hackett is no moron.

The players and fans will get over it.

LSAClassOf2000

May 28th, 2015 at 3:58 PM ^

However, the Swoosh did match a lucrative Under Armour offer of $300 million to Texas Ex Kevin Durant to keep him with Nike instead of hometown Under Armour, a surprising move.

Kevin Durant would be willing to give some of that back, right?

In all seriousness though, if they can offer it to a person, they can offer it to a school, or at least it seems that way to me. The question would be whether or not Nike would want to shift its strategy to get in on high-dollar brand deals (their largest being FSU at about $4.5 million per year, I think) at the collegiate level. 

UofM626

May 28th, 2015 at 4:41 PM ^

Thrown around were not going to Nike!

Last year I was speaking w the Western Regional Sales Manager for UA, both our kids play on the same travel baseball team, he said that in 2015-2016 UA was going after it in regards to schools and said that Michigan was there #1 priority

MGoUberBlue

May 28th, 2015 at 5:05 PM ^

Poster on certain aspects relating to this topic, particularly with claiming to know the opinions of all the athletes regarding Nike.

Give it up man.

I really admire Under Armour for the creativity and management to achieve the level of success in a relatively short period of time against Nike, Adidas, etc. and was surprised that they did not make the final cut for competiton against those two companies for UM.

ZBarry

May 28th, 2015 at 11:04 PM ^

does the M also get a royalty on every sale an athlete may not? if not it still seems low compared to the deals these individual athletes are getting. Michigan has to sell a ton of gear. I get LeBron and the major guys but 8 million doesn't strike me as that much.