adidas now killing it in North America...
- Thread starter zipp
- Start date
I happened into an outlet mall 2 years ago that had a Nike, Adidas and UA store in it. The UA and Adidas stores were hustling and bustling. The Nike store was a clear third. Sometimes a company can become a victim of their own success, especially in fashion where people like to be different.
You say it's not anecdotal, and then you quote me something anecdotally...
Definition of anecdotal: based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation.
True, but you don't waste your time waiting for or partnering up with Nike based on what MIGHT happen. Not when you already have sweetheart deals rolling over with the darling of the industry, adidas. You just thank God you're hitched to the right wagon.
I also recall a day when U of L looked like adidas in their industry. And schools like Texas, Notre Dame, even LPT looked like Nike. You want me to continue this metaphor?
I already acknowledged that I'm the last guy to spot a fashion trend. It's why I let the ultimate arbiter of all things business--money--make that determination. And adidas is rocking everyone else financially...
Zipp...I think you're taking the fact that Adidas is booming right now to be the "be all, end all" of this discussion and its a little more complicated than simply saying "well, Adidas is doing really well right now and Nike sales are slipping so that means Adidas is the horse to bet on and that Adidas is the best." As I've stated before...just because Adidas is booming now does not mean they're on Nike's level. Nike's dominance is so massive that even with Adidas booming they are still a distant, distant 2nd place.
My comment about more people preferring Nike over Adidas isn't anecdotal...its fact. Nike is slipping yet they still own 53% of the entire athletic shoe market (Adidas owns something like 9 or 10%)...ipso facto most people prefer Nike to Adidas. Same with apparel.
Your argument is like saying that because Toms is growing faster than Nike that UL should hitch their wagon to Toms.
My comment about more people preferring Nike over Adidas isn't anecdotal...its fact. Nike is slipping yet they still own 53% of the entire athletic shoe market (Adidas owns something like 9 or 10%)...ipso facto most people prefer Nike to Adidas. Same with apparel.
Your argument is like saying that because Toms is growing faster than Nike that UL should hitch their wagon to Toms.
Zipp I think your argument probably has validity on a financial forum or a market forum. Apparently adidas is growing in markets like golf and making strides globally. But to make the argument on a college sports forum is a swing and miss. Adidas over Nike in a practical sense in this part of the world just doesn't have legs.
No one looks at market trends and financial records when they fill their cart at dicks sporting goods. Sporting goods stores and college sports fans actually share the same consumer and that consumer doesn't favor adidas. But again, I'm sure UL has a sweetheart money deal with them. I just don't know if it's a brand worth writing home about.
We just made a sweetheart deal with the biggest grocery store chain in all the land. I've read that it's the most lucrative in the country. But it's still lame and I'm not going to brag about it.
No one looks at market trends and financial records when they fill their cart at dicks sporting goods. Sporting goods stores and college sports fans actually share the same consumer and that consumer doesn't favor adidas. But again, I'm sure UL has a sweetheart money deal with them. I just don't know if it's a brand worth writing home about.
We just made a sweetheart deal with the biggest grocery store chain in all the land. I've read that it's the most lucrative in the country. But it's still lame and I'm not going to brag about it.
Louisville is now a national brand. It's a player in all sports, not one or two. We recruit INTER-nationally. And we have a long, successful track record with adidas as our apparel partner.
All of those reasons from our end of the bargain--and others I'm missing--are why we do business with adidas and will continue to do so. Along with adidas growing faster in the US than Nike and UA, those are also the RIGHT reasons to partner with adidas. Not what anyone here prefers or thinks is better.
If you believe college athletes prefer Nike, or you think Nike would help our basketball recruiting, you're missing the boat. It's either not true or it doesn't matter...
All of those reasons from our end of the bargain--and others I'm missing--are why we do business with adidas and will continue to do so. Along with adidas growing faster in the US than Nike and UA, those are also the RIGHT reasons to partner with adidas. Not what anyone here prefers or thinks is better.
If you believe college athletes prefer Nike, or you think Nike would help our basketball recruiting, you're missing the boat. It's either not true or it doesn't matter...
Ok, I mean I can't argue with your opinion on this subject, after all its an opinion. I will say this....if you think Nike doesn't matter in college athletics and ESPECIALLY in basketball recruiting then you are hugely misinformed. Now, would it help in recruiting at Louisville? Probably not much because elite level kids don't want to play for Rick Pitino but I think a switch to Nike wouldn't benefit our college basketball program in non-financial terms hugely.
And only if that's true and only if basketball issues should drive the decision, is partnering with adidas the wrong strategy. But I don't believe we know any of that factually while the advantages with adidas are documented...
I agree with both of you. Nike raises your profile as a brand and I do think recruiting for basketball and football would receive a boost. However, it could be a Monetary risk if Nike doesn't want to match your adidas deal. It would be a calculated risk based off a big picture vision. Now if Nike matches the adidas deal then game over. UL switches.
Which ain't happening. LPT's new Nike deal is HALF of what U of L's old deal with adidas was annually, approx. $4 mil vs. $8 mil. Who knows what the new adidas money will be?...
Yes....especially from a multi-sport aspect. The only other "big" schools that Adidas sponsors are Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, NC State, Texas A&M, Miami and Mississippi State.
Under Armor has a better list of prestigious programs than Adidas does: UCLA, Notre Dame, Maryland, Wisconsin, Cincinnati, Boston College, Cal, Northwestern, St. Johns, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Wichita State, Temple, Utah, Seton Hall.
Isn't another factor that UofL was sticking with Adidas was that they were willing to outfit more of the smaller sports than Nike? I remember that being a factor- at least in the past.
I'm sure it is. With Adidas UL is the big fish in the small pond...Adidas takes care of them and pays them a lot of money. With Nike they would be one of many elite programs that they sponsor...basically Nike doesn't "need" Louisville and Adidas does.
Well adidas just sold Taylor Made golf and two other companies due to declining sales since 2014...
Any time now the best college teams will switch to Adidas.I'm trying to think of the best teams. Duke, UNC, UK, ?
Them eyeballs ever been out of the state of ky? or the USA?
Hard to cure stupid and close mindedness at the same time isn't it?
This whole thread has made me notice the brands people are wearing so much more lately. I caught myself tracking the brand of shoes everyone in my section of the gym was wearing....8 Nikes, 1 Under Armor, 1 Brooks, 1 Chucks (me)...lol
Yes I have. Maybe you should read my other posts if you are able. I recognized adidas as being stronger globally than in the US. They are a huge brand in soccer, which is the biggest sport in the world. You are currently on a college basketball board (United States). Feel free to travel to other states as well and marvel at adidas' dominance over Nike. Good luck with that.
No, not too much. Although I own quiet a bit of UL apparel and I would say only a quarter of it is Adidas brand. But I mean I live in a UK heavy area of the state. The shoes is where I've caught myself noticing the most....its shocking the stranglehold Nike has around here. The only athletic shoe market around here that you'll not see Nike just absolutely dominate is the running shoe market. Other than that I would honestly estimate that 80% of the athletic shoes I've noticed the last few days are Nikes.
I read your other posts.....slappie sheep like to bleet when they know they are being led to the shears. Sheep follow the common and do what is common....buy what is common to their herd.....like buying and idolizing NIKE. Sheep gotta do what sheep gotta do in ky.
What happens in the states is shallow and pale to what happens throughout the world...especially in the global market place. Rather 'Eyes Wide Open' than parochially closed. Carry on my good, kind slappie.
I am in the same boat. It's interesting. I have a lot of UK gear but only a couple pieces that are actually Nike. I will admit that they produce better quality but I often can't stomach the higher price. I for one enjoy our new logo and Nike is the only brand that is printing it.
Stylistically I prefer under armour shoes but they are just crap quality. A good pair of nikes will outlive most others. They are just so established in the states. Much coke, Pepsi, and Budweiser. Sure you have other options, good options , but we are almost wired to fall back on Nike. It's just always been there and always been good.
Last edited:
Adidas gave IU a boatload of money. It won't shock me if UofL gets even more. They don't want to lose UofL.
