NIKE losing their mojo...

[zipp]

...esp. in North America. Who knows how much money will be sitting around for that next apparel contract?

Swoosh!

While adidas keeps rolling. And they'll probably remember who was doing business with them while others were jumping outta the canoe.

Jurich is once again the freakin' man...

 

[ThroughBlue]

Stats, link, anything?

 

[zipp]

Click on the "Swoosh" above...

 

[LockdownCard]

Still rather be affiliated with the Nike brand over Adidas ANY DAY.

 

[CardsFirst]

Every dog has their day and sooner or later a new dog moves to the top. I doubt it will be Adidas but who knows.

 

[zipp]

It's why you don't drive your car looking in the rear view mirror. What happened last year could be a little misleading...

 

[earsky]

It's why you don't drive your car looking in the rear view mirror. What happened last year could be a little misleading...

Gotta agree with you here zipp.Trends have a way of changing.Just because Nike has been trendy for a while,things tend to change and new trends develop.No telling,but maybe Jurich and UofL have positioned themselves right in the middle of the next one...

 

[Strongtino]

Depends on what you value more...money or all the benefits that come with being associated with Nike. Nike pays schools less than Adidas because they can do that and still dominate the college sports landscape. Granted Nike still forked over truckloads of cash to Texas, Michigan, and Tennessee but overall they pay school less because they can. Plus Adidas recently lost Tennessee, Michigan, UCLA and haven't really added any schools of significance (Miami, ASU). Basically the only way Adidas and Under Armor are able to compete with Nike is to overpay schools to keep them away from Nike.

I know even as a 35 year old man I think Nike's stuff is a million times better both in quality and design than Adidas stuff. From what I know and have seen from the players at Louisville they are not Adidas fans either as I've personally witnessed former players buying tons of Nike apparel after graduation. Heck just follow any player's instagram and see what they wear when they go out...spoiler alert, it ain't Adidas.

I mean, look at the schools associated with each brand and it tells you all you need to know about which brand is better and "cooler." Nike sponsored 41 of the 68 teams in the NCAA tournament this year. There are very few "elite" programs (in football or basketball) that are Adidas schools. Louisville, Kansas, Indiana, Texas A&M, Mississippi State, Arizona State, Miami, Nebraska, and NC State are basically the only D1 programs of note that are Adidas schools. Meanwhile Nike (and Under Armour to very small degree) have EVERY elite program in football and basketball. In football Texas, OSU, Michigan, Bama, LSU, FSU, Clemson, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon, MSU, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Stanford, all Nike. In basketball - UK, Duke, UNC, UConn, Arizona, MSU, Syracuse, GTown, Nova...all Nike schools. In fact 7 of the top 10 schools in the recruiting rankings this year were Nike schools, 8 of the top 10 in 2015, 7 of the top 10 in 2014, 7 of the top 10 in 2013....

Regardless of how much money UL is getting from Adidas...its not enough to not be associated with Nike. Basically we're trading cold hard cash for everything else that comes along with being a Nike sponsored school.

I hate Adidas....I'm not kidding when I say that if we were to switch to Nike that aside from the 2013 title, it would be the 2nd happiest event of my time as a UL fan.

 

[gocds]

I choose to be loyal to those that are loyal to UofL. Adidas fits that bill to a tee. Plus I seriously doubt that there is ANY true difference in the quality of either product other than what you want to believe.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

 

[JohnKBA]

I choose to be loyal to those that are loyal to UofL. Adidas fits that bill to a tee. Plus I seriously doubt that there is ANY true difference in the quality of either product other than what you want to believe.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

There is no "loyalty" in the shoe game. It's all dollars and cents. If at any point Adidas decides that giving U of L money will result in a negative ROI, that'll be the end of the relationship.

 

[gocds]

ROI, like beauty, is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. We are doing just fine with adidas and apparently they are just fine with UofL. Nike is who they are and adidas is who they are. It seems to me that adidas is very strong in golf and other sports. They have hung on to us and that's just fine with me.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

 

[nccardfan]

The down tick to Nike is due the up tick in UA. Nike is more associated with all sports, mainly BB. UA has made a lot of progress in their football gear and unfortunately Adidas is more recognized for their soccer apparel. But I try to buy adidas stuff out of their allegiance with U of L.

 

[Cue Card]

The down tick to Nike is due the up tick in UA. Nike is more associated with all sports, mainly BB. UA has made a lot of progress in their football gear and unfortunately Adidas is more recognized for their soccer apparel. But I try to buy adidas stuff out of their allegiance with U of L.

Also with the NBA.

 

[nccardfan]

Also with the popularity growing with soccer (World Cup) and the injury related issues with football, don't be surprise that adidas may be on the verge of an up tick, especially with the youth. Also there has been more speculation that The NBA is just another version of the WWE. What do MMA and UFC fighters wear?

 

[ShortCreek]

I agree with Strongtino. I hope Jurich takes a good hard look at the open market and considers the recruiting ramifications of going with Nike. I will say this, Jurich's contractual timing is spot on. We should be poised to sign one helluva deal with one of the big three! Jurich has a tough decision on whether to stay on with Adidas for the additional year or bail now. The money might actually get bigger in another 12 months, he's got a tough decision. I thought that decision had to be made by today (7/1/16)? Yes or no?

 

[zipp]

9 times outta 10, I'm taking the juice. adidas is eating everyone's lunch now financially, and I'm trusting that U of L benefits from that. Jurich for damn sure knows how to cut a deal...

 

[BonnieBeaverMD]

Adidas has finally come to realize that they can't compete with Nike when it comes to the elites of NCAA sports, and are waiving the white flag. They just announced their main focus going forward will be on small schools because they know where the elite schools allegiances stand.

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland...deals-heat-up-adidas-shifts-down.html?ana=twt

Also with the NBA.

That won't be the case after the '16-'17 season. The Adidas contract will be up and it's not getting renewed. The NBA informed Adidas that when the contract is up that it would open the bidding to other sponsors.

So, instead of getting into a bidding war that they know they'll probably lose, they tucked tail and informed the NBA that they were just going to bow out.

 

[zipp]

adidas is doing a lot better financially than the other apparel makers. If they don't want to spend the money, that's a deal they CHOOSE to lose--not because they can't afford it. Makes no sense that adidas couldn't afford a deal that Nike or UA could.

And maybe that's just sound business management on the part of adidas. They may recognize where money is well spent even if no one else does. I remain hopeful that the adidas trophy properties like U of L will become prized by them even more, and that future contracts show that...

 

[Strongtino]

Adidas being big in soccer or outfitting the NBA or making more money than Nike is essentially irrelevant to us here on the board and to the program we root for. I don't care how many Messi jerseys they've sold or how much profit the company has generated over the last quarter. I care about their place in the NCAA market and recruiting circuit and how they are perceived by kids today. In regards to those 3 things - not good. The fact that Adidas is focusing on small schools and not trying to compete with Nike isn't good. Not for us. Nike will still continue to be the "it" brand and continue to dominate the recruiting scene. Nobody cares that Adidas might outfit 80% of the MAC or every school in the CUSA. People and kids care that Nike outfits Duke, UK, UNC, Texas, UF, Ohio State, Syracuse, UConn, Michigan State, Oregon, Washington, etc. Literally the only programs of major significance in the college game that wear Adidas are UL, IU and KU. Thats it. To make matters even worse...Nike even outfits the bulk of the non-elite Power 5 schools. 70% of the Power 5 schools wear Nike.

I see these posts about Adidas and how they're doing well and I'm just thinking, "that's totally irrelevant to Louisville." Fact remains Nike dominates college athletics and its a detriment to the university to not be a Nike school.

 

[zipp]

Understood, but you're gonna have to quantify what being "it" means. It's the same issue as with the arena. I KNOW what more profits and financial success mean. If I can't put it in the bank, why does it matter?

The only thing tangible I've ever heard as a Nike advantage is their standing with basketball recruits, the "shoe kids". But since they're not typically L1C4 kids as well, wearing adidas is not really a disadvantage for U OF L BASKETBALL. Different story if we were LPT fans. (Imagine that!)

There's also a reason why Nike profits are lagging adidas. Could it be their connection with college athletes ain't what we think it is? Could it be they're overpaying for apparel contracts, and that merry-go-round will end? Maybe you can explain it--I haven't peeled back that onion.

All I care about is U of L's success, and that is usually measurable in $$$ as well as wins...

 

[Strongtino]

Its not coincidence that the best recruiting classes every year are nearly always Nike schools. Now..those programs happen to be elite programs on their own merit, but being associated with Nike only bolsters their appeal.

The shoe kids not being "L1C4" is simply a marketing ploy made up by Rick to try and justify why elite kids weren't picking UL. The kids that go to UK or Duke aren't any less team oriented or LIC4 or whatever the hell L1C4 is supposed to mean. Kids like Karl Towns, Anthony Davis, Brandon Ingram, Jamal Murray, Justice Winslow, Harry Giles, Stanley Johnson, Myles Turner, Treyl Lyles etc..aren't bad kids or aren't kids that didn't want coaching or to play team ball. They were elite kids that wanted to go to schools that allowed them to play and get drafted and those kids are nearly always "owned" by Nike. Look at what shoe companies did to Antonio Blakeny...shoe companies matter when it comes to getting elite kids.

Now, you can compete without an association with Nike. Somehow Bill Self and Kansas has managed to ruin every elite player that has came through their program over the last 10 years and elite players continue to go there without the help of Nike...and Louisville has obviously been successful as well. But schools like Louisville won't be elite year in and year out without these elite "shoe" kids. Look, UK and Duke keep losing half their roster and keep making final fours...because of these kids. Louisville can compete but you'll have to sit through seasons of just being "good" and waiting for the parts to gel and hoping nobody gets hurt. (UL in 2013) But you're also going to have to sit through seasons like the one UL's about to embark on where we'll be "good" but we're not going to be elite and we're not going to a Final Four (without some luck). But if everyone stays and UL snags a top 5 class this year...they'll be elite next year. But schools like Duke and UK will be elite this year..lose 2-4 players and be elite again next year because they're associated with Nike and their program is set up to recruit these kids. I don't see why its a bad idea to play the game.

 

[shadow force]

Nothing is guaranteed though even if a team gets a lot of "shoe" kids. Yes SOME of the teams that get them have a lot of success but even still Duke has had plenty of early round NCCAT exits and Uk has had a first round NIT flame out and a round of 32 loss just last season. Sometimes you just never know. And as you've said KU has also had many early NCAAT exists in recent times. Also LSU had the #1 pick in Simmons and didn't even make the NCAAT.

Also I wonder how much our recruiting really comes down to the shoe brand or Rick being a tough coach to play for. Rick's style of coaching/playing definitely isn't for every player. I would like for UofL to get at least a couple of the top tier guys now and then- that would be nice- especially if they could mix with a roster of other experienced upper classmen. And with Pitino's coaching I'm sure UofL would have a lot of success. However his system and style really depends on upper classmen and guys that have been in his system and know how to play it- especially on defense. That's when he's had the most success here.

Rick does bring in good talent and has had some diamonds in the rough- Russ, Gorgui, etc. I don't want UofL to follow Uk and- lately- Duke's system of almost complete roster turnover year after year though. I just don't think Pitino would want that nor do I think it would work with the way he coaches here.

 

[zipp]

Pitino's never said that Nike kids are not L1C4. However, if a kid is indeed a big time "shoe kid", he's clearly not putting team first. He wants what a shoe company and that school can do for him.

That's the other end of the spectrum from L1C4.

Pitino doesn't say that explicitly, IMO so he can recruit those kids anyway and maybe land a kid not so individually focused. But that's the logical relationship. I'm also perfectly fine with Pitino harboring that sentiment.

The U of L kids I wanna see scrutinized the most are 5-star Nike prospects. My question is "why does that kid wanna come here?" Will he handle Pitino's boot camp, or will he pout and sulk when he doesn't get the minutes he's entitled to?

With those questions as a backdrop, give me as much of that adidas money as I can get...

 

[Strongtino]

I don't buy the logic that "shoe kids" are somehow bad. Look at all the great "shoe kids" who've came through college basketball over the 5-6 years and by all accounts been great kids. I think kids get associated with the shoes and therefore people assume that because they're a "Nike kid" then it means they're somehow selfish when in reality being a "shoe kid" is just part of the game - its part of the process. Was Mike Kidd-Gilchrist a bad or selfish kid for being associated with Nike? Anthony Davis? Tyus Jones? Justice Winslow? No...thats my point. These kids are associated with Nike and therefore are only going to go to Nike schools. So why are we handcuffing ourselves by associating with Adidas? Because they pay us a couple of million more than we can get with Nike? Its not worth it. This doesn't even take into account the fact that Nike is nearly unanimously favored by kids over Adidas in both football and basketball either.

Now I will say that switching to Nike won't solve the recruiting problem. Rick runs an overly complicated system that's difficult to pick up and difficult to play in and most highly talented high school kids probably don't want the hassle of learning his system. But less talented Freshman have had success here so I'm confident that if elite Freshman were to ever give Rick's system a try and show success then it could snowball and put to rest that Rick isn't a "freshman friendly" coach.

 

[zipp]

I said "if indeed a kid is a big time 'shoe kid'..." That label probably doesn't apply to your examples. And not being Nike may not be a detriment. To your point, they don't wanna play for Pitino for OTHER reasons.

Sounds to me like your issues are as much with Pitino as they are with adidas. That's not this thread...

 

[Strongtino]

I said "if indeed a kid is a big time 'shoe kid'..." That label probably doesn't apply to your examples. And not being Nike may not be a detriment. To your point, they don't wanna play for Pitino for OTHER reasons.

Sounds to me like your issues are as much with Pitino as they are with adidas. That's not this thread...

I'm not the biggest Pitino supporter but thats mostly because his system requires too much to fall into place for the team to be successful whereas if you simply recruit better talent, you increase your chances of being successful. Rick's entire tenure at UL has revolved around coaching up the 30-70 ranked kids and finding the diamonds in the rough that nobody else wanted (Russ, Kuric) and taking on transfers. That all came to pass when he got a special kid in Peyton, a top 50ish kid in Gorgui and the luckiest and greatest recruiting diamond in the rough he's ever going to come across in Russ Smith all together and healthy at the same time and surrounded them with a late addition recruit (Trezl) a transfer (Luke) and pure talent in Chane. Take away that 2 year run with that core in 13' and '14 and look at his resume...its good, not great. 2 Final Fours and an average NCAA seeding of 4.5.

I know Rick isn't going to change. I simply want to remove the barrier of Adidas from the program and see if it helps us land better recruits. I'm tired of hoping every Summer that Rick can't convince the 14th ranked PG in his class to commit or that some kid ranked 60th is torn between UL and Arkansas or Florida. It shouldn't be this hard to get elite kids to commit to an elite school...know how many 5 star kids have came to UL in Rick's tenure? 5. In 15 years. A program such as Louisville's should be bringing in at least 1 truly elite kid in every class but we're not and I can't imagine that its simply because elite kids don't want to play for Rick Pitino.

 

[Knucklehank1]

Understood, but you're gonna have to quantify what being "it" means. It's the same issue as with the arena. I KNOW what more profits and financial success mean. If I can't put it in the bank, why does it matter?

The only thing tangible I've ever heard as a Nike advantage is their standing with basketball recruits, the "shoe kids". But since they're not typically L1C4 kids as well, wearing adidas is not really a disadvantage for U OF L BASKETBALL. Different story if we were LPT fans. (Imagine that!)

There's also a reason why Nike profits are lagging adidas. Could it be their connection with college athletes ain't what we think it is? Could it be they're overpaying for apparel contracts, and that merry-go-round will end? Maybe you can explain it--I haven't peeled back that onion.

All I care about is U of L's success, and that is usually measurable in $$$ as well as wins...

Nike's profits are almost double Adidas and its market cap is almost 3x Adidas. Adidas is growing its business but don't sit here and pretend that Nike is hurting.

 

[zipp]

Pitino landed better recruits before his successful run, as you think of it. Earl Clark, Derrick Caracter, Terrence Jennings, Samardo Samuels--all of those guys were rated higher than U of L's highest rated recruit (Chane Behanan) in the last decade. And while those players could do some impressive things, those TEAMS could not. IMO, that's exactly why Pitino has the system in place that he does now.

You're wanting to revert back to a coach-system match that didn't deliver as expected. We may get the occasional 5-star kid who WANTS to be worked hard and doesn't give a damn about the shoes he's wearing. I think that's as close to what you want as we're gonna see...

 

[zipp]

Nike's profits are almost double Adidas and its market cap is almost 3x Adidas. Adidas is growing its business but don't sit here and pretend that Nike is hurting.

As Doc Ramsey says, it's all about "trajectory". adidas stock price is the top trendline, Nike in the middle, UA at the bottom...

Where they are today is looking in the rear view mirror. A company with 3X the market cap oughta have better than 2X the profits. Show me the money...

 

[Knucklehank1]

As Doc Ramsey says, it's all about "trajectory". adidas stock price is the top trendline, Nike in the middle, UA at the bottom...

Where they are today is looking in the rear view mirror. A company with 3X the market cap oughta have better than 2X the profits. Show me the money...

The stock price and profits are not the same thing. You said that Nike's profits were lagging Adidas. That is a false statement. What else in your posts are fabricated?

 

[zipp]

The stock price and profits are not the same thing. You said that Nike's profits were lagging Adidas. That is a false statement. What else in your posts are fabricated?

Absolute profit has no relevance unless the companies are the same size. adidas profits are growing faster than Nike's, and profits drive everything. It's why their stock prices are showing the relative performances in the chart. Give me the company (and school) with "trajectory".

Kinda like saying the LPT game generates as much interest as any other basketball game, when nothing related to the basketball regular season--especially OOC--really matters. Nobody in our fanbase really gives an ish unless, like knuckles, he's a little brother.

"Elite program", my a$$...

 

[Strongtino]

Stock prices and profits neither one matter. Adidas is much more popular in soccer - the world's most popular sport so naturally that will generate a buttload of revenue and drive stock prices but their involvement in soccer has nothing to do with Louisville athletics.

None of this business talk is relevant to Louisville in my opinion. Answer these two questions as these are the only 2 questions that should matter to Louisville:

1. Which brand overwhelmingly dominates college basketball?
2. Which brand is overwhelmingly more popular with today's kids?

I literally don't know a single kid or single personal friend that prefers Adidas to Nike.

PS. Also the fact that Adidas is supposedly making all this money and still not going to invest in college basketball at the highest level, is telling. Signing up more and more crap level schools isn't improving their image or their brand with todays kids.

 

[zipp]

Stock prices and profits neither one matter. Adidas is much more popular in soccer - the world's most popular sport so naturally that will generate a buttload of revenue and drive stock prices but their involvement in soccer has nothing to do with Louisville athletics.

None of this business talk is relevant to Louisville in my opinion. Answer these two questions as these are the only 2 questions that should matter to Louisville:

1. Which brand overwhelmingly dominates college basketball?
2. Which brand is overwhelmingly more popular with today's kids?

I literally don't know a single kid or single personal friend that prefers Adidas to Nike.

PS. Also the fact that Adidas is supposedly making all this money and still not going to invest in college basketball at the highest level, is telling. Signing up more and more crap level schools isn't improving their image or their brand with todays kids.

Since we're posing questions and making requests, address THE most relevant one...

Find me a few kids, esp. kids who were on U of L's radar, who chose to attend a Nike school and disclosed that as a key decision factor. I can't recall a single one, but I don't follow recruiting as closely as some do.

Shouldn't be too tough if this apparel brand issue is as big as claimed. And I'm looking completely past the secondary issue of whether that kid using that criterion was a good fit for U of L. If he says Nike mattered a lot, do I want that kid at U of L anyway?...

 

[shadow force]

I know Rick isn't going to change. I simply want to remove the barrier of Adidas from the program and see if it helps us land better recruits. I'm tired of hoping every Summer that Rick can't convince the 14th ranked PG in his class to commit or that some kid ranked 60th is torn between UL and Arkansas or Florida. It shouldn't be this hard to get elite kids to commit to an elite school...know how many 5 star kids have came to UL in Rick's tenure? 5. In 15 years. A program such as Louisville's should be bringing in at least 1 truly elite kid in every class but we're not and I can't imagine that its simply because elite kids don't want to play for Rick Pitino.

And what if switching to Nike still didn't help us land better recruits?

I'm all for UofL going with the best possible brand but I do wonder how much is it Pitino and his system that isn't drawing these recruits in and how much it has to do with shoe brands. Also Zipp brought up a good point about Pitino getting his highest ranked recruits in the past BEFORE the Championship and how those players didn't lead to a title or a Final Four. As long as Pitino keeps UofL doing well like he has been the last several seasons then I'm okay with his recruiting.

I also wonder though if the lack of NBA success- especially with those higher ranking recruits in the past- is a factor in why he can't seem to land the "elite" recruits today.

 

[Knucklehank1]

Absolute profit has no relevance unless the companies are the same size. adidas profits are growing faster than Nike's, and profits drive everything. It's why their stock prices are showing the relative performances in the chart. Give me the company (and school) with "trajectory".

Kinda like saying the LPT game generates as much interest as any other basketball game, when nothing related to the basketball regular season--especially OOC--really matters. Nobody in our fanbase really gives an ish unless, like knuckles, he's a little brother.

"Elite program", my a$$...

Lol. Absolute profit doesn't matter, only trajectory?? In case you didn't know, you can't deposit a trend line at the bank.

 

[Strongtino]

Zipp, I'm not sure there's ever been a case, (aside from Antonio Blakeny last Summer) where being Nike or Adidas was blatantly mentioned in a kids recruiting but EVERYONE knows its there. I mean there's article after article discussing shoe companies and how they influence recruits. Heck our own coach has mentioned it multiple times.

"What I personally don't like (is) I can't recruit a kid because he wears Nike on the AAU circuit," Pitino said. "I had never heard of such a thing and it's happening in our world. Or, he's on the Adidas circuit, so the Nike schools don't want him."

The idea that being a Nike or Adidas school doesn't impact your recruiting in any way is very naive. I'm not saying switching to Nike will improve our recruiting and my desire to switch to Nike is as much about personal preference for Nike as it is about recruiting. I just think Nike is miles better than Adidas...I can't recall ever owning a pair of Adidas shoes and I literally own more Reebok stuff than Adidas if that tells you anything. Again, I'm not saying switching to Nike solves anything....I'm just saying it can't hurt because its obviously playing some sort of role in our recruiting. Whats the worst that can happen? I'll guarantee you switching to Nike will not have a negative impact on our program.

 

[zipp]

Lol. Absolute profit doesn't matter, only trajectory?? In case you didn't know, you can't deposit a trend line at the bank.

Don't misquote me. Profit growth is what matters. It's what financial ratios (like PEG) and analysis is based on. And it's what adidas has in spades over Nike.

Not surprised you don't understand this subject. Stick with sports...

 

[Knucklehank1]

Don't misquote me. Profit growth is what matters. It's what financial ratios (like PEG) and analysis is based on. And it's what adidas has in spades over Nike.

Not surprised you don't understand this subject. Stick with sports...

You are truly clueless on this. I thought you had financial acumen but that looks to be shaky. Profit growth is a piece of the puzzle, its not the whole puzzle (unless of course your name is Zipp and you have a narrative to cling to). Your statement was that Nike's profits "were lagging behind Adidas". That statement is not true. Had you said Nike's profit growth over X number of months is lagging Adidas then there would be truth. The financial health of a company is not wholly determined by its profit growth. If you think that then I'm guessing you were a big Enron investor. Better learn to read that balance sheet.

 

[zipp]

You are truly clueless on this. I thought you had financial acumen but that looks to be shaky. Profit growth is a piece of the puzzle, its not the whole puzzle (unless of course your name is Zipp and you have a narrative to cling to). Your statement was that Nike's profits "were lagging behind Adidas". That statement is not true. Had you said Nike's profit growth over X number of months is lagging Adidas then there would be truth. The financial health of a company is not wholly determined by its profit growth. If you think that then I'm guessing you were a big Enron investor. Better learn to read that balance sheet.

You were probably right about my financial acumen before, and you're just digger yourself a deeper hole now. YOU are the guy expounding incorrectly on the term "lagging" profits. Nowhere did I say go to an income statement and quote me a number. Nor do you evidently understand what the difference is between profit and what Enron was doing.

I didn't expect to be doing in-depth financial analysis in this space--that's the path you're trying to go down. I'll just leave you with this... There are only a few reasons to explain a significant increase in stock price: (1) an overall rise in the market, (2) takeover speculation, and (3) underlying profits. (1) is a rising tide that floats all boats, even one with holes like Nike. (2) is not applicable to any of the athletic apparel companies that I'm aware of. Which only leaves (3). It doesn't take a deeper understanding of corporate finance than that, which is good news for you!...

 

[Strongtino]

Anyone who thinks Adidas is anywhere close to Nike in terms of brand value, market share, and/or popularity is only kidding themselves. Nike is far, far more popular and their brand is worth nearly 3 times the value of Adidas.

Nike owns 62% of the footwear market.
Adidas owns 5%

Nike owns 13% of the activewear market
Adidas owns 3% and is now behind Under Armor in this area.

I don't care what method of crunching numbers you're using...Nike has a stranglehold on the athletic industry no matter you slice it and its not close.