If the rumors and message board reports are to be believed, perhaps “new” apparel deal is not entirely accurate. In recent weeks, the message board and podcast world of Notre Dame has been discussing the current negotiating window for a new apparel deal. The current 10-year deal with Under Armour is set to expire in June 2024, just a little less than a year from now.
Initially, there had been reporting that Under Armour were still in the picture but Adidas and Nike were being considered and putting together their best pitch deck and financial package towards Notre Dame. Up until this past week, momentum seemed to be growing from sources inside Notre Dame that the school may be ready to sign with Nike.
However, within a day or two it has appeared that Notre Dame is ready to re-sign with Under Armour. If so, this would be a mistake.
The Support for Nike
I won’t even pretend to hide my bias. I am among the biggest Nike proponents you will ever meet. We can discuss the negatives of the company but on the positive side they are an American icon with massive influence and power. They make the best gear. They have the widest range of apparel choices. Their design, commercial, advertising, and promotion abilities are some of the best in the world out of any company in any industry.
Plus, Nike is super popular. In Pete Sampson’s recent Notre Dame Fan Survey on the Athletic from 1,600 responses he published the following for what the logo should be on the 2024 football jerseys:
Nike – 43.2%
Jordan – 26.6%
Adidas – 10.2%
Other – 9.3%
Under Armour – 8.4%
New Balance – 2.2%
*Jordan Brand is essentially a subsidiary of Nike. If you’re a Nike school (like Duke, Texas, Alabama) you can wear Air Jordan sneakers for basketball but don’t receive Jordan branding on uniforms or many other Jordan branded apparel. If you’re a certified Jordan school (includes Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and UCLA among the Power 5 football programs) you have the Jumpman logo on your uniforms and a mixture of Jordan and Nike apparel and gear.
In poking around other places in the Notre Dame-sphere those figures might even feel a little low in favor of the Swoosh. Not everyone wants Nike but sometimes it feels like it.
Behold, the results of the fourth annual Notre Dame Fan Survey. What you think of Marcus Freeman, the NBC contract, the NIL push and how much you’d pay to see Ohio St.
Did I mention out Summer Sale for new subscribers at $1 per month for the first year?https://t.co/26pyg5ac1x
— Pete Sampson (@PeteSampson_) June 20, 2023
In years past, I used to bring it up about what the players and coaching staff want at Notre Dame. Sometimes people would say that the players don’t care that much and you still hear the tired phrase “nobody is deciding which college to attend based off the clothing they are going to wear!” Well, it seems like people in and around the program are not shy about stating the athletes definitely prefer Nike just as much as the fans.
For many, its a tough pill to swallow with the popularity of Nike and the nepotism present with Cal Swarbrick working at Under Armour straight out of college just as the initial deal with Notre Dame began and he’s now a company lead for North American Collegiate Sports Marketing.
NIL Money
I had been monitoring the news around a potential new deal and the hype in connection with NIL as part of an apparel package was growing to ridiculous levels. A while back, it seemed like some of the beat media suggested NIL could potentially be a part of a new deal but with no details it allowed people’s imaginations to run wild.
It got to the point where people were believing a new deal was going to be funneling millions of dollars to recruits in an industry defining NIL breakthrough for the Irish football team. And quite often, this was being framed (acquisition fees!) as something that Under Armour was willing to do but Nike was not–at least not nearly to the same degree.
I would imagine that most Notre Dame fans, like me, realized this was fantasy. In other places, I saw a smaller version of this NIL fantasy in which Under Armour was going to set aside millions each year in order to pay Irish athletes for a nation-wide advertising campaign that provided significant money to the star players.
That sounds cool, but also begs the question why Under Armour hasn’t been doing that at any point over the last 9 years while contracted to Notre Dame for $9 million per year and the ability to create ad campaigns for a fraction of the cost of this ‘new’ NIL fantasy.
This past Wednesday, a tweet from Pete Sampson teasing a discussion with Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick pretty much shut the door to NIL being this game-changer in the new apparel deal.
More on NIL/apparel deal overlap:
“We’re much more focused on gaining the resources that allow us to do things directly for our students.”
Swarbrick said Notre Dame has done more fact finding with other schools this round to learn brand experiences with Nike, Jordan, etc.
— Pete Sampson (@PeteSampson_) June 28, 2023
No one should be surprised.
The University of Notre Dame will continue to struggle with NIL and that’s not going away any time soon. Especially if we are looking at the acquisition fees of the NIL world. The NCAA just recently stiffened their guidelines surrounding NIL and if you read their statements a certain way at some point penalties or something of that sort are going to make their way back into the sport. Notre Dame isn’t going to suddenly reverse course and jump into this head-first because Under Armour wants to help out and throw even more record-breaking money their way.
Total Money
So how big is the next apparel expected to be?
Back in 2016, Ohio State signed a $252 million deal for 15 years with Nike that went into effect for 2018-19 and runs through 2033. That has re-set the industry and there are rumors Notre Dame could be signing a 15-year deal worth $300 million with Under Armour. There has been additional scuttlebutt that Under Armour came back with a 3rd offer to top Nike so is it possible the Baltimore-based company is willing to go over $20 million per year in a new deal with Notre Dame?
This is probably a sticking point for a lot of Irish fans. If Under Armour is willing to go up to and above $20 million per year and Nike isn’t going above, let’s say $17.5 million per year, then there’s the belief that Notre Dame is within their right and would be silly to walk away from the extra money.
On the surface, it makes sense. More so if you’re someone who doesn’t really care what apparel Notre Dame wears, just as long as they are getting paid the most money.
However, it’s important to dig deeper. Under Armour is not in very good financial standing right now. Back in March when I wrote that Notre Dame was likely to re-sign with Under Armour I remarked how Swarbrick’s said they believed they were partnering with a future $20 billion company back in 2014 and today they are down about $100 million from March 2023 to $3.05 billion.
Nike is worth $174 billion and just topped the $50 billion in annual revenue as their Q4 just closed. Under Armour laid off 50 corporate workers last month, just hired their 2nd new CEO since Kevin Plank stepped down in 2020, they’re coming off a 1% decline in North American sales in 2022, and were passed by Lululemon in revenue back in 2021.
Notre Dame being a small part of Nike’s portfolio would still be amazing.
If Nike truly wanted Notre Dame wouldn’t they outbid Under Armour? Perhaps, but at the same time someone like me sees the rumored figures and hears, “Notre Dame could’ve signed the largest apparel deal in the country with Nike but instead opted for more money with Under Armour.” That’s not a slight towards Nike.
It’s like if football coaches had to pay to coach at Notre Dame. Would you rather hire Pat Narduzzi offering $8 million per year or would you rather hire Kirby Smart offering $5 million per year? While it’s true a lot of people don’t care about the apparel, the people who do care about it–especially the athletes–would clearly prefer Nike if even for less money. It’s a no brainer.
We also have to factor in Notre Dame apparently losing money on the current deal with Under Armour when their stock price tanked. They also had to renege on their 15-year $280 million deal with UCLA and paid the school $67 million to get out of the contract. Under Armour has also lost contracts from several other FBS schools in recent years.
More money may sound great today but you really have to wonder whether Notre Dame should be putting itself in a situation where they might want out of a deal and realize Under Armour’s offer may seem a little too good to be true–perhaps even desperate.
Gaining Resources That Allow Us to Do Things for Our Students
In the tweet embedded above Swarbrick mentions the apparel deal in relation to resources for students. It doesn’t make a lot of sense at first but it’s important to understand how these large apparel deals are structured. It may come as a surprise that an athletic deal for a university doesn’t always impact athletes and is spread around the school in many different ways.
For example, if a company pays Notre Dame $20 million per year typically as much as 60% of that money comes in the form of apparel, gear, and equipment from the vendor to the school. That would leave $8 million per year for other uses. With that extra money quite often the school negotiates certain parameters about where those funds go. Some money will be used for scholarships, or grants, or to set up and maintain internships on campus. Some of the money will be earmarked straight away to non-athletic university needs.
So in reality when you see $20 million per year it’s not unrealistic to find out that very little of that money, in terms of cash, makes its way to Notre Dame athletics or Notre Dame football specifically. And I would imagine that at a school like Notre Dame–whose athletic department profit gets funneled to the overall university funds–this is even more true.
Therefore, when Swarbrick mentions resources for students that’s probably more in line with what he’s talking about with a new apparel deal. I think in some ways Swarbrick is catching too much heat for not making a new deal with Nike or Under Armour to be this big unveiling of NIL magic because that’s not how current apparel contracts are written and with Notre Dame’s history and background making that jump was never going to be realistic. To criticize Swarbrick for not bringing acquisition fees from a university vendor is wide of the mark.
However, back in 2014 Swarbrick did have this to say in the official press release when the Under Armour deal was announced:
“I think it [10-year Under Armour deal] will impact our culture in direct ways. Make us more creative, more inventive, allow us to move more quickly and to be fundamentally entrepreneurial.” Swarbrick also “asked Under Armour to make Notre Dame its laboratory for new technology.”
Truthfully, there’s a lot of public relations fluff involved when these deals are signed. Much has been made about Notre Dame being the flagship college program for Under Armour and you have to ask after almost a decade what has that brought the Irish?
Marcus, Micah & Niele
I grew up idolizing athletes like Michael Jordan, Bo Jackson, Ken Griffey, Jr., and Tiger Woods. What they all have in common is that they are famous black athletes sponsored by Nike. Back in 2014 I scoffed at all the talk about “hey a lot of kids are wearing Under Armour hoodies these days!” knowing it would probably fade. It has, but Nike has remained the king.
It doesn’t take a sociology study to figure out that black America has been a major driver of fashion and cool throughout this country’s history and Nike’s impact through athletes has played a massive role in that 40-year impact.
In that light, it would be a disappointment to see Notre Dame run back to Under Armour knowing how popular Nike is with its heavily black football and basketball programs, and especially at a time when Marcus Freemen, Micah Shrewsberry, and Niele Ivey are all young and black head coaches in the most prominent positions in Notre Dame athletics.
The Big Picture
Let’s continue with the figure above where Under Armour signs Notre Dame to a 15-year deal and the difference over the lifespan of the deal ends up being $37.5 million, or $2.5 million per season. Sure, that’s a lot of money.
However, let’s look at the wider picture of a business deal over that long period of a time.
I’ve heard people say they don’t understand why Under Armour won’t pay x amount of money for a Notre Dame commit to be in a commercial for their product. You could also point the finger at Coca-Cola, Credit Union 1, Nissan, Allstate, and Citibank as they are all Notre Dame athletics sponsors, too.
For example, take 5-star defensive end prospect Elijah Rushing in this 2024 cycle. The Arizona high schooler currently has 5,153 followers on Twitter and 3,277 followers on Instagram. Putting Rushing in an Under Armour commercial for $200,000 is a steal for Notre Dame and Rushing himself. For Under Armour, it’s terrible business.
There’s literally zero upside for Under Armour (or any other corporation) to do this. On a national level, recruits and college football players are unknown, not personable enough to sell products, they might leave an Under Armour school months after filming a commercial, and there’s far too many players for it to make an impact for Notre Dame.
You could argue Under Armour should set aside something like $2 million that Notre Dame could spread around to all athletes on campus–something that is unlikely but also not super unrealistic. Well, congratulations because with the amount of varsity athletes on campus that would be only $2,500 to each player.
Besides that, acquisition fees sound awesome in a recruiting world but are only great if you like hemorrhaging money.
Such is the conundrum with Under Armour. They are poised to offer a very large apparel deal to Notre Dame (message board scuttlebutt says they are taking out a large loan to make it happen) and if there were to be any more NIL strings attached that would cost even more money for UA while bringing in almost zero value. In the end, it would accelerate the current struggles for the company.
Now, let’s take a look at the social media differences between Nike and Under Armour.
Under Armour Social Media Followers:
Under Armour Twitter – 965k
Under Armour Football Twitter – 47k
Under Armour Basketball Twitter – 82k
Under Armour Instagram – 8.3 million
Under Armour Football Instagram – 500k
Under Armour Basketball Instagram – 1.7 million
Under Armour YouTube – 275k
Under Armour Facebook – 11.6 million
TOTAL: 23.4 million
Nike Social Media Followers:
Nike.com Twitter – 5.2 million
Nike Twitter – 9.8 million
Nike Football Twitter – 387k
Nike Basketball Twitter – 2.5 million
Nike Instagram – 300 million
Nike Football Instagram – 2.4 million
Nike Basketball Instagram – 15.1 million
Nike YouTube – 1.7 million
Nike Facebook – 38.3 million
TOTAL: 375.3 million
NOTE: Nike.com Twitter is largely selling retail while the Nike Twitter page has retail plus a large serving of all things Nike.
I looked at Under Armour’s main Instagram page and the last Notre Dame football post was back on December 20, 2020 ahead of the national semi-final game against Alabama. The video has 66,609 views. The last post on the football Under Armour Instagram page was back when the Vegas Shamrock Series uniforms were unveiled with 18,404 likes. Prior to that, the last post was a video for the Cincinnati matchup back on September 29, 2021 with 5,023 views.
Nike hit 12 million Instagram followers in February 2015, a figure UA has yet to pass.
All of this for being the flagship brand for Under Armour, right?
Consider the growth of soccer in the United States and Notre Dame with 2 competitive programs on campus (combined 4 National Championships) attached to an Under Armour FC Instagram page with just a tick under 99,000 followers. Just one post on the Nike FC Instagram page (45.6 million followers) would be worth 100 years of exposure and advertising with Under Armour.
These numbers highlight a key difference between the apparel choices. Some may think it’s like the broadcast deal where Notre Dame could decide between NBC, or let’s say ESPN, for arguments sake. This apparel decision isn’t quite as similar. The upcoming choice is more analogous to the Irish refusing ESPN (Nike) in favor of CBS Sports Network largely because they’re willing to pay 15% more money over the duration of a deal when football games are seen by an average of 4.3 million viewers with the former and 230,000 viewers with the latter.
Is it possible Notre Dame has leaked an Under Armour deal to have Nike (or even Adidas!) come over the top with an even better offer? Sure, however when Notre Dame announced the switch from Adidas to Under Armour they did so in January 2014 after the football season was over with the deal beginning 5 months later. Given the info that has been swirling and with Swarbrick announcing a decision probably coming this month 11 months before the current deal expires, it is likely partnering with Under Armour yet again.
If ND resigns with Under Armour, every ND reporter who doesn’t mention Cal Swarbrick by the end of the second paragraph of their stories on it is basically a coward practicing access journalism.
You can just say Pete Sampson
Six months from now, he’ll tell us what he knew all along but couldn’t report despite being, you know….a reporter.
Why expect anything different at this point. ND loves to play with one hand tied behind its back. I’m sure New Balance was the fall back plan if Under Armour didn’t pan out. Stupid…….
Basically the guy in yellow looking around the tree just waiting to copy Boston College.
Aaaaaaaaaand Justin Scott to Thee OSU
Well at least we’ve got another great receiving class.
Wait what?
Was there any scuttlebutt around Canion? If we lost him to UGA, that would make sense, but GT seems weird.
He wanted to stay close to home (apparently a rumor about one of his family members not liking to fly). At least his actions matched his motivation
I know he was very familiar with the campus and coaches, but I didn’t think he was as high on ND as it seemed when he didn’t have them as a part of his summer tour of official visits. Hurts since he was a geographical and culture fit more than most at the position, but ND doesn’t get 5-star DL so I’m not that surprised or disappointed. Sucks but would have hurt worse if it was Elston and Michigan I guess.
Yea it’s hard to expect these kind of commits but unless we finish with like 7 4 stars we are trending down in terms of talent. A 5 star talent (esp. on the DL) would have been worth a couple of those 4 stars.
It’s such a shame that our potentially best recruiting head-coach got started right when NIL puts us even further behind in these races it would seem.
On the other hand, what’s happened to our defense recruiting this year? We are taking all kinds of fliers and most of the defensive side of the ball is the bottom 3rd of our class.
And clearly having an elite QB in the class from the beginning is a little overrated. While the offensive class is good (and Williams will be a stud), it doesn’t seem like Carr has really given a boost overall.
After Elite 11, we can now say with some confidence that Carr isn’t even really an elite QB. He’s very good, probably still the most exciting incoming high school ND QB recruit since Gunner Kiel (ha), but a second-tier QB prospect. He’s not really in contention for top-2 or -3 QB consideration nationally any more.
CONCERN about CJ Carr after his NON ELITE Elite 11 performance??
Yea, that’s a little over the top ND09. As far as I’m aware Elite 11 names the top guy and that’s it. I saw others rank them and 2 out of 3 ranked him in the top 4 I believe and one had him at like 8. If anything, at least based on those reports, I was encouraged since I was slightly worried about On3’s far lower grading of him. The only ones he seemed to be clearly below are Raiola and Sayin.
Put him on the Greer Martini Award watchlist
Maybe a little alarmist of me but I spend most of the time on the 247 message board where a lot of people think he’s going to be a day 1 starter.
He still appears to be the best ND QB recruit in a while but I guess my point is he appears to be properly ranked around 50 rather than being Trevor Lawrence or something. (Not that people here are saying that, but that is definitely the vibe from some over at 247.)
That makes more sense. Yes definitely not an immediate high-level college QB from day 1. Obviously, most classes have between 0-1 of those QBs so that’s not saying much in a way (except of course if it is responding to a real claim that people are making). I simply wouldn’t want to rule out him becoming a high-level – even elite – college QB in time and I wouldn’t want to rule out the possibility of him starting right away (but that depends on the other guys too).
There are various factors that come into play with all these things and there’s nothing from his elite 11 performance that would rule these things out. Some freshmen seem to show up on campus and stand-out right away (surprising many) and some don’t. Talent isn’t the only reason.
From what I’ve read, just random snippets that pop up in random places, not ND specific. It sounds like he’s been one of the more accurate QBs out there. Of all our recent high profile whiffs, accuracy issues seem to be a common thread.
Yeah in fairness Buchner did affirmatively poorly at national camps and tumbled down the rankings. Carr did a good job and was somewhere in the second tier of QBs (as noted by others), and I think he’ll be maintaining his high-four-star rankings, more or less.
To be clear, given all that, I’m still enthusiastic about Carr; I just don’t think there’s any reason to think he’ll be starting in 2024 absent an injury or two. It would have been nice if Buchner stuck around and started next year and maybe 2025 and ND could have had a smooth progression of homegrown guys. Alas.
I don’t care too much either way, but that was a lot to try and justify taking a lesser $ due to coolness and clout.
If Nike doesn’t value Notre Dame enough to outbid a smaller competitor, I don’t mind if ND stays with UA as a result. Seems natural if it actually is the best offer to take it. I realize that end result wouldn’t be popular though.
This kind of implies that Nike is only offering something like $5 million a year or something in that range.
The whole “UA values ND!” and other companies don’t if they won’t throw a winning bid is a silly argument.
But at the end of the day that’s literally all UA has going for it now. The struggling company throwing out a big offer and hoping Notre Dame ignores all the reasons not to sign. Their pitch deck must’ve been amazing.
I wasn’t trying to imply anything new, just going off your article’s supposition that the UA offer could be $37.5 million higher. If those figures are accurate, it’s pretty obvious why Notre Dame would go in that direction. That might be all UA has, but that’s also enough
Personally, I don’t really care about the “UA values ND!” talk, I meant to get across that it is more incumbent on Nike, bidding on a contract they don’t have, to really step to the plate. If they truly wanted ND or saw the growth/value of having them in the portfolio, they would. If they don’t, then they’re not going to win just because it’s a cool brand and they have a large social media footprint
But the ‘stepping up to the plate’ is only framed for you in terms of total dollars of the deal, right?
If you’re just going to chase the money (however risky that money will be given UA’s recent history!) and ignore literally everything else that comes with an apparel deal, then there’s really nothing else to talk about.
I wouldn’t say it’s that binary, it’s a worthy conversation to consider the full scope. But the bottom line is called the bottom line for a reason.
The info you have is reasonable and worth considering if the $ gap (especially after the merch) offsets the other elements of a complex decision. Just that there is a point where the answer slides to no. It’s certainly reasonable that point can be different depending on perspective.
I’ll be interested to see where the total years for the deal ends up. A 15-year deal just seems wild to me. I would hope ND structures it where they get a lot of cash up front if it’s that long.
Jeez, I hope it’s not 15 years. Bevacqua needs to have the ability to get out of this quickly. 5 at most, and even that’s pushing it.
Agreed — that’s the part of the deal that I found most questionable. Keep it short
I’m all for that. In the rapidly changing landscape of college athletics – and especially for an independent like ND- I don’t see the wisdom in 15 years. The last contract at 10 was plenty long enough.
Yea I would be especially worried about the financial health of UA after they basically reneged on their deal with UCLA didn’t they? If you can’t even be 100% sure you’ll see all the extra money – it’s not worth it.
According to a quick check of cnbc, UA’s debt/equity is low and recent net/gross margins are ok and EBITDA post-COVID has grown higher than ever for them. I don’t get the sense backing out of UCLA is indicative of a major red flag for the company’s (above suggested) potential failing financial health, perhaps a strategic adjustment.
But obviously the company’s value/worth isn’t near what was hoped a decade ago either and perception/momentum is not encouraging either.
All that to say, the least of my concerns would be that Under Armour would be incapable of living up to a deal they made with Notre Dame, especially since I’m assuming the contractual terms ND should be able to strike ought to be be extremely favorable.
@Boy what a bunch of dopes those people running things at ND must be.@
ND’s athletic department tends to do better when it makes big decisions by normal (for lack of a better word) processes, and worse when it makes big decisions by opaque inside baseball processes. There are at least 3 things that strike me as off about the process of this decision:
-ND’s existing position as a significant UA stockholder and associated losses
-Swarbrick negotiating a major deal when his successor is already identified
-Swarbrick’s nepotistic relationship with UA (yes, this is inappropriate and it does matter)
The right way to handle this is for Bevacqua to make the decision after a true open bidding process, without Swarbrick’s involvement.
Swarbrick’s comment about benefitting ND athletes is intriguing, but certainly not any NIL money. A for profit company directly funneling money to a prospect or player as personal income implications? We’re in the Wild West of that but that’s specious. So, speculations on other ways are intriguing, especially considering the percentage of ND athletes who do not become professionals. Could this fund full scholarships for minor sports athletes, as one thought?
It’s also worth considering only the business side of an apparel deal, A percentage of the cash part of the deal can be stock. When ND signed the ten deal nine years ago, UA’s stock was 85 and is now 7. Not a great investment then. Now? Certainly an announcement of a ND-UAA deal will boost the stock as the company is positioning itself for growth, slimming down their costs including contracts. ND would be a flagship in their college athletics portfolio.
The financial aspects of UAA stock are attractive to buy-low investors with a P/E of 8 and a one year target of 26 from 7 without any boost from an apparel deal with ND. ND stock implications would more than triple in one year. UA would probably prefer to offer more stock options vs cash than Nike may. Nike stock is at 109 and may not get the same boost with the announcement of a deal with ND or regard ND as anything other than another entity.
ND could also ask for a clause of increase stock/cash based on possibly joining a conference in the future or how much more than the amount remaining on the contract it would cost should UA cancel the contract. I think ND will remain independent for the foreseeable future.
Glad to see Swarbrick is committed to trashing his ‘smartest guy in the room’ reputation over his final few years
Swarbrick hiring new football and men’s basketball coaches and signing new equipment and TV deals right before he walks out the door is something, all right. I really hope his long-term judgment proves to be better than it did with the ACC GOR and the first time around with UnderArmour.
I like the coaching hires, but they’re still a work in progress. The fact that he was blindsided by Kelly leaving and by NIL being an insane free for all are recent knocks against him, and I have a sinking feeling that we’re going to reup on both the tv and apparel deals for a middling increase in the interests of collegiality.