In the end it wasn’t much of a surprise. After a brief dalliance with Nike (reportedly) the University of Notre Dame ran home to Under Armour. According to college football reporter Ross Dellenger, the Fighting Irish are set to re-sign another 10-year deal with the Baltimore-based apparel brand.
Notre Dame is re-signing with Under Armour in a new 10-year contract believed to be the richest apparel deal in college athletics, sources tell @YahooSports.
The Irish’s new UA deal is expected to be worth more than $10 million annually in cash and gear.https://t.co/bm7Eg5GRDe
— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) July 31, 2023
According to Dellenger:
Notre Dame and Under Armour are extending their relationship, agreeing to a new 10-year contract that puts the Irish at the top of college sports with a price tag of more than $10 million annually in cash and gear, sources told Yahoo Sports. Notre Dame and Under Armour officials declined to comment.
The weird part is the reporting that this is the richest apparel deal in college athletics when…it’s not? The only way that it would be feasible is if the point made in Dellenger’s article that some apparel deals were “impacted by the Covid pandemic” and that has thrown a wrench in previous deals. Otherwise, this deal is way less on an annual basis than Ohio State and Texas’ deals with Nike and roughly $2.5 million less per year than Michigan’s deal with the Nike/Jordan brand.
There were dreams that Under Armour was throwing so much money on the table for a new deal with Notre Dame that it simply couldn’t be passed up. The original deal in 2014 was 10 years for a reported $90 million and this deal being the same amount of length for $10 million extra total is just bizarre. It makes me worried for the expected new deal with NBC. Some folks are expecting that to rise up to $70 million per year and now I’m wondering if we should prepare ourselves for something like $30 million.
Dellenger’s report seems like it was written directly from the Notre Dame athletic office:
Like its independence within football and exclusive television contract with NBC, Notre Dame officials enjoy being the apparel company’s most valuable and featured brand. But the final determination in the decision was price, and Under Armour well outpaced the other offers, sources told Yahoo Sports.
I was adamant that Notre Dame should sign with Nike even for less money, but the only crutch remaining is this “report” that Under Armour ‘well outpaced’ other offers which is likely an exaggeration. We’ll never know, which is why they can report this. However, I imagine just about everyone who has been paying attention is definitely shocked by a 10-year deal and surprised that the total figure over such a long time isn’t substantially higher.
Will there be a NIL component to the deal? Come on now.
I’m upset but this was always going to be Notre Dame’s move–highlighting the business relationship as something worthy to hold on to for the future. “Hey, Under Armour really likes us, and we like them! We are a valued partner in their portfolio!”
Yup, for 10 more years.
“The weird part is the reporting that this is the richest apparel deal in college athletics when…it’s not?”
Some sleight of hand by all, but according to the link below Ohio St. is getting $9.54 million this year from Nike, and “only” $3.44 million in cash, with the rest being merch. I think the spin/perception is to divide total money of the flashy high amount by years in the press release, but that isn’t how these transactions work. Michigan is getting $9.92 million this year with a similar split. Texas is getting $8.Those other schools’ deals aren’t as lucrative as the gaudy numbers suggest at surface level.
And with that is mind, that’s why the reporting is accurate that Notre Dame signed the richest annual deal if they’re exceeding $10+ annually and no one else is. (Ironically I think another really rich deal is the UA one with Louisville that is competitive with the other top ones).
However, and in fairness, all the other schools got a large $10-20 million up front as a bonus and that bit of the deal has been conspicuously absent for Notre Dame. So I doubt this is truly and simply the most lucrative contract but likely the highest paying annual one, as a distinction.
All in all, it’s fair to complain about the product and prestige, but the money was there. It’s common sense to take the best financial offer and by all accounts and reports that is what they did.
On the timing, I believe all these major contracts are usually 10-15 years. 5 would have been preferable but likely was not feasible or realistic. Unpopular opinion, but ND probably actually did get a short of the term on it, just not maybe short enough.
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2016/01/66453/how-ohio-states-15-year-252-million-contract-with-nike-measures-up-to-michigan-texas-deals?amp
It’s the largest apparel contract in college sports if we don’t count the total money of others deals then, got it!
Using a similar layout of a contract to Ohio State then, this is what the new Notre Dame deal would look like on annual basis:
$2.8 million cash
$3.7 million apparel
$3.5 million other (scholarships, grants, internships, more gear, etc.)
Use of the word “largest” is a misnomer and a big source of the perception issue. “Richest” is a carefully chosen word, because the deal pays the most per year.
Semantically, sure your comments have been correct.
Everything about this press release and the comments from JS leading up to this continue to be all talk. It just comes off as smarmy lawyer bs especially after their comments about how NIL is out of control and someone needs to do something.
This deal is in line with the terrible ACC deal he signed. What does signing a 10 year deal with UA do for ND? IMO all it does is push this to the side and is something else sports related that the administration doesn’t have to worry about it. For the past however many decades that’s been their whole goal. I’m not sure how anyone defends this move.
I think ND likes feeling special, and UA allows them to feel special as their premium brand. But, like, we’ve been UA’s premium brand for the last decade, and as Eric has deftly pointed out in his earlier, definitive “UA is bad” article that has gotten us basically nothing.
Concur and I agree. Optics, PR and selling have never been a strong point of Swarbrick, and we can see the unpopularity as a result.
But removing emotion and how it “comes off” feeling like:
-Did Notre Dame accept the most lucrative deal offered? Yes
-Did Notre Dame get the most money possible? Yes
Those points are indisputable, even if understandably unsatisfying.
Are we sure they did, though?
I would think ‘pays the most per year’ would be carefully chosen!
I’ll delay judgement until all the details emerge, such as a commitment to NIL, a higher percentage of sales, endowment contributions, discounts and non-fiscal benefits. But Dellenger’s reporting says “But the final determination in the decision was price, and Under Armour well outpaced the other offers, sources told Yahoo Sports.”
I’d guess in the current market eight and half to nine million annual equivalent for fifteen years is probably what the others offered with less upfront money than Texas, Michigan and Ohio State. Nike could have been satisfied with their current contracts and have low-balled Notre Dame.
UCLA settled for less than half of their original deal ($280 million) with a subsequent contract with Jordan and Nike for $7.7 million AAV over six years, mostly in apparel at a time when they had announced their move to the Big 10 with its media money. So, split the difference between them and Ohio State while assuming the same breakdown and length of contract as OSU.
Notre Dame’s commitment to independence in football and a separate media deal leading to more exposure overall and weekly probably was an advantage versus having joined the BIG.
Signing a ten year deal also may well be a future advantage since it ends prior to those of Michigan (with a four year extension), and Ohio State.
Then there’s the issue of where Nike’s apparel is manufactured.
UT must discontinue its contracts with Nike
Funny to think that Swarbrick signed a major deal that will bind not only his successor, but possibly his successor’s successor.
The horror of being bound to the richest deal in history lol
Going to be even funnier when the released terms are $9 mil/year for ND and $1 mil/year for the Swarbrick family.
While his kid’s job title is literally “Lead, North American Sports Marketing – Collegiate” at UA, no less.
I’m pretty pessimistic about both this deal and nepotistic executive positions.
Was there really no way to back channel to other bidders that they needed to include a no-show executive position in their bids so we could consider other options?
Couldn’t we have just taken less from Nike and had a clause that they would hire Jack Jr?
I don’t understand the reporting at all. UA was in a $280 million/15 year contract with UCLA that they paid $67.5 cash to get out of. OSU’s deal is well publicized to be $16.8 million AAV. When this deal starts in 24-25 UM will get more than $10 million that year, and every year for the rest of that contract, in just annual cash and apparel, not counting other benefits like covering scholarships or upfront cash payments.
I’m honestly not coming up with ways to parse $100 million over 10 years to be worth more than “more than $10 million every year”.
The only thing that makes sense is the Covid angle. Less games, less apparel needed, money got reduced, etc. But even then, I wouldn’t think the money would’ve been reduced that much for that long.
I’m with you — these numbers make no sense to me. At a minimum, it’s not clear that ND got the “richest” or “most lucrative” or “biggest” or whatever deal in history. (If that should even be the priority — my view is that getting the best equipment for ND athletes should be the priority).
UA is a troubled company. Their stock price tanked right after ND took a big equity interest and, as you mentioned, they had to buy their way out of a huge deal with UCLA. I don’t think they’re particularly well run and it’s not even guaranteed that they’ll exist in 10 years. I really do not understand the decision to bet the house on this company, especially when the guy making the bet is about to walk out the door.
I just read through a long thread on Irish Illustrated on this and have needed to shower now. Some more question marks…
*Most of the reporting (using this term very loosely) suggested the offers from Nike/Adidas/UA were fairly close and that UA came in late with a larger offer.
*People were throwing out some absolutely huge financial figures for a possible UA deal, but it ended up being for $1 million extra per year than the old deal. So that doesn’t add up.
*Now, people are pivoting to this being an exclusive or super heavy cash deal. Prister commented, “We’ve heard it’s a cash-heavy deal as opposed to stock options.” Some are saying ND is getting $10 million in straight cash each year which is the most in the country. But apparel (and a bunch of other stuff) are always included in these deals–and if this is the case–wouldn’t Notre Dame let it be known the deal is actually worth far more than $100 million over 10 years??
*Prister also said the UA deal, “May be more than double Nike’s offer.” So, at one point the offers were all pretty competitive, UA swooped in with a mega offer, said mega offer was barely more than the previous deal, but there’s voodoo accounting making other college deals less lucrative than previously reported and this one with Notre Dame somehow way better, and oh yeah Nike offered Notre Dame a mid-power 5 program-type deal.
WHAT??
Dellenger’s report clearly states $10 million in cash AND gear. I know people are like “it also says ‘more than’ $10 million.” Well, okay so if it’s $10 million in cash, plus gear, plus maybe other stuff why wouldn’t ND promote that it was a new deal for way more???
Also, just now in checking Dellenger’s article, he has updated the language.
The original published text is in our article which is how I noticed the change. He switched out “at” to “toward” now implying welllllll maybe not the biggest deal after all.
Toward is a more clarifying word that should have been in the first place. As I said in my first comment, it would require some sleight of hand to tout it the largest deal when other schools clearly got more money up front.
My main takeaways are humor over the panic of the misperceptions about:
–UA as a $3.5bn market cap company with increasing revenue year over year is “Failing” or “troubled” lol
–other schools are getting way more money than they actually are and ND is tied to a terrible deal
No wonder comprehension of something pretty straight forward is elusive!
It’s not the truly “best” deal ever, but it is looks like a pretty strong one, and the best financial one on the table. Much consternation over nothing, will be glad when the on field action picks up 🙂
Well, finally you said it!
No, you finally read it. Go back to the start.
It’s fair to include hooks full sentence
his
It’s not the truly “best” deal ever, but it is looks like a pretty strong one, and the best financial one on the table. Much consternation over nothing, will be glad when the on field action pand his prior pointsBut removing emotion and how it “comes off” feeling like:
Something went wrong with the reply, so:
It’s fair to include hooks full sentence:
with his previous points
Yes that is fair. Hooks has been clear that ND could sign with OshKosh B’Gosh and if that was the biggest deal on the table than great job.
To be fair to OshKosh, their cleats are on par with UAs.
I wouldn’t hate some McKids ND apparel
So what I’m wildly speculating is that the companies submitted bids and someone at the athletic department leaked the others to UA, with the expectation that UA would quickly up their offer before there was a chance to counter.
Maybe the deal secretly has a bunch of provisions that UA didn’t notice (because they aren’t a good company) and it’s actually designed for UA to pay us $50 mil in like five years just to get out of it, then we can go with Nike.
To have UA still in the college apparel market rather than ceding the field to Nike with its profits from the deals fueling Oregon athletics is worth more than a passing consideration in this era of NILs.
USC, UCLA and Utah went with other companies perhaps with that in mind.
The lesson of UCLA’s (and Cal) having to accept a Nike offer at half the amount (mostly in apparel) after the UA cancelation should be an indication of future apparel negotiations in college athletics with minimal competition and a dominant player.
I don’t want Nike to have a monopoly. That would be awful for everyone. I also want us to actually have the best equipment, which is currently Nike.
Maybe this time ND will push UA to actually be better?
I do think it’s important to note that Nike has been directly tied to using slave labor in the creation of its products. They claim to no longer be using it, but that’s proven difficult to corroborate. As a University that frequently claims the moral high ground, that certainly could have been a consideration.
(Of course, I haven’t seen that mentioned in any of the reports, so maybe that didn’t come up at all)
Interesting that this hasn’t been corroborated or exposed. I certainly thought they had changed their stripes, but if not would be one of the only reasons I would respect for not going with Nike.
I guess ND also might not want to explicitly mention that, short of there being fairly well documented publicly available information. Not something you want to be on record accusing Nike of without strong evidence.
From my March article on the Yeezy implosion and its affect on ND:
Right up until late spring I didn’t think Nike was really an option because of this stance. But, the beat guys were all saying Nike was an option and that it might be headed that way. Would we have demanded Nike trademark ND items manufactured outside of China? Would that be easy? Very difficult? Was it something that held up negotiations? Did we just drop this stance from a quarter century ago?
I’m skeptical that any of the major sports apparel companies have clean hands on that front.
Speaking of ND getting only the best of the best, Jac and Garrett are back in the booth for 2023.
NAKED
Can’t wait for ND to announce a new 15 year deal with NBC that ups the payout by 5% and moves four games a year to Peacock.
Yes but look how much money we’re getting! ND is strapped for cash, after all.
This is so disappointing considering the guys they got for the big10 primetime games. That would be a real A team. We’re stuck with like the C or D team. At the very least I would have preferred to the roll dice with anyone new instead of Garrett who was just very underwhelming.
Still not as bad as Sideline Skycam! Never forget and never forgive!
Notre Dame vs Miami Ohio for the Peacock exclusive, all-skycam broadcast featuring Jack Collinsworth and AI Doug Flutie. Feel the excitement!
How long will it take for the big 10 and the SEC to become super-leagues now that the pac-12 seems close to coming apart (with it’s poor management of a potential new tv deal) and apparently FSU is looking ready to challenge their grant of rights likely with the aim of negotiating their way out (I saw some crazy “buyout” number like $30 million a year for 10 years – but even that might make it worth it for them to leave the league if they are getting like $50 million more in another league)?
Apparently big 10 (not surprising) is exploring options now that the pac-12 looks ready to crumble.
Honestly, it would probably be better to have 2, or even combine them into 1 conference. Then that conference could create rules that actually have teeth, unlike the joke that is the NCAA.