Sources: UT Athletics Mulling New Apparel Deal With Adidas

#426
#426
Bigorangefaninga said:
Yep, which is why I don’t have one UT Nike product. Of course I prob don’t have 3-4 pieces that are Nike to begin with. Junk pair of shoes I wear to mow grass, maybe 1 dri-fit shirt. I just bought 2 new pairs of Adidas shoes 2 weeks ago. Hopefully they have Tennessee shoes that don’t cost 120.00 that feel like **** and last a year.
Click to expand...
Cope
 
#428
#428
Bigorangefaninga said:
Yep, which is why I don’t have one UT Nike product. Of course I prob don’t have 3-4 pieces that are Nike to begin with. Junk pair of shoes I wear to mow grass, maybe 1 dri-fit shirt. I just bought 2 new pairs of Adidas shoes 2 weeks ago. Hopefully they have Tennessee shoes that don’t cost 120.00 that feel like **** and last a year.
Click to expand...
They’re actually $140 and look like $hit, but then again most things adidas does looks that way
IMG_8098.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam.vol and DeerPark12
#430
#430
It's funny there are fans that still buy Nike or Adidas gear. Retro Brand, Homefield and 47 make far superior products for fans.
If Adidas offers more money and can make the late 90s jersey again then they need to go with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigorangefaninga
#431
#431
BruisedOrange said:
I checked in on this thread expecting to see discussion on how the tariffs might be effecting what each company can now offer. I suspect whatever each company was promising a few months ago is now moot.

Making guarantees about when and for how much is a whole different ball game now with long-established supply chains disrupted and subject to each country's negotiations with the US.

If there's a change, we might see the new products cycling in on a delayed basis, maybe starting with basketball, and not getting to football until the 2026 season. Not sure how that could be reconciled with the University's fiscal year, but it's bound to be a factor now.
Click to expand...
Nothing would start until July 1, 2026. There's no concern for product availability.

The offer from adidas has not gone down since initial discussions began. We'll see what Nike is working with. When you're talking about a 10-year contract, the minor blip of short-term tariffs aren't a consideration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1, Danl and BruisedOrange
#432
#432
DeerPark12 said:
Nothing would start until July 1, 2026. There's no concern for product availability.

The offer from adidas has not gone down since initial discussions began. We'll see what Nike is working with. When you're talking about a 10-year contract, the minor blip of short-term tariffs aren't a consideration.
Click to expand...
Good info. I just assumed discussions were for this school year and after.
 
#433
#433
BruisedOrange said:
Good info. I just assumed discussions were for this school year and after.
Click to expand...
No, pretty much everything is designed and ordered a year in advance. The 2025-26 Nike sideline products are already starting to hit stores.

But that's why there is an urgency with the timeline, the orders, no matter if it's Nike or adidas, will have to be made by the end of July. Retailers start their orders in August/September for next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1, BruisedOrange and Titans4Vols
#434
#434
DeerPark12 said:
No, pretty much everything is designed and ordered a year in advance. The 2025-26 Nike sideline products are already starting to hit stores.

But that's why there is an urgency with the timeline, the orders, no matter if it's Nike or adidas, will have to be made by the end of July. Retailers start their orders in August/September for next year.
Click to expand...
Is Danny White the main decision maker when it comes to this issue? If so, how much does the pushback from the coaches, players publicly making comments and the retailers play a role in all of this? It’s interesting to me that those who would potentially benefit the most (coaches bc of $ to get recruits ) are the ones that have expressed their displeasure with this possible switch. I’m assuming that they’re aware of all the pros and cons of switching to Adidas (pros being $, cons being its Adidas) and the fact that they want to stay with Nike is pretty telling to me.
 
#436
#436
RDU VOL#14 said:
Is Danny White the main decision maker when it comes to this issue? If so, how much does the pushback from the coaches, players publicly making comments and the retailers play a role in all of this? It’s interesting to me that those who would potentially benefit the most (coaches bc of $ to get recruits ) are the ones that have expressed their displeasure with this possible switch. I’m assuming that they’re aware of all the pros and cons of switching to Adidas (pros being $, cons being its Adidas) and the fact that they want to stay with Nike is pretty telling to me.
Click to expand...
Which coaches have expressed displeasure?
 
#441
#441
Bigorangefaninga said:
Yep, which is why I don’t have one UT Nike product. Of course I prob don’t have 3-4 pieces that are Nike to begin with. Junk pair of shoes I wear to mow grass, maybe 1 dri-fit shirt. I just bought 2 new pairs of Adidas shoes 2 weeks ago. Hopefully they have Tennessee shoes that don’t cost 120.00 that feel like **** and last a year.
Click to expand...

Congrats on being an Army of one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfaninky, Swiftybaby and kcvols1
#444
#444
YankeeVol said:
Maybe it was a tweet someone posted that I saw then
Click to expand...
You may be right, but I haven’t seen that. If Heupel did say that, that’s all I’d need to see. And I would say that there is almost zero percent chance anyone associated with basketball would be happy with this potential move.
 
#445
#445
RDU VOL#14 said:
Is Danny White the main decision maker when it comes to this issue? If so, how much does the pushback from the coaches, players publicly making comments and the retailers play a role in all of this? It’s interesting to me that those who would potentially benefit the most (coaches bc of $ to get recruits ) are the ones that have expressed their displeasure with this possible switch. I’m assuming that they’re aware of all the pros and cons of switching to Adidas (pros being $, cons being its Adidas) and the fact that they want to stay with Nike is pretty telling to me.
Click to expand...
It’s $8-10 million more dollars per year. At a time that you’re in the process of having to generate $20 million more in revenue per year.

Danny White is the decision-maker, but his senior staff has been involved in the process, particularly his associate ADs in charge of external operations and branding.

He has heard feedback from his coaches, and the pros and cons for them, campus stakeholders who have been very happy with the Nike relationship, and a couple of prominent boosters that own or have stakes in major retailers. He has also consulted with the Vol Shop, who holds the on campus and in venue merchandise contract, and Fanatics, that handles the e-commerce contract.

It is all part of it, but if the difference between Nike and Adidas remains in the $8 million per year range, there’s no way they aren’t switching to Adidas. As much as we all may prefer Nike, it would be malpractice for him to turn down that kind of money in an apparel contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaxon_Vol2017, ATC_VOL, BristolVol and 9 others
#446
#446
DeerPark12 said:
It’s $8-10 million more dollars per year. At a time that you’re in the process of having to generate $20 million more in revenue per year.

Danny White is the decision-maker, but his senior staff has been involved in the process, particularly his associate ADs in charge of external operations and branding.

He has heard feedback from his coaches, and the pros and cons for them, campus stakeholders who have been very happy with the Nike relationship, and a couple of prominent boosters that own or have stakes in major retailers. He has also consulted with the Vol Shop, who holds the on campus and in venue merchandise contract, and Fanatics, that handles the e-commerce contract.

It is all part of it, but if the difference between Nike and Adidas remains in the $8 million per year range, there’s no way they aren’t switching to Adidas. As much as we all may prefer Nike, it would be malpractice for him to turn down that kind of money in an apparel contract.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the detailed response . That sucks
 
#447
#447
DeerPark12 said:
It’s $8-10 million more dollars per year. At a time that you’re in the process of having to generate $20 million more in revenue per year.

Danny White is the decision-maker, but his senior staff has been involved in the process, particularly his associate ADs in charge of external operations and branding.

He has heard feedback from his coaches, and the pros and cons for them, campus stakeholders who have been very happy with the Nike relationship, and a couple of prominent boosters that own or have stakes in major retailers. He has also consulted with the Vol Shop, who holds the on campus and in venue merchandise contract, and Fanatics, that handles the e-commerce contract.

It is all part of it, but if the difference between Nike and Adidas remains in the $8 million per year range, there’s no way they aren’t switching to Adidas. As much as we all may prefer Nike, it would be malpractice for him to turn down that kind of money in an apparel contract.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think that's why this "leaked" so early. Give it time to marinate.
 
#448
#448
RDU VOL#14 said:
DP said in a previous post that “coaches” were less than thrilled about the idea of switching to Adidas. He didn’t specify which coaches.
Click to expand...
And I guarantee you that has more to do with recruiting than it does with their own personal taste (though that might be a factor as well).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDU VOL#14
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top