Under Armour vs Nike vs Adidas

It’s no secret that the last half-decade or so has been tumultuous, to say the least, for Under Armour. From underperforming profits to charges from the SEC (no, not the Southeastern Conference), things have been incredibly tough for the Baltimore-based apparel company.

Any time this topic is even broached, the conversation quickly moves to which uniform provider Auburn should work with instead of Under Armour. Fans from every angle of the discussion are, naturally, very passionate about their opinion.

The sheer volume of opinions thrown into the discussion often makes it difficult to have a healthy, thoughtful discussion. Because of that, I wanted to lay out some aspects that Auburn would have to consider in this situation and how it would affect the Auburn fanbase.

---

Background

In December of 2005, Auburn announced that they had signed a deal with Under Armour. It was the first major university that Under Armour was able to land and a break from Auburn’s longtime relationship with Russell Athletic. Russell was based out of Alexander City, roughly 45 minutes north of campus. The company was sold to Fruit of the Loom and moved to Bowling Green, Kentucky in 2006.

The original contract was valid through 2011 but extended until a new contract was signed in 2015. The 2015 deal is set to last until 2025.

Among the unique aspects of the latest contract, Auburn agreed to $10 million in Under Armour stocks. The signing came in September, just a week after Under Armour’s stock price was at an all-time high. The thinking that the value would continue to increase and be worth more down the road for Auburn wasn’t farfetched. Under Armour had been competing with Nike and Adidas quite well, chipping out percentages of their respective market shares. Unfortunately, the positive trajectory of the company didn’t last long.

When Auburn agreed to the stock payments, Under Armour’s stock was trading around $54 apiece. April 2020 was the low point, in which the stocks fell to just above $8. Currently, as of July 2021, the value has rebounded somewhat to roughly $20 a share. That means the $10 million that Auburn held in stocks are now worth an estimated $3.725 million after dipping to $1.7 million.

Since issues began in Baltimore, Under Armour’s founder Kevin Plank stepped down as CEO, the Securities and Exchange Commission levied charges against the company for improper accounting practices, and universities are signing with other providers left and right.

UCLA and Cal have filed lawsuits against Under Armour after their apparel contracts were terminated in late 2020. Cincinnati took a large buyout to get out of their deal a few years early. Boston College and Hawaii both jumped ship this summer and the fear is that more teams – including Plank’s alma mater and the company’s flagship team, Maryland – will soon follow suit.

And that brings up the all-important question of the day: What’s the best option for Auburn University?

That’s an incredibly difficult question to answer for so many reasons. The response I usually use is simply, “it depends on who is at the table for Auburn and what they value.” Of course, no one person can – or should – make such decisions on their own accord and they most likely have a list of things they’re looking to get accomplished in any of these meetings. But the fact remains – it isn’t a cut and dry decision like some like to think.

Ok, enough with that. Let’s look at a few areas of concern that Auburn should focus on when it comes to what decision to make.

---

There are many ways that you can look at the big three companies to decide on which to sign with. Do you emphasize uniforms (or lack of pushy alternates), the reputation of the brand, apparel sales, money involved with the deal? It can go several ways.

Uniforms

Uniforms are the most visible aspect of an athletic program’s brand. The company logo that dons the uniform and the quality of design can often say a lot about the program and university.

Under Armour’s uniforms have changed a bit over the years, but often have a well-built look to them. The textiles appear high quality and seem to handle wear and tear well over the years.

Design-wise, Under Armour isn’t too pushy on new looks. Auburn has stuck with the same aesthetic since day one while many of the other teams have dabbled in alternate uniforms and new redesigns every few years. Some of the alternate uniforms have been off-the-wall and crazy while others seem to fit well. Overall, Under Armour has been much more consistent in providing quality designs for their teams over the last few years. The days of the craziest uniforms are (hopefully) in the rearview mirror.

And, as always, remember that the school ultimately has the final say on wearing most of these looks.

The biggest mistakes Under Armour has seen were the few ill-fated alternate looks and the horrendous template that resulted in Auburn’s truncated stripes. If I were to grade Under Armour’s athletic uniform abilities, I’d give it a solid B. But I know I’m biased on this front.

Nike has always been the cream of the crop. Their uniforms are always sharp, and the Vapor Untouchable template is the greatest thing to ever happen to modern uniforms. Designs are often well-conceived, though there’s often a feeling that Nike pushes things on their teams and continues to mess up uniforms in the NFL, NBA, and MLB. Color Rush, City/Classic/Earned/Association/Icon naming conventions and designs, and City Connection uniforms are no doubt of Nike’s doing.

Adidas uniforms have been long regarded as the worst of the bunch. Whether it be the horrendous fitting templates, the chrome “duct tape” numbers, clip art elements, or laughably ill-conceived designs, Adidas hasn’t done much to get out of the cellar here.

An Adidas uniform is entirely dependent on the template it uses. The Shockweb template is probably the most recognizable, as the body of the jersey had “tire treads” that were constantly visible, even more so when certain colors were used. The patterns changed as the templates did, but there was always a discernable Adidas “touch” to all their uniforms, and not in a good way. The current Primeknit A1 template is a solid upgrade, but it fails in comparison to what Nike and Under Armour have provided.

And if there’s ever an alternate design that is bound to be controversial, odds are that it’s an Adidas uniform.

Of the three, Nike’s uniform products will generally stand out above the rest. Though, I don’t think Under Armour is as far behind as many believe.

Outside of football, the three brands’ uniforms are rather similar. One of the biggest differences would probably be in baseball, where Nike has attempted to push the sport’s uniforms into the next generation with some key changes. The baseball jerseys have more prominent mesh areas – specifically on the back – and the numbers have seen some interesting perforation designs as of late.

---

Reputation

Under Armour has always had an underdog mentality, being the youngest company among the top three and having to continuously fight upwards. Auburn has also had the underdog mentality, feeling disrespected and always measured against the rival across the state. In that regard, the two fit well.

Under Armour has also targeted the younger demographic. They are popular with young children and many adult groups, but not the teenager demographic. While fans of all ages will usually buy their team’s merchandise, it’s been difficult for Under Armour to convince those buyers to gravitate to the casual Under Armour products.

Nike is the leader in all things. Nike has the best reputation in terms of product quality. You know what you’re buying when it has the Swoosh on it – that’s the entire point of a brand.

However, Nike often finds itself in controversial topics, whether it be supply chain working conditions or supporting athletes like Colin Kaepernick.

Despite that, the strength of the Nike brand continues to outshine the negatives that may surround it. Regardless of your thoughts of Nike in general and the individual stories specifically, you know Nike when you see it. You know what you’re getting and it’s more times than not a product of quality.

Adidas, I think, has a better worldwide reputation than it seems to have in the United States. Or, at least when it comes to collegiate uniforms. Adidas is the uniform provider for MLS, the NHL, and countless European soccer clubs. But when it comes to college athletics, it always comes across as lower quality and without much direction.

Regardless of what team is wearing the uniform or the quality of the overall design, it’s hard not to think that they would look better if their uniforms were provided by some other company. Adidas often made UCLA, one of the most traditionally dressed teams in the country, look foolish at times.

While that is an issue, Adidas is one of the greatest, most well-known brands throughout the world. Outside of the uniform game, Adidas is generally well-received in the streetwear industry in this country and does have a following. When it comes to consumer products, you can’t go wrong with most Adidas items. It’s a shame the same can’t be said about their uniforms.

---

Apparel

Whenever I share a new piece of Auburn Under Armour merchandise, there are always comments stating the price tag is too high, the design is too bland, and other similar complaints. I’ve always said that Under Armour is very proud of its name and product, but that’s not different from most other companies. With Apple products, you pay a premium because of the name. Nintendo’s first-party games rarely go on sale either. That’s what a successful brand gets you.

Is $35 too much for a t-shirt? Is $80 for a polo expensive? It certainly can be.

The problem is that there isn’t much relief on high merchandise prices regardless of what outfitter the school was to choose. If you’re willing to buy a $30 Nike shirt but not a $35 Under Armour shirt, then it wasn’t about the money in the first place.

Price is one thing, but the merchandise itself is another.

It’s seemingly rare nowadays to find merch that is uniquely designed for the specific school. Most companies provide common designs with a simple logo, color, and text changes to match the school. That won’t change, especially when moving to a larger company like Nike. Under Armour may produce shirts for 20 or so schools while Nike will do the same for hundreds. It’s difficult to design gear that appeals to all fanbases and demographics and that gets more challenging the more clients that are involved.

Being included in Nike’s annual shoe launches would be beneficial. Adidas, too, has quality shoe launches, but they just aren’t to the same extent as Nike. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if that’s a reflection of the quality of the two brands or simply the hype, though I would lend to believe it’s the latter.

How about retail jerseys? Under Armour has done incredible work to improve their line of jerseys, introducing new price points that include higher quality products. Nike has long had multiple lines and the price directly correlates to the quality of the product.

Nike’s jerseys come in three main price points – Legend ($75), Game ($100), and Limited ($135). Those increase in quality from screen-printed graphics to true sewn-on numbers and details. That’s still a bit cheaper than Nike’s NFL side, which features Game, Limited, and Elite versions at $120, $150, and $325.

Adidas replica jerseys are often as laughable as the product they put on the field at times. The sleeve graphics are often warped, truncated, or simply just not at the correct scale. Adidas does include many of the additional details on the jerseys like conference patches, whereas the other two brands have lagged tremendously in this aspect (Under Armour has recently added conference patches).

The Three Stripe replica jerseys run at $75 or $120, though the premium line doesn’t feature sewed numbers and details like the other companies.

---

Money

Apparel contracts have become rather lucrative over the years. Auburn’s 2015 extension was valued at $8.68 million per year, which fell just under Notre Dame’s $9 million a year deal. Michigan’s deal with Adidas was previously the record high at $8.2 million annually.

UCLA blew the records out of the water when they signed a 15-year, $280 million deal with Under Armour in 2016 – that’s $18.67 million each year. Of course, that deal is no longer valid, but it goes to show the kind of money these companies are willing to pay for a school.

Adidas has signed multiple teams away from their competitors the last few years and done so with large dollar amounts that they weren’t receiving previously. South Florida’s Under Armour contract was worth $1.725 annually in 2015. The Bulls moved to Adidas in 2018 after a reported $2.8 million contract was signed. When Arizona State jumped ship from Nike to Adidas, they made $3 million instantly. Miami, an “original Nike” school, moved to Adidas in 2015 for an estimated $6.55 million.

These companies aren’t afraid to spend money.

Nike, however, at times has shown a bit more restraint in spending that kind of money. Tennessee took a pay cut to leave Adidas. Their Nike deal is worth $4.6 million. That’s more than Alabama’s $3.67 million in 2015, which has since been boosted to $5.25 million annually. That’s still a long way off UCLA’s original $18.7 million a year.

---

Footwear

Under Armour didn’t break into the footwear game until rather late. Only recently, around 2015 or so, did Under Armour cleats and sneakers begin to show some quality.

They aren’t bad nowadays, but they still leave a lot left to be desired. I’ve heard many Auburn athletes complain about their cleats. One even told me that they offered to work with Under Armour – for free – to help develop new footwear only to be denied.

With Nike, the footwear options are endless. High-quality cleats and sneakers around every corner. It’s tough to go wrong with any of the options available.

Adidas is also a solid footwear company. All the years of soccer production for the German company have helped develop quality boots for all. That has transitioned well to their football cleats, where complaints are few and far between.

As mentioned earlier, both Nike and Adidas have seasonal sneaker launches that are typically big hits. The Nike shoes tend to feature the team logos prominently while Adidas tends to be a little more subtle with their branding, though the shoes are bright and colorful.

---

Recruiting

There’s always someone that wants to throw in the recruiting angle when it comes to adopting a new apparel provider. “Alternate uniforms help with recruiting!” they say. “It’s a detriment to Auburn to be partnered with Under Armour,” another may state.

It’s no secret that I don’t follow recruiting whatsoever. So, I’ll admit that I may not have the insight into this category that some others would have.

While a school’s aligned brand may cause hurdles here or there, it’s hard for me to believe that the uniform provider alone is a large detriment. Sure, you may lose out on an athlete every now and then solely because of the uniforms, but that could happen for any other reason imaginable.

Auburn won Under Armour’s first football national championship in 2010 and made a return trip to the title game just three years later. Auburn’s baseball and softball programs have each reached the College World Series (twice for softball) since 2015.

Winning with Under Armour is clearly possible. Look beyond Auburn and you’ll find that Coastal Carolina won a baseball title. As did South Carolina – two in fact. The Gamecocks’ women’s basketball program also claimed a title in 2017. And the list continues.

The issue with this argument, to me, is that you simply can’t place such a large blanket statement over such a far-reaching world. There are thousands of high school athletes that pick their collegiate destination each year. The different scenarios in which they determined their best path are as varied as the kids themselves.

Does one kid want to play for an Oregon-like school, wearing a different uniform each week? Sure, that’s their choice. Does another recruit not care about the uniforms and just want to win? Sure, that’s also their choice.

If moving to a specific brand, or debuting a one-off alternate uniform each season, is what it takes to win over a single recruit, then your priorities aren’t in line. Your program doesn’t have much more to offer for that athlete.

But what about AAU, you may ask.

There are many issues with the current travel basketball model. The shoe brands and their deals are one of them. But that also would simply boil down to a specific player’s wants, desires, and situation. That one player’s predicament can be wildly different from the next.

Tony Barbee claimed that it was impossible to win at Auburn when he was the basketball coach. Bruce Pearl came in and immediately proved that false. In fact, two of the Final Four teams were outfitted by Under Armour.

---

Rivalry

One rebuttal to Auburn moving to Nike is “but Alabama wears Nike and I want nothing that Alabama has!” I can’t help but roll my eyes at this response, for many reasons.

Auburn and Alabama both utilize many of the same items. They both receive money directly from the state. They both wear Riddell football helmets, use Easton bats on the baseball diamond. You get the idea. The thought that Auburn would benefit from, let alone try to separate themselves in certain aspects, from their fiercest rival is simply silly and short-sighted.

Never mind the fact that both schools wore Russell Athletic uniforms for decades. When Auburn moved to Under Armour in 2005, it ended a half-century relationship with Russell. Alabama football moved to Nike at some point in the 1990s.

Auburn even had agreed in principle with Nike in 1995, but the deal was never signed. That was partially due to the backlash the university received, as state lawmakers lobbied for Auburn to remain with Russell. They argued that supporting the local company supported the local economy. It provided jobs for many people, including many employees that lived in Auburn.

And rivalry has never been an issue when it comes to wearing the same uniform make. Ohio State and Michigan both wear Nike. Oklahoma and Texas. Florida and Georgia (the Gators wear Jordan Brand, which is nothing more than a logo swap from Nike’s swoosh).

The idea that Auburn and Alabama cannot co-exist whatsoever, let alone while wearing the same logo on their chests, is absurd.

Now, if one were to argue that the contract value is the important aspect of this discussion, then sure, I can entertain that. Apparel contracts have skyrocketed in value over the last decade and get more lucrative each season. However, Alabama should have no challenges in this aspect.

With the level of their football team’s play and the growth of other sports, Alabama is arguably the most valuable brand in all collegiate athletics. Would Auburn be able to have the same amount of pull? Doubtful. And if Auburn’s history with Under Armour is anything to go off, then they absolutely do not have this kind of pull.

---

What about Jordan Brand?

So many people throw out Auburn going to Jordan when this conversation arises, though they fail to realize a few things.

First off, Jordan Brand items are identical to Nike. The only difference is swapping the Nike Swoosh for the Jumpman logo. Every other detail is exactly the same. Going to Nike or going to Jordan – there’s no difference in terms of product.

The difference between the two brands comes from the prestige of the marks. While Nike’s Swoosh is iconic, there’s just something about Jordan’s logo that adds another level of value. The legacy of Michael Jordan is intrinsically linked to the brand that bears his name and the logo of his image.

The second aspect many don’t realize is that Jordan Brand isn’t available to everybody – not as an apparel brand. Jordan has only been featured on football uniforms since 2016 when they joined the Michigan Wolverines. They’ve since added the Florida Gators and the UCLA Bruins will be the PAC-12 representative starting this fall. Add the Oklahoma Sooners and, naturally, the Noth Carolina Tar Heels to the list.

Take note of those schools. That’s important. Jordan currently works with one team in the SEC, ACC, PAC-12, Big 10, and Big 12. That’s not an accident.

(Note: This article was written prior to the reports of Oklahoma and Texas were looking to join the SEC. That would challenge the one-team-per-conference approach that Jordan has taken. It’s not worth expanding on the hypothetical scenarios at this time when it’s yet to be seen how the conference realignments work out and how Jordan sees fit to move forward.)

Jordan has been incredibly selective in which programs they align themselves with and are cognizant of giving one team some form of exclusivity within their respective conference. With Florida being the representative in the SEC, that door for a second conference team to wear the Jumpman isn’t much of a reality right now.

And let’s be honest, what SEC team would be the next in line to wear Jordan? I would argue that Alabama, Tennessee, and LSU – maybe Georgia – would be more Jordan-worthy than Auburn.

---

Prediction

So, how do I feel all this will play out?

Honestly, I’m not sure. There are so many moving parts that it could change at any minute.

But my gut feeling is this:

Auburn will stick with Under Armour for the time being. That could be another year or two or throughout the remainder of the contract in 2025. I don’t foresee Auburn making the first move to leave the deal – that’s just not an Auburn thing to do here.

If Under Armour were to approach Auburn with a deal like Cincinnati’s $9.75 million buyout five years early, I think that Auburn would have to think long and hard about that opportunity. If that were my decision to make – as distant and unfamiliar with the situation as I admittedly am – I think you would have to accept it and move on.

With Under Armour out of the way, where would Auburn turn?

This is where it comes down to Auburn’s priorities. Are they interested in building immediate value with Nike, or making a large payday with Adidas?

I ultimately think that the value of being aligned with Nike is worth more than the money that Adidas could dish out at the time of signing.

The ability for two of Auburn’s greatest athletes in Bo Jackson and Charles Barkley to wear official sideline apparel once again would be an incredible bonus. Since the Under Armour deal, both legends have had to wear non-Under Armour gear or go out of their way to cover up the UA logo on their apparel simply because of their longstanding personal relationships with Nike.

I personally believe that there’s more good to be had for Auburn to sign with Nike rather than Adidas.

 

---

There you have it. A thorough look at just a few pieces of what makes up a university’s apparel contract. It’s not as simple as picking one of three options.

That’s my evaluation of the situation. What do you think? What do you think Auburn should do going forward? This article was roughly 4,000 words – it was long. So, did I miss anything? Did I get anything wrong? Leave a comment below and let me know your thoughts.

---

Enjoy learning about Auburn uniforms and history? Want to see more like this? Be sure to follow the Auburn Uniform Database on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for even more uniform news. To support this work, you can donate directly via Buy Me A Coffee. You can also purchase your favorite team’s merchandise through Fanatics, with a portion of your sale going to support this website.