I, for one, welcome our new Under Armour overlords.
With the announcement of UCLA‘s new apparel deal imminent, here’s a look at the pros and cons of each of the three contending bidders: Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour.
UCLA has been an Adidas school since 1999, long enough that Adidas has seemingly become an integral part of the UCLA visual identity. However, the Athletic Department allowed Adidas’ exclusive negotiating period to lapse on April 2, and now it’s a three-company race. UCLA has fielded bids from Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour.
If the rumors are true, Under Armour looks to be the new outfitter of Bruins sports. There is some buzz that the deal will be announced on Tuesday, May 17.
Source: #UCLA gave Adidas every chance but Under Armour believed to have made a bid Bruins couldn't refuse. https://t.co/e2DjsSQ6Y0
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) May 11, 2016
If you’re going to talk pros and cons to this type of deal, money is the most straight-forward part to track. Three companies are vying to pay for the privilege of outfitting UCLA’s athletes, and one of those companies will be offering the most money to do so. If all else is equal, the comparison is simple.
The question comes when all else is not equal. Which brand would do a better job of outfitting the teams? Which would make the best uniforms? Have the best equipment? Sell the most merchandise? Market the programs the best?
Is one outfitter likely enough to do a superior job to make it worth taking less money? Or, regardless of money, who should fans hope wins the bidding, for the reasons listed above?
Fan opinion appears roughly equally distributed between the three, but what follows is the definitive breakdown: UCLA fans should be thrilled that Under Armour is rumored to have landed this deal. To the tape!
Next: Die Weltmarke mit den 3 Streifen