Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

UCLA sues Under Armour

Gil Bang

By Gil Bang
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26,438

Posted
Posted
Quote

UCLA rejected all three claims in its lawsuit, saying it had fulfilled the terms of the contract and that the novel coronavirus outbreak did not prevent its athletes and coaches from wearing Under Armour gear while engaging in team meetings, voluntary workouts and other preparations for the resumption of games.

Yeah, that's what Under Armor wanted when they signed this deal. All the "hype" created for their product for kids sitting in meetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,564

Posted
Posted

I never really got into UA stuff.  I have a couple of "pieces" that are pretty decent that I got on sale at Amazon.  Seems a tad overpriced at retail.

Beyond that, I don't know much about their stuff.  Their early marketing, which seems to have disappeared, seemed kind of tailor-made for the "urban aggro" demographic that constitutes college football.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jester

Jester 382

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I never really got into UA stuff.  I have a couple of "pieces" that are pretty decent that I got on sale at Amazon.  Seems a tad overpriced at retail.

Beyond that, I don't know much about their stuff.  Their early marketing, which seems to have disappeared, seemed kind of tailor-made for the "urban aggro" demographic that constitutes college football.

Their golf stuff is pretty legit.  But it is overpriced....which is why it always ends up on the sale racks/amazon.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 21,898

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Odd take, since UCLA has a contract with UA and UA is clearly trying to break it.

Yeah, this was inevitable.  The breached a contract.  What choice did UCLA have?  "Don't worry about it.  These things happen."  This is step one in what will likely be a settlement somewhere with an offset with a new apparel company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ButtFumble

ButtFumble 5,183

Posted
Posted (edited)

the one UA product I own i like a lot a pair of slides that were dirt cheap, almost lighter than air, very soft on my feet, and have held up well

I think they make a better product than nike, but sadly most of their products look like shit to me and I would not want to look like that wearing them I am out on all the tribal designs and shit like that....I think nike makes shit products all around and I have not bought from them in probably 30 years because of one particular incident

I do not understand what UA thinks they are doing here though I see no real chance they "win" this I see a large chance that they settle for a lot of money and then tell themselves they "won" because the $80 or $100 million they settle for is a lot less than they would have paid (even though they are paying it for nothing in return) and I think that UCLA will probably go back to market and end up as good or better than before......collect $80 million in court plus court cost all up front, sign a new deal for $220 and walk away $20 million ahead plus the $80 was paid in one lump sum right at a time when it was really needed

from the UA standpoint they can use that as a model to start pulling out of other deals I guess if they are so inclined.....their stock is still over $9 and their value as a whole is still over $4 billion (both of course way down from their highs), but that is hardly a company that is going broke or a stock that is pennies and waiting for short sellers to pounce (though they are probably trying)

true nike way up lately and worth a shit load more, but nike is also dumping a bunch of retailers and going direct sales so that opens a window for others I am not sure that all of the nike clientele is a direct to consumer type of buyer and I am not sure that college branded gear is best sold direct to consumer

while it is hard to say that nike does not know what they are doing the reality is they have been the 2,000 pound gorilla in the room for decades and they can shit on retailers and retailers have to accept that and that works in their favor....it is hard to throw that type of weight around when you are direct to consumer and while there will be plenty of fulfillment companies willing to help them at first (zappos is one they are dumping) many of the larger ones have no need to eat shit from nike and it is a hard thing to set up your own fulfillment and very expensive and easy to fuck up at first

Edited by ButtFumble
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lerka Lerka

Lerka Lerka 1,094

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

the one UA product I own i like a lot a pair of slides that were dirt cheap, almost lighter than air, very soft on my feet, and have held up well

I think they make a better product than nike, but sadly most of their products look like shit to me and I would not want to look like that wearing them I am out on all the tribal designs and shit like that....I think nike makes shit products all around and I have not bought from them in probably 30 years because of one particular incident

I do not understand what UA thinks they are doing here though I see no real chance they "win" this I see a large chance that they settle for a lot of money and then tell themselves they "won" because the $80 or $100 million they settle for is a lot less than they would have paid (even though they are paying it for nothing in return) and I think that UCLA will probably go back to market and end up as good or better than before......collect $80 million in court plus court cost all up front, sign a new deal for $220 and walk away $20 million ahead plus the $80 was paid in one lump sum right at a time when it was really needed

from the UA standpoint they can use that as a model to start pulling out of other deals I guess if they are so inclined.....their stock is still over $9 and their value as a whole is still over $4 billion (both of course way down from their highs), but that is hardly a company that is going broke or a stock that is pennies and waiting for short sellers to pounce (though they are probably trying)

true nike way up lately and worth a shit load more, but nike is also dumping a bunch of retailers and going direct sales so that opens a window for others I am not sure that all of the nike clientele is a direct to consumer type of buyer and I am not sure that college branded gear is best sold direct to consumer

while it is hard to say that nike does not know what they are doing the reality is they have been the 2,000 pound gorilla in the room for decades and they can shit on retailers and retailers have to accept that and that works in their favor....it is hard to throw that type of weight around when you are direct to consumer and while there will be plenty of fulfillment companies willing to help them at first (zappos is one they are dumping) many of the larger ones have no need to eat shit from nike and it is a hard thing to set up your own fulfillment and very expensive and easy to fuck up at first

You lost me at I like a lot a pair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...