Adidas Contract Expiring

[Tommy_Taylor_1972]

When we first had that !@#$%^&*()_+ AstroTurf installed at Grant Field for the 1971 season, adidas (lc) was one of the shoe brands we wore....Riddell, SpotBilt, and Puma were the others...... Adi Dassler built a big shoe company in post-WWII Europe two decades before Nike got started in Oregon with track shoes.

Nike didn't hit the national football scene til about 1974 when USC made a major comeback & thumped Notre Dame. 55-14. USC RB Anthony Davis was shown on national TV wearing "The Swoosh" shoes and everyone had to have them.

Yea Charlie, the football team had all the new stuff. We round ballers only had white Chuck Taylor high tops. And the Adidas show was pronounced two words Adi-Das for the name of the shoe company owner (Adolph (Adi) Dassler, still pronounced as adi das in Germany today. Adi started his current Adidas factory in a small town called Herzogenaurach West Germany in 1947 with 47 employees, where he branded the 3 stripes for a football shoe. I was stationed in Nuremberg West Germany 10 miles to the south in 1985 and actually visited his plant near where we had an artillery unit at Herzo Base. Of course I got my first pair of adidas basketball shoes there, replacing my Chuckies.

 

[DeepSnap]

Yea Charlie, the football team had all the new stuff. We round ballers only had white Chuck Taylor high tops. And the Adidas show was pronounced two words Adi-Das for the name of the shoe company owner (Adolph (Adi) Dassler, still pronounced as adi das in Germany today. Adi started his current Adidas factory in a small town called Herzogenaurach West Germany in 1947 with 47 employees, where he branded the 3 stripes for a football shoe. I was stationed in Nuremberg West Germany 10 miles to the south in 1985 and actually visited his plant near where we had an artillery unit at Herzo Base. Of course I got my first pair of adidas basketball shoes there, replacing my Chuckies.

And who'da thunk those Chucks would be so iconic today? They're so old they're new again. Not as omnipresent as your days playing for Whack, but back in the stores & media.

Took adidas a while to get into the clothing realm.... prob most famous non-track shoes they made were Muhammed Ali's boxing boots.

 

[AugustaSwarm]

For anyone wanting gold merch, go to Section 103. Lots of great fan gear, and it's the correct shade of gold.

I think Adidas has done a good job with team uniforms, especially football. With the exception of the glow in the dark black uni, our football unis looked great this season. I love the white helmet, especially the metallic GT logos.

 

[jacketup]

When we first had that !@#$%^&*()_+ AstroTurf installed at Grant Field for the 1971 season, adidas (lc) was one of the shoe brands we wore....Riddell, SpotBilt, and Puma were the others...... Adi Dassler built a big shoe company in post-WWII Europe two decades before Nike got started in Oregon with track shoes.

Nike didn't hit the national football scene til about 1974 when USC made a major comeback & thumped Notre Dame. 55-14. USC RB Anthony Davis was shown on national TV wearing "The Swoosh" shoes and everyone had to have them.

I wore adidas track shoes in HS in the '60s. Kangaroo hide, which I believe was subsequently outlawed. Nike didn't exist. Puma was the competition for track shoes.

I played intramural soccer on that awful AstroTurf (wearing adidas soccer shoes). A layer of that abrasive stuff put down over asphalt. It's amazing anyone survived playing football on it. Soccer balls bounced high!

 

[stinger78]

I don’t really have a presence on one brand over the other. It has also surprised me that adidas hasn’t tried to do more in this market area. Miami, Loserville, NC State, and miss St are the only big colleges that adidas has in the south. You would think they would want to Try to Capitalize on the Atlanta influence, although it probably is hard to push things for a struggling program.

I am Also surprised, or perhaps missed, teach and adidas haven’t done more with the “stripe” ties Between there logo and the yellow jacket stripes.
And then to open another can of worms, maybe something along the lines of the black watch. I know with the rules you can’t have certain players where a black stripe, but this seems like a great way to have adidas create something uniquely Tech that we can market. And i realize our defense has been so bad that there might not be anything handed out recently, so maybe we create something for offense?

A bad D didn’t stop is from running a black watch game out there in our worst defensive performance of the season.

 

[Gold1]

Adidas has done a good job, but for whatever reason our gold jerseys don’t match our gold helmets. I think they need to fix that before we re-up them

They match fine. That’s not the issue at all. The issue is adidas thinks we are notre dame. The recent Hanes announcement confirmed that they will provide more gold apparel.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

They match fine.

If by fine, you mean not at all, then yeah, they match fine...

 

[wesgt123]

Adidas has sucked imo. Uniforms are okay. But the gear is terrible. We still get mass produced mostly navy blue products. And the designs are ugly.

I've bought one adidas shirt since the contract started. Maybe I'm picky but my choices to choose from haven't been that great.

Id vote for Nike and see what happens.

 

[YoungSting]

Adidas has sucked imo. Uniforms are okay. But the gear is terrible. We still get mass produced mostly navy blue products. And the designs are ugly.

I've bought one adidas shirt since the contract started. Maybe I'm picky but my choices to choose from haven't been that great.

Id vote for Nike and see what happens.

I can see what you and others have a problem with the mass produced navy products, and really just a copy cat of other adidas schools.

But is Nike going to be any different? And why would they give us any special treatment when they already have the “institution” to the east.

 

[RonJohn]

I can see what you and others have a problem with the mass produced navy products, and really just a copy cat of other adidas schools.

But is Nike going to be any different? And why would they give us any special treatment when they already have the “institution” to the east.

And why does the UNIFORM contract have a lot to do with the fan merchandise? Those are totally separate things.

 

[JacketOff]

And why does the UNIFORM contract have a lot to do with the fan merchandise? Those are totally separate things.

Because adidas pays GT to advertise their product on the field/court, and then uses that advertisement to sell product to fans.

 

[RonJohn]

Because adidas pays GT to advertise their product on the field/court, and then uses that advertisement to sell product to fans.

Except the UNIFORM contract doesn't have wording about fan apparel. It doesn't guarantee Adidas exclusive rights to produce fan material. It doesn't exclude other companies from producing fan apparel. It is basically payment, lots of that payment in uniforms and clothes for the athletic teams, so that Adidas is advertised by the players on the field.

The merchandise in the store is dictated by the STORES, not the manufactureres. Hanes has an "exclusive" contract to provide "fanwear" in "mass retail channel". Manufacturers don't decide whether the fan apparel they produce will be white, gold, or navy. Stores order what they think will sell. Apparently most stores that carry GT fan apparel believe that navy sells better than gold. If the UNIFORM contract changes to Nike, the team UNIFORMs will be Nike uniforms. However, Nike cannot flood stores with Nike fan apparel. Stores have to order it. If GT fans want more fan apparel, and if people want more gold fan apparel, then GT fans need to buy more fan apparel to get the attention of the stores who will then order that fan apparel. There is no magic wand of selecting one UNIFORM provider over another to get stores full of GT gear.

Adidas did produce GT branded Ultra Boost shoes. That is the one thing that I can think of that has produced fan apparel because of the current UNIFORM contract. The athletic department did purchase season ticket holder t-shirts at the beginning of the contract, probably at a reduced price. However, I don't think that was simply because Adidas was involved. I believe that was a marketing opportunity that the athletic department tried to take advantage of.

 

[JacketOff]

Except the UNIFORM contract doesn't have wording about fan apparel. It doesn't guarantee Adidas exclusive rights to produce fan material. It doesn't exclude other companies from producing fan apparel. It is basically payment, lots of that payment in uniforms and clothes for the athletic teams, so that Adidas is advertised by the players on the field.

Correct. Nike, Under Armour, Russell, New Balance, Puma, lululemon, whoever can apply for licensing rights through GT and produce their own fan apparel. They don’t, and adidas does. Reciprocally adidas doesn’t make fan gear for UGA, Oregon, Ohio State, Auburn, UNC, etc because their respective UNIFORM manufacturers are producing their own fan gear. The rest of your rant doesn’t really matter

 

[RonJohn]

Correct. Nike, Under Armour, Russell, New Balance, Puma, lululemon, whoever can apply for licensing rights through GT and produce their own fan apparel. They don’t, and adidas does. Reciprocally adidas doesn’t make fan gear for UGA, Oregon, Ohio State, Auburn, UNC, etc because their respective UNIFORM manufacturers are producing their own fan gear. The rest of your rant doesn’t really matter

I don't disagree that Nike is not apt to produce GT gear currently since the logo on the GT uniforms and GT website is Adidas. My larger point is that changing the uniform contract will not automatically increase the availability of fan gear. Target doesn't carry very little GT gear because Adidas is the uniform company. Target doesn't carry a boatload of mutt gear simply because Nike is the uniform company. If GT were to change to being a Nike school, Target wouldn't carry any more GT gear. Availability of fan gear has much less to do with the uniform company than it has to do with what their fans will purchase. If GT fans start buying every single GT branded thing that is put in a store, there will end up being a lot of GT branded stuff in stores. Changing the uniform contractor will not cause a large increase in availability.

 

[JacketOff]

I don't disagree that Nike is not apt to produce GT gear currently since the logo on the GT uniforms and GT website is Adidas. My larger point is that changing the uniform contract will not automatically increase the availability of fan gear. Target doesn't carry very little GT gear because Adidas is the uniform company. Target doesn't carry a boatload of mutt gear simply because Nike is the uniform company. If GT were to change to being a Nike school, Target wouldn't carry any more GT gear. Availability of fan gear has much less to do with the uniform company than it has to do with what their fans will purchase. If GT fans start buying every single GT branded thing that is put in a store, there will end up being a lot of GT branded stuff in stores. Changing the uniform contractor will not cause a large increase in availability.

I never said anything to the contrary.

 

[yeti92]

Correct. Nike, Under Armour, Russell, New Balance, Puma, lululemon, whoever can apply for licensing rights through GT and produce their own fan apparel. They don’t, and adidas does. Reciprocally adidas doesn’t make fan gear for UGA, Oregon, Ohio State, Auburn, UNC, etc because their respective UNIFORM manufacturers are producing their own fan gear. The rest of your rant doesn’t really matter

Of all the brands you listed, they have all made Georgia Tech apparel except possibly New Balance. Under Armour, Russell, and LuluLemon all have Tech gear readily available at the bookstore or on Fanatics.
Also just snagged a sweet Puma Georgia Tech pullover, thanks for getting me to look this up.

 

[BuzzThePlumber]

Of all the brands you listed, they have all made Georgia Tech apparel except possibly New Balance. Under Armour, Russell, and LuluLemon all have Tech gear readily available at the bookstore or on Fanatics.
Also just snagged a sweet Puma Georgia Tech pullover, thanks for getting me to look this up.

I mean, Puma doesn't make GT apparel currently-- looks like on ebay there was a random older looking pullover. Looks like Russell does still make a minimal amount of GT gear, Underarmour may currently make a very minimal amount of GT gear (not much available online, though there may still be some items in the bookstore). Certainly, though, adidas is the only major uniform maker that currently makes any kind of significant amount of GT fan apparel. And then of course lots of companies that don't make team uniforms, (like Lululemon) make fan apparel for lots of teams, including Tech.

 

[yeti92]

I mean, Puma doesn't make GT apparel currently-- looks like on ebay there was a random older looking pullover. Looks like Russell does still make a minimal amount of GT gear, Underarmour may currently make a very minimal amount of GT gear (not much available online, though there may still be some items in the bookstore). Certainly, though, adidas is the only major uniform maker that currently makes any kind of significant amount of GT fan apparel. And then of course lots of companies that don't make team uniforms, (like Lululemon) make fan apparel for lots of teams, including Tech.

I don't think I said they did currently, I said they have made it before. I've bought multiple under armour polos at the bookstore within the last year or two, despite us never being a UA school. Also my post was mostly just that I found it funny that of the brands he listed, almost all of them have or are currently producing Tech gear in some form or another, despite being under contract with Adidas since 2018 and Russell before that.

 

[Vespidae]

The whole discussion is around revenue to the school.

Revenue = Cash + Product + Royalties.

Tennessee's royalties, for example, are 12-14% of sales, so a large fanbase, with good designs, generates sales and in turn, royalties. The smaller fanbases will get some cash, maybe in bonuses, and mostly product.

As I recall, Adidas did not give Tech any cash, but did provide product. I have some of the athlete's gear and it's a step up from what is available retail wise. According to CLC, the top licensing programs (which generate the most royalties) are (2018) below. I would not expect to see any major change to the availability of GT gear, regardless of who is the sponsor. We just don't have the fanbase size that drives royalty revenue.

1. Texas
2. Alabama
3. Michigan
4. Notre Dame
5. Georgia
6. Florida
7. LSU
8. Florida State
9. Texas A&M
10. North Carolina
11. Auburn
12. Oklahoma
13. Nebraska
14. Arkansas
15. Wisconsin
16. Tennessee
17. South Carolina
18. Penn State
19. Missouri
20. West Virginia
21. Kansas
22. Clemson
23. Oklahoma State
24. Louisville
25. Texas Tech

 

[stinger78]

The whole discussion is around revenue to the school.

Revenue = Cash + Product + Royalties.

Tennessee's royalties, for example, are 12-14% of sales, so a large fanbase, with good designs, generates sales and in turn, royalties. The smaller fanbases will get some cash, maybe in bonuses, and mostly product.

As I recall, Adidas did not give Tech any cash, but did provide product. I have some of the athlete's gear and it's a step up from what is available retail wise. According to CLC, the top licensing programs (which generate the most royalties) are (2018) below. I would not expect to see any major change to the availability of GT gear, regardless of who is the sponsor. We just don't have the fanbase size that drives royalty revenue.

1. Texas
2. Alabama
3. Michigan
4. Notre Dame
5. Georgia
6. Florida
7. LSU
8. Florida State
9. Texas A&M
10. North Carolina
11. Auburn
12. Oklahoma
13. Nebraska
14. Arkansas
15. Wisconsin
16. Tennessee
17. South Carolina
18. Penn State
19. Missouri
20. West Virginia
21. Kansas
22. Clemson
23. Oklahoma State
24. Louisville
25. Texas Tech

LOL. So the SECheat has 12 of the top 25 licensed gear programs. That reality can tell us all a lot about why things break their way so often. They have huge fanbases that identify extremely strongly with their team.

No surprises there. The only ones missing are Kentucky, Vandy, Ole Miss, and Miss State.