 |
Written By: Nathan Skinner
Canes Rising Contributor
College athletics is a business, a huge one that covers everything from what student athletes drink, to the apparel they wear. Elite schools are paid millions to wear apparel and the apparel manufacturers are in constant competition to attract elite institutions. The University of Miami has been outfitted by Nike since the early 90s and the relationship has been beneficial for both entities. Recently, it was reported that Adidas and Under Armour have made offers to become the official apparel provider of Miami athletics. While Nike has the opportunity to match any offer, it looks like the swoosh may choose to let Miami leave at the end of the current contract, which expires in August 2015. This proposed change has been met with anger as Miami fans have become accustomed to Nike and look upon the change as another example of Miami moving away from its glorious past. That viewpoint is not only shortsighted, it's irrational. Miami can't afford to leave money on the table knowing that the college football arms race is heating up.
When the rumors of Miami leaving Nike were first discussed, fans raced to point out that few schools are associated with Adidas or Under Armour. While Nike is the apparel supplier for most major schools, it isn't because Nike provides a superior product, it's because Nike was the first brand to make major inroads into the college apparel market. Before 1990, the college apparel landscape was dominated by Russell Athletic, a relatively small company. Nike, thanks to their highly successful footwear division, decided to get involved with apparel and looked at the exploding college market as an opportunity. Miami was one of the first schools approached, along with Penn State, Florida State, and Southern California. The deals back then weren't worth much, because Nike held the leverage. Schools who wanted to wear Nike footwear had to take Nike on as their apparel provider. At the time, few schools wore Adidas, Converse and Puma had abandoned the market. Nike then went on to dominate the apparel market, signing deals with a majority of college programs, with some traditional powers choosing to sign with Adidas. That's been the status quo the last 20 years, until recently. The rise of Under Armour and the reemergence of Adidas had led to a frenzy of activity in apparel, and schools for the first time are able to explore the free market. The recent move of Arizona State to Adidas for 4.2 million per year is a significant event, while Notre Dame's recent signing with Under Armour for 90 million over ten years is mind boggling. The Irish have the option to accept payment in the form of Under Armour stock, which may inflate the value of the deal to 9 figures. While Miami may not be as valuable an entity as Notre Dame, there's evidence that the 'Canes aren't getting their rightful share of apparel revenues.
Miami is a private institution so getting contract information is difficult, but the 'Canes have long been undervalued. Nike has shown their disdain for Miami in numerous ways, chief amongst them not putting effort into Miami's recent uniform redesign. In previous years, Miami was given a uniform template that was unique to the program. This year, Nike not only tried to corner Miami by releasing a new uniform right before the end of the contract, they forced Miami to share a template with Florida State. This goes beyond a uniform template, Nike has undervalued The U for years. Multiple sources confirm that the 'Canes "aren't in the same galaxy" as some of the other major Nike schools when it comes to the amount paid. Some of that discrepancy can be attributed to former Athletic Director Paul Dee, who signed an awful extension with the apparel manufacturer in the early 2000s. The discrepancy could also be explained by noting that while Miami was the first school to sign with Nike, they aren't the largest. Schools like Florida, Florida State, Alabama and Texas are far larger institutions with significantly larger fanbases. Larger fanbases tend to buy a lot more apparel, which gives those programs a little more leverage in negotiations. Miami on the other hand has a smaller fanbase and while The U is a national brand, it isn't winning on the field, that limits the reach of the brand. There's only one way Miami can force Nike to pay fair market value, and that's to take advantage of the open market, and exploit the fact that Adidas and Under Armour are looking to cut into Nike's overwhelming market share.
Fans shouldn't overlook the finances involved in apparel contracts, for it is a significant source of revenue. Arizona State is now receiving twice the amount they once received from Nike, imagine how much more a brand like Miami could possibly receive in this marketplace. A national brand like Miami with a widespread, national fanbase should be significantly more valuable than regionally popular Arizona State. If Miami can pull an extra 2-3 million per season, that's a significant windfall for an athletic department that is forced to depend on sponsorships and television revenues. The University is consistently criticized for not spending nonexistent cash, but is now expected to leave money on the table in favor of Nike. If Miami had a fanbase that was willing to help offset the shortfall by buying tickets and making donations to the Hurricane Club, Nike would be an attractive option, but that isn't the case. Miami has to take the money and use it to further the goals of the athletic department.
While fans may not be happy with a change, they will be happy if those additional funds are used to hire competent coaches and improve the student athlete experience. Winning is a great healer, and Miami needs additional funds if it has hopes of becoming the Miami of old. Fans should be happy that Blake James and the rest of the Miami brass has finally realized that The U can be a valuable brand, if it is nurtured and developed.
Posts
