Good for UCLA. But is there really that big of a UCLA sports following to invest that much? How they sign a bigger deal than Ohio State or Texas is amazing. Great negotiating by their AD.
UCLA signs Under Armour deal worth 280 Million
- Thread starter TheCockyTex
- Start date
$280M for 15 years - $18.6/year
We resigned for 10 years, $71.5M - $7.5/year.
Maybe we should have held out for more?
http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...-armour-deal-shows-where-the-brand-is-heading
We resigned for 10 years, $71.5M - $7.5/year.
Maybe we should have held out for more?
http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...-armour-deal-shows-where-the-brand-is-heading
Wow that's a huge difference. At the time, it appeared that we made huge gains in our contract with Under Armour, but when you compare it to recent contracts that other schools have made, we obviously didn't fare as well as initially thought. I'm guessing there are more people buying UCLA apparel than USC, but not to the point where they deserve $10+ million for a year.
It demonstrates their superior footprint in college athletics historically compared to ours. Even though we outdraw them in everything, their market recognition is huge and their national identity is among the nation's most prominent. We are a second-tier athletic institution by comparison. They are viewed evidently as more than twice as desirable as a purveyor of apparel.
Adidas supplies UCLA's apparel, not Nike.
Ok, let me make sure I have this straight. UA agrees to outfit all of UCLA's athletes and pay them $280 million over 15 years ($18,666,666 avg per year) in exchange, UA is the official provider of all university sold sports apparel. Does UCLA really retail that much merchandise? I also assume that UA has the rights to use the official UCLA name/logo on any other merchandise UA sells through other retailers. Does the UCLA name really sell that much $$$$?
If it was the 1970's, then I can see it... But it's not the 1970's...
I don't buy this at all. Winning a bunch of national championships in basketball in the 70's does not make you a national brand in 2016. Obviously Under Armour sees $$$ potential in UCLA, but calling them a national brand is a stretch. I've lived all around the country, to include in the PAC12 footprint, and I've seen very little UCLA apparel (outside of Los Angeles). Texas, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame...those are national brands I see everywhere.
The Collegiate Licensing Company puts out a list every year that ranks universities by merchandise sales, however the company does not represent UCLA, so it's tough to figure out exactly where they fall. The link below is the only list I've found so far that includes UCLA in a ranking. If you have numbers that prove otherwise, I'd love to see them.
http://nysportsjournalism.squarespace.com/college-merch-sales-hit-46b-86/
$ offered is based on potential sales which is based on population, branding and recent athletic success
I doesn't matter whether you, me or anyone else agrees or disagrees that UCLA is a national brand. In this case what matters is that Under Amour thinks so. I'm sure their marketing team did due diligence and research to determine if they were making a sound financial investment.
I completely agree with you there. There's no doubt that UA did the necessary research and think they are making a sound financial investment. I'm just saying that UCLA doesn't have to be a "national brand" to sign a lucrative apparel deal. The massive population in southern California is largely driving this I believe, and the populace obviously buys a lot of UCLA gear. East of the west coast though, I'd be surprised if there's UCLA apparel flying off the shelves anywhere.
While UCLA might be a bigger brand historically, I can see some of the what have you done for me lately with regard to who will actually move merchandise. College sports don't rule Southern California like they do the Southeast, and it will be even more intriguing to see what happens now that the Rams are back. Perhaps we should've done a little better $ wise, especially considering how much (UA) merchandise we move, and especially if we were in negotiations with Nike, and the fact we stayed with UA.
How ignorant are some you cave dwellers? Go look up how many championships UCLA has won. You might actually learn they have more titles than anyone else. Then, go look up the number of people who live in Southern Cal. Some of the stupid that is spewed on this Board is incredible.
Last edited:
Guys it's not just name recognition of UCLA, it's also about the LA market. They could possibly sell more merchandise to people who just want a t shirt from LA than they could sell to our total die hard base in the whole state
I think some of you are missing the point. Nobody's saying South Carolina's deal should be bigger than UCLA. The real point is that if you go around the country you see Texas, Notre Dame, Alabama, Ohio State stuff in every part of the country. UCLA isn't on that level. They aren't even the top collegiate program in their city. It's just interesting that UA would invest that much in them.
UCLA isn't the top collegiate program in their own city? Please tell me more.
National team championshipsEdit
As of December 6, 2015, UCLA has 113 NCAA team national championships.[19]
- Men's sports (74):
- Baseball (1): 2013
- Basketball (11): 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995
- Golf (2): 1988, 2008
- Gymnastics (2): 1984, 1987
- Outdoor Track & Field (8): 1956, 1966, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1978, 1987, 1988
- Soccer (4): 1985, 1990, 1997, 2002
- Swimming (1): 1982
- Tennis (16): 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1960, 1961, 1965, 1970, 1971, 1975, 1976(co), 1979, 1982, 1984, 2005
- Volleyball (19): 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2006
- Water Polo (10): 1969, 1971, 1972, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2014, 2015
- Women's sports (39):
- Golf (3): 1991, 2004, 2011
- Gymnastics (6): 1997, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2010
- Indoor Track and Field (2): 2001, 2002
- Outdoor Track and Field (3):1982, 1983, 2004
- Soccer (1): 2013
- Softball (11): 1982, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2010
- Tennis (2): 2008, 2014
- Volleyball (4):1984, 1990, 1991, 2011
- Water Polo (7): 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
Tex is right. I'm all for UCLA getting as much as they can, I also want the same for us, and while I certainly am impressed with UCLA's athletic history, how many of their "fans" know how many water polo, and track titles they've won. Don't get me wrong, track is one of my favorite sports. In all honesty, Southern Cal should sign a $300 million dollar deal any day now if we're talking population, and titles.
What does the number of national championships won have to do with anything? You have to look at what sports they are winning them in. They've never won a MNC in football and have only won 1 basketball championship in the last 40 years. Bet all those national championships in tennis, volleyball, and water polo have really built a huge fan base. I get the population base in SoCal, however LA is a pro sports town so college athletics will always be on the back burner. I like Under Armour, so I hope this deal is lucrative for them, but the deal still seems perplexing with the amount of fan support UCLA receives around the country.
BTW, why is a conversation about UCLA making you act like such an ass? Are you this passionate about it because you went to school there? The rest of us are having a civil conversation about it and you roll in like an angry old man.
Is this a serious post?
I can't say why this thread got under my skin, but it did. I guess I'm tired of seeing a bunch of adolescent a-holes go off on anything and everything that isn't glowing SC. UCLA is a great school with a rich tradition and they're located in the 2nd largest City in the nation. They obviously have a sharp AD too. But, instead of acknowledging it or congratulating them, the usual suspects go off of them and act like they're old news and SC is the now the big boy on the block, which of course isn't true. UCLA is a classy school that is ranked higher than us in just about everything. They're located in a hip section of probably the hippest area of the country. I guess some around here just can't handle that and they let their insecurity and immaturity take over. Sad.
Ok this sounds like you just have a beef with certain posters because I'm not interpreting the comments in this thread to say that USC got screwed on their deal. No one is going off on UCLA. It's still odd that a school without a national following can pull in an apparel deal that you would expect from a school like Ohio St, Alabama, or Texas. Perhaps the citizens of LA just buy a lot of UCLA gear, but I'd put money on a bet that half of the residents of LA couldn't point out UCLA on a map.
Well, if we take your question to its logical end then that means they've got a pretty good AD. I'm sure that's true, but the fact remains that UCLA is a huge name in college athletics and is certainly a national brand. Even in Northeastern cities you'll see ppl in UCLA tees and sweats.
It doesn't affect them. USC won't sell out to wear the UA clown suits for a game or two every year. Believe me, if USC had been willing, that same contract would have gone to them. Notre Dame right now is probably the only school that takes the UA money and doesn't have to break tradition.
LA Population: 18.68 million (2015)
Sc Population 4,896,146
Not to mention we are not a national brand right now. Could have been, but the decline in football and baseball and the rebuild in basketball have solidly taken us off the radar.
If you don't like this, quit being ok with mediocrity in our sports programs because this is a resulting factor for keeping coaches that underperform too long.
Sc Population 4,896,146
Not to mention we are not a national brand right now. Could have been, but the decline in football and baseball and the rebuild in basketball have solidly taken us off the radar.
If you don't like this, quit being ok with mediocrity in our sports programs because this is a resulting factor for keeping coaches that underperform too long.
I'm probably not the most traveled guy among any of you posters here on FGF, but I have lived, and been to or thru 20 states from as far west as CA, southwest as TX & AZ, midwest as Ohio, north as NY & PA, and south as FL ... and off shore as Hawaii. I regularly shop or browse the athletic paraphernalia wherever I go, and outside of CA, I have never seen 1 item bearing the UCLA name. So, the UA deal is all about the potential market the population of CA brings which would be the non-revenue producing sports fanatics, and the academic nerds (according to Atlantacock).
I'm having trouble trying to understand why South Carolina fans are upset with a UCLA apparel deal
