Comments on: adidas + UCF + Marcus Jordan – adidas = ???

By: gucci outlet

gucci outlet — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:28:00 +0000

Leisure is more and more important in the life. Here I know a lot of leisure that is good at me. Adjust our life interest, bring us the enthusiasm of exercise. The post is very well. By the way I know some websites is very well such as air jordan 16.5. Disscount fashionable item is hotting on sale!

By: Davidnfashion

Davidnfashion — Wed, 12 May 2010 00:14:32 +0000

Branded product is too good. If you are not using branded products then you should start and you should purchase Adidas products which is big brand. Thanks

By: Tinky Pringle

Tinky Pringle — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:28:58 +0000

Seriously? Nike has an army of lawyers writing contracts that undermine other company agreements all the time. If the situation were reversed I don’t believe Nike would tolerate it either.

The Jordan worship (The greatest basketball player of all time and the worst baseball player of all time) is getting pretty old and Marcus should make his own path for a new generation of players.

I worked at adidas and am not a great fan of their dismissive business model when it comes to U.S. based sports. They throw money at basketball while grooming Euro minded soccer with solid strategy.

The only loser is UCF that has lost the leverage of using Nike against adidas for better deals.

By: Chris Masters

Chris Masters — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:00:03 +0000

I started following this story months ago as I was a former Regional Manager of TEAM(amateur) Sports for the East Coast at adidas (3 years ago). Part of my responsibilities included overseeing what we called our “Direct” relationships with the larger FBS and FCS schools which ranged from primarily marketing relationships(i.e. Louisville, Northwestern) to a hybrid of sales/marketing relationships(i.e.UCF).

I tell this bit of history to get to the meat of my comment which is the fact that we encountered a very similar situation with another Division I school during my tenure and we managed the situation completely different.

The University had a student athlete who had ongoing knee problems which the stud-athlete claimed were a result of wearing adidas footwear at a junior college prior to their transfer. Initially the media(minus social media)ran the story but we quickly managed the situations by providing and exhausting a number of options to the student athlete which included:several conversations with school, coach and athlete to identify the true problem, a number of shoes to choose and went as far as offering custom fitting and building a shoe. We ultimately decided to allow the player to wear “spatted”(which means all logos were covered) shoes of a competitor.

It showed a willingness to work with the University and the student athlete and get the focus back to what was really important to each party involved: School and coach protected and defended their student athlete, Student athlete was able to focus on school and sport, and adidas still got the revenue from a $110 pair of sneakers plus a stronger relationship with the university which ultimately led to more spending by the school. ALSO NO NEGATIVE MEDIA.

FYI…the student athlete blew out their knee 2 games in wearing a competitors shoe.

By: Deven Nongbri

Deven Nongbri — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:44:08 +0000

Yes, adidas is getting a PR black eye by living up to the role of contract-enforcing toughs. They could’ve worked with the UCF program & kept Nike out of the picture. But they didn’t and now Nike will most likely come in as the hero for this program (if they’re smart).

But keep in mind that the UCF program must have had the Nike folks lined up in case things went south with adidas (which they did). A Division I program doesn’t turn down $3 million without some kind of back-up plan.