Breaking Adidas confirms it will NOT renew its NBA contract

[seattlesonicsofsacramento]

Sleeves. Sleeves. SLEEVES.

Literally anything to get rid of that hideous crap is an extreme positive. What a brilliantly awful concept.

Why do you think changing manufacturers will have any impact on teams using or not using sleeved jerseys?

Who thinks this was something done by Adidas against the NBA's will?

Because Adidas does it in college too, whereas Nike doesn't do it there nor internationally? But you're right; we have no way to know for sure. And if it's purely being pushed by the NBA, then I hope Nike convinces them that they're not worth it (I also hope this for ads on jerseys).

[Gothamite]

I don't think it's being "purely pushed by the NBA". But I don't think it's all Adidas, either.

If the NBA thinks they sell, then Nike will make them.

[slapshot]

big rant

Thank you.

Most of the anti-Adidas crowd loves to kneel at the feet of the almighty Swoosh™, just because it's Nike.

Yes, we know Adidas has put out some ugly templates lately. But as Buc said, Adidas was not the first to template its teams. Nor add unnecessary colors. Or oversized collars. And illegible uniforms.

[Gothamite]

There are some who will reflexively hate anything Adidas does. Just as there are some who will reflexively hate anything Nike does. But both groups are in the minority, and I think we do our fellow posters a disservice focusing too much on those outliers.

[The Wolf Within]

I'm glad to hear about this. And I'm sure Adidas is the only company pretending the sleeved jerseys are successful. That nightmare is almost over. Now we just have to wait and find out which new nightmare is beginning.

[IceCap]

@Buc, your team is really the only casualty of Nike's NFL contract imo. Are certain aspects of the Fins and Vikings downgrades (like the loss of orange and numerals, respectively)? Yes. But are any of the uniforms other than the Bucs that bad?

Seattle, Jacksonville, Miami. The Vikings have been the only runaway success thus far, and I'm betting that's because the team kept Nike on a short leash re: what they could do. Even then you see a bunch of unnecessary nonsense like flared stripes, pointless weird fonts, and pants striping that doesn't match the sleeve striping.

I don't think so. You can even count me as one of the Seahawks fans who like the redesign.

Winning a Super Bowl in it didn't make it any less ugly

Adidas's weird mix of minimalism, camo, and sleeves are just making new NBA uniforms boring sometimes and ridiculous other times. I'm not bashing just to bash them. I'm deeply opposed to Adidas's design philosophies (seriously, their tri-stripes on everything), especially when it comes to basketball. Do you see any Nike jerseys with sleeves?

No, but I'm deeply opposed to Nike's design philosophies. Adidas has their issues. I'm not saying they're the light to Nike's darkness or anything. They are, however, the lesser of two evils.

As for sleeves? They're going to continue to make sleeved jerseys regardless of who the manufacturer is. If they stop making them? It'll be because they're not selling. Not because they switched from Adidas to Nike or UA.

Do I have a problem with a company making crazy uniforms for an all-star game nobody really watches? No, that's how all-star games have been for decades in pro sports. And I'm honestly not that opposed to templated warm-up gear, especially since I like Nike's recent effort at the college level (I thought even Louisville's Adidas shooting shirts looked good when I saw a glimpse of them the other week).

Adidas' warm-up gear has been pretty nice too despite being templated.

Now about All-Star games. No, people really don't watch, but we are uniform and logo nerds. So ideally we'd want ASG uniforms to look nice, regardless of if anyone is watching. Personally? I dug this year's NBA ASG uniform set.

Nike's volt/grey vs highlighter orange/grey combo in the NFL is bad enough. We don't need to export it to other leagues.

I think one reason a lot of us want Nike to return to the NBA is nostalgia/brand loyalty thanks to their shoes...

The amount of misplaced loyalty people have in shoe companies is amazing.

Look. I'm a critic of Nike's uniform efforts. Doesn't stop me from buying their shoes though. The best pair of hockey skates I ever had was made by Nike. Do I have a degree of "brand loyalty" to Nike? Yes. Does that mean I'm going to fawn over everything else they do? No. The idea that someone would prefer Nike when it comes to uniform design just because they like their shoes is mind-boggling.

Honestly, though, I don't think Nike will go for the contract. They've still got a lot of work to do in the NFL, imo, having only redesigned/"refreshed" a small portion of the teams. If anything, it'll be Under Armour's chance to really challenge what Nike did in the NBA, which is an opportunity I'm sure their founder will love.\

Nike is a big company. If the NBA contract is something that will make them money? They're going to take it. Not go "oh that would have been super awesome but we're too busy making the Cleveland Browns look like garbage so we have to pass."

[guest23]

Sleeves. Sleeves. SLEEVES.

Literally anything to get rid of that hideous crap is an extreme positive. What a brilliantly awful concept.

Why do you think changing manufacturers will have any impact on teams using or not using sleeved jerseys?

Who thinks this was something done by Adidas against the NBA's will?

It's Adidas' thing. It was a thing to push their branding, it's not like anyone liked it or anything. The NBA is a joke aesthetically so they simply allowed it.

That's like saying warmup jackets will continue to have three stripes because the NBA doesn't mind it.

I'm more convinced that sleeves were a misguided attempt to grow sales across a consumer base that is averse to wearing tank tops. I'd credit incomplete market research or faulty assumptions (use soccer shirt sales as a proxy for sales projections). I don't think that sleeves are an inherent part of the adidas brand at all, adding 3 stripes to all of their uniforms is what they do to push their branding.

Frankly adidas simply does not do much well in the US market. Their attempts in the team sports market outside of soccer are failures for the most part. Given that they are losing market share rather quickly to UA shows that they simply don't make products that American athletes or consumers like. There are a few exceptions with retro, running and soccer but that's it.

Their acquisition of the nike designers have to be an absolute hail mary for their US operation. If this fails they will become an irrelevant 3rd place brand.

[Shadojoker]

I love it how when Uni Watch tweeted this and according to the mothership..the majority consensus is EXTREMELY excited that Adidas isnt renewing their contract. LOL sucks to be you Adidas!

[seattlesonicsofsacramento]

@Buc, your team is really the only casualty of Nike's NFL contract imo. Are certain aspects of the Fins and Vikings downgrades (like the loss of orange and numerals, respectively)? Yes. But are any of the uniforms other than the Bucs that bad?

Seattle, Jacksonville, Miami. The Vikings have been the only runaway success thus far, and I'm betting that's because the team kept Nike on a short leash re: what they could do. Even then you see a bunch of unnecessary nonsense like flared stripes, pointless weird fonts, and pants striping that doesn't match the sleeve striping.

Nike's fonts and collars are too much, yeah, and their Jags helmet was a failed experiment, but I like the rest of the Jags redesign more than their previous piping. Miami only looks "bad" in the sense that we know they can look better. And when the Seahawks redesign came out I was like "meh", but I never once thought they were bad.

Yes, we'd have to be careful that Nike not make any ridiculous fonts for NBA teams. I don't really think we'll have to worry about collars. Also, note how when Nike comes up with an idea fail like the Jags' helmet they don't push that idea on other teams.

I think one reason a lot of us want Nike to return to the NBA is nostalgia/brand loyalty thanks to their shoes...

The amount of misplaced loyalty people have in shoe companies is amazing.

Look. I'm a critic of Nike's uniform efforts. Doesn't stop me from buying their shoes though. The best pair of hockey skates I ever had was made by Nike. Do I have a degree of "brand loyalty" to Nike? Yes. Does that mean I'm going to fawn over everything else they do? No. The idea that someone would prefer Nike when it comes to uniform design just because they like their shoes is mind-boggling.

Is it really "mind-boggling"? Seems like a basic psychological component of marketing to me. Use a product to get people to eventually say not just "I like Nike shoes" but "I like Nike" and then see how far that thought/feeling will go.

Like I said though in the part you didn't quote, Adidas's shoes are the one product of theirs I like, and yet I'm also able to hate their uniforms. So we're coming from a similar place.

Honestly, though, I don't think Nike will go for the contract. They've still got a lot of work to do in the NFL, imo, having only redesigned/"refreshed" a small portion of the teams. If anything, it'll be Under Armour's chance to really challenge what Nike did in the NBA, which is an opportunity I'm sure their founder will love.

Nike is a big company. If the NBA contract is something that will make them money? They're going to take it. Not go "oh that would have been super awesome but we're too busy making the Cleveland Browns look like garbage so we have to pass."

Yeah, I made that sound like the crux of my argument when I really just feel like it'll be a side effect of them not bidding enough for the contract. I typed that while having this post in mind, thinking it was a given ITT by now:

So now Adidas is going to invest even more in basketball, but instead put the majority of it into product development and player endorsements.

"We want to sharpen the edge and be more disruptive," Grancio said. "If I were to describe our products in brief, historically we've been too safe. We want to be much more aggressive in design."

The Portland Business Journal thus far has the only interview with Grancio.

Basketball is way more about the shoe than the tanktop/jersey you wear. From Adidas' standpoint it makes sense for them to go after player endorsements. As a logo/uniform board we may care about the jerseys more, but its always been about the shoes for adidas and nike.

I still don't see why everyone gets upset that Nike promotes its proprietary colors on one-off promotional apparel for all-star games, postseasons, etc. When I think of a team's iconic branding and history, I only think of what they're wearing while playing.

[See Red]

I must be the only one who doesn't mind sleeves. My only real issue with the sleeved jerseys was them using giant logos on the front. When they use the usual city/team name above number on the front, I don't think they look half bad. I actually really like the light blue Clippers and the gray Nets jerseys. I've long since grown out of the jersey wearing phase of my life, but I sure as hell wouldn't wear a sleeveless basketball jerseys -- a sleeved one? Maybe.

[IceCap]

@Buc, your team is really the only casualty of Nike's NFL contract imo. Are certain aspects of the Fins and Vikings downgrades (like the loss of orange and numerals, respectively)? Yes. But are any of the uniforms other than the Bucs that bad?

Seattle, Jacksonville, Miami. The Vikings have been the only runaway success thus far, and I'm betting that's because the team kept Nike on a short leash re: what they could do. Even then you see a bunch of unnecessary nonsense like flared stripes, pointless weird fonts, and pants striping that doesn't match the sleeve striping.

Nike's fonts and collars are too much, yeah, and their Jags helmet was a failed experiment, but I like the rest of the Jags redesign more than their previous piping. Miami only looks "bad" in the sense that we know they can look better. And when the Seahawks redesign came out I was like "meh", but I never once thought they were bad.

Yes, we'd have to be careful that Nike not make any ridiculous fonts for NBA teams. I don't really think we'll have to worry about collars. Also, note how when Nike comes up with an idea fail like the Jags' helmet they don't push that idea on other teams.

See, I think Miami looks terrible. The best thing I can say about them is that they're lifeless and dull. The colours aren't even an improvement. Yeah, the brighter aqua is nice, but rather then pair it with a vibrant orange they paired it with a dull slate blue. Even the improvement that is the new aqua is undercut by another aspect of the colour pallet. Add in the pointless font, the demotion of orange, and the lifeless cruise ship logo? Nothing about that is appealing to me. It's garbage, in my opinion.

Jacksonville's got some interesting ideas, but the whole package is just so poorly executed that it doesn't really matter. Compared to what they had before? At that point we're just comparing a bad Reebok uniform to a bad Nike uniform. I rather have neither. The team actually looked good when their uniforms were designed to promote the team rather then a shoe company's brand.

The Seahawks' uniform is a mishmash of panels and random geometric shapes. Any lip service about it representing Native art style is just that. The pattern down the centre of the helmet and on the numbers is evidence of the whole thing being over-designed, since they're useless as design elements. Finally, the whole colour balance is off. The helmets, jerseys, and pants all share colours, but they all emphasis different colours and omit others. So even with the best possible combination? You're still looking at a disjointed uniform.

I don't expect to change your opinion on any of these. Just throwing out the counter-points to your own assertions. Not everyone agrees with your claim that Nike's only misstep in the NFL has been the Buccaneers. For many of us it's been one terrible design after another.

I think one reason a lot of us want Nike to return to the NBA is nostalgia/brand loyalty thanks to their shoes...

The amount of misplaced loyalty people have in shoe companies is amazing.

Look. I'm a critic of Nike's uniform efforts. Doesn't stop me from buying their shoes though. The best pair of hockey skates I ever had was made by Nike. Do I have a degree of "brand loyalty" to Nike? Yes. Does that mean I'm going to fawn over everything else they do? No. The idea that someone would prefer Nike when it comes to uniform design just because they like their shoes is mind-boggling.

Is it really "mind-boggling"? Seems like a basic psychological component of marketing to me. Use a product to get people to eventually say not just "I like Nike shoes" but "I like Nike" and then see how far that thought/feeling will go.

It's mind-boggling because it's nonsensical. Nike is a huge company. It's almost a certainty that the people who design the shoes have no hand in uniform design. Those are likely two entirely different departments with their own staffs. Liking their shoes shouldn't lead into liking their uniforms because there's no connection there beyond the fact that both are made under the Nike label. If you fawn over every Nike uniform release because you like their sneakers then you're too far gone. That's not just brand loyalty. That's being loyal to the point of being blind.

Which is just part of why being so loyal to G-ddamn shoe company is just weird. As I said, I've been buying Nike sneakers most of my life because I like them. I'm not going to bow down to all things Nike. My relationship with that company begins and ends with them providing me with footwear. That's all. I'm not interested in being a Nike fanboy because of that.

Honestly, though, I don't think Nike will go for the contract. They've still got a lot of work to do in the NFL, imo, having only redesigned/"refreshed" a small portion of the teams. If anything, it'll be Under Armour's chance to really challenge what Nike did in the NBA, which is an opportunity I'm sure their founder will love.

Nike is a big company. If the NBA contract is something that will make them money? They're going to take it. Not go "oh that would have been super awesome but we're too busy making the Cleveland Browns look like garbage so we have to pass."

Yeah, I made that sound like the crux of my argument when I really just feel like it'll be a side effect of them not bidding enough for the contract. I typed that while having this post in mind, thinking it was a given ITT by now:

Nike, to me, has always been the shoe associated with basketball. Maybe I'm biased because I prefer Nike sneakers, though I doubt it because basketball was never really my thing. My brand loyalty there wouldn't have been basketball-centric. My point is that I think that connection exists in the minds of a lot of people of my generation who came of age during the height of Jordan/Nike branding. There's probably a lot of money to be made cashing in on that association.

I do expect UA to make a play, but I doubt Nike passes.

I still don't see why everyone gets upset that Nike promotes its proprietary colors on one-off promotional apparel for all-star games, postseasons, etc. When I think of a team's iconic branding and history, I only think of what they're wearing while playing.

My issue with it goes back to a comment I made in my first post that you didn't quote. That I take issue with Nike's design philosophy. That philosophy being that the teams and leagues they design for are there to promote the Nike brand. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be that a manufacturer would design a uniform to promote the team, and not themselves. Then Nike came onto the scene and started designing uniforms to act as billboards. Nike isn't the only one doing this (Adidas/Reebok and UA are guilty as well), but they were the first, and I would argue that they're also the most blatant.

Take University of Oregon football. The two most important games in that program's history were the two National Championship games they've played in. One in 2011 and one in 2015. In both games they wore uniforms devoid of school/team colours and instead wore uniforms with colours associated with Nike itself. Multiple greys/silvers, black, and volt. The NFL Pro Bowl uniforms feature dark grey, volt, and bright orange. All colours associated with Nike and their products.

Yeah, ASGs don't really matter. That shouldn't stop us from wanting to see well-designed uniforms, however. And Nike using those events to dress teams in colours that reflect their own corporate branding? It's just one more instance of Nike designing uniforms to promote themselves ahead of their clients.

[Gothamite]

I must be the only one who doesn't mind sleeves. My only real issue with the sleeved jerseys was them using giant logos on the front. When they use the usual city/team name above number on the front, I don't think they look half bad. I actually really like the light blue Clippers and the gray Nets jerseys. I've long since grown out of the jersey wearing phase of my life, but I sure as hell wouldn't wear a sleeveless basketball jerseys -- a sleeved one? Maybe.

...and that's why they were introduced under Adidas, and why I suspect they will continue under Nike or Under Armor or whoever ends up picking up the contraxt.

[seattlesonicsofsacramento]

@Ice_Cap, at the risk of too much quote chaining, I just wanted to say a couple points I agree with you on.

I (like you and most on this board, I think) believe that the Jags' early uniforms were their best (although I think I have an unpopular opinion that they should've stuck with being a black, white, and gold team and pushed teal from being trim to not being part of the brand at all, especially after the 90s ended).

I think the only thing we mutually dislike about the Seahawks uniform is the pattern on the numbers, since I'm not a fan of patterned numbers in general. There's really only 2 other non-mandatory design elements other than that pattern: the pants stripe (that also appears as a half-collar) and the modern sleeve stripes. Modern in the sense that they contain shapes other than rectangles (c.f. Oklahoma State for another example, which I love) as well as possibly a new trend of continuing onto other parts of the jersey--in this case, the chest. A lot of people don't like those chest stripes and the plain asymmetric Seahawks wordmark, but I like asymmetry and with the NFL shield crowding out the traditional spot to place a team's wordmark, I think it's a smart use of space. Now, I can admit that the patterned half-collar seems unnecessary, along with Nike's many other collar misses. Again, though, my only general criticisms when it comes to Nike in the NFL are their numerals and collars.

For the record, I'm not a Nike fanboy and I don't like everything they do, and I think Under Armour's done great work, especially with Utah (new uniforms of the year, imo, in football at least and competing with Illinois in basketball), so I'd be up for seeing what they can finally do with a major U.S. pro sports contract. I just unequivocally loath Adidas.

[Lights Out]

big rant

Thank you.

Most of the anti-Adidas crowd loves to kneel at the feet of the almighty Swoosh™, just because it's Nike.

Yes, we know Adidas has put out some ugly templates lately. But as Buc said, Adidas was not the first to template its teams. Nor add unnecessary colors. Or oversized collars. And illegible uniforms.

No, most of the anti-Adidas crowd criticizes them because their uniforms are trash nowadays, both in quality and aesthetics. I don't remember Adidas taking anywhere near as much criticism before they started coming out with crap like TechFit, Rev30, and sleeved jerseys. The only thing people used to complain about were the "tusk" jerseys in football that teams like Michigan, Arkansas and Mississippi State used to wear, and those were a million times preferable in hindsight to what they've been making in recent years.

I know this board loves to crap on Nike, but not every criticism of another manufacturer is a pro-Nike agenda. Adidas is getting ripped to shreds because they've earned it on their own merits (or lack thereof).

[arcane]

This might be a slight factor as well in to adidas's decision

adidas and europe shares

[BRice16]

Sleeves. Sleeves. SLEEVES.

Literally anything to get rid of that hideous crap is an extreme positive. What a brilliantly awful concept.

Why do you think changing manufacturers will have any impact on teams using or not using sleeved jerseys?

Who thinks this was something done by Adidas against the NBA's will?

It's Adidas' thing. It was a thing to push their branding, it's not like anyone liked it or anything. The NBA is a joke aesthetically so they simply allowed it.

That's like saying warmup jackets will continue to have three stripes because the NBA doesn't mind it.

I'm more convinced that sleeves were a misguided attempt to grow sales across a consumer base that is averse to wearing tank tops. I'd credit incomplete market research or faulty assumptions (use soccer shirt sales as a proxy for sales projections). I don't think that sleeves are an inherent part of the adidas brand at all, adding 3 stripes to all of their uniforms is what they do to push their branding.

Bingo. The NBA wanted adidas to try and find a way to expand the sales of on-court merchandise. The tank top itself is a huge barrier to these sales and always has been.

The NBA has always been a distant third to the NFL and MLB in apparel sales, a margin that is even wider when you break if off further into jersey sales.

I get that people don't like adidas for whatever reason, but the reality is that this (and the sleeves) is much more about the NBA than it is adidas. You have a major international sportswear company walk away from its biggest contract because there is no way to turn a significant profit on it. You had the largest sportswear company in the world do the same thing the last time it was up for bid.

Like I said before, you can think Nike is a shoo-in for this deal, but they aren't going to overpay for it. They know the economics of the NBA contract and aren't going to do a deal that won't give them a significant margin. They'll let Under Armour overpay for it and move on.

[CitizenTino]

I totally buy into the rationale that adidas introduced the sleeved jerseys to combat a retail market that is averse to tank tops. There's even some logic in looking at the success of soccer jersey sales. And while I'm not thrilled with the look of sleeves on an NBA floor, I think adidas really went wrong with the sleeved jerseys in two areas:

1. Most of them have collars that you would find on a tank top jersey instead of a t-shirt. The cut around the neckline is just so awkward that if you're buying a sleeved replica, you're probably wearing a t-shirt underneath. That totally defeats the purpose. Like, who's wearing a jersey in public with this collar:

2. The template overall is just so unnatural. The sleeves look bolted on, and just about all of those rolled out sleeved designs have failed to find a way to seamlessly incorporate the sleeves into the design. They just look like blank billboards waiting to house ads (which, they probably are, but still...). At least the all-star jersey above tried SOMETHING by having numbers. Most of the sleeved looks, though, not so much...

[orangefaniniowa]

Once upon a time, Adidas actually made good uniforms from 2006-07 until 09-10. The shiny fabric looked good and the San Antonio Spurs looked really good their first few years with the three stripes. Then of course the fall of 2010 came. Rev 30, sleeve jerseys, ugly warmups, colored jerseys that are actually not the teams colors. For instance, the Golden State Warriors why in the world would they break their blue and gold tradition for black sleeve jerseys? Hello!!

Anyway, the point is Nike (which I assume will get the apparel deal) or for that matter UA cannot do any worse than Adidas. I just yearn for the days during 1998 through 2010 when the jerseys meant something for fans, and NBA teams looked really good without the Rev 30 sleeve crap Adidas put on them. Heck, I would like to see Champion make a comeback to the NBA, but we all know that will never happen again. Anything but the outfits the NBA teams are wearing today, I can't even watch a good NBA game anymore with the outfits Adidas is pulling.

BTW: The Houston Rockets are the poster child of what is wrong with the NBA apparel today. I would like to see them get back to the original 80s and 90s look, even though I am not a fan of that look, but its better than what they have today. Hopefully Nike or UA will give them a much better overhaul.

[Sport]

I'm no fan of Nike, but Adidas' NBA work has been garbage. At the very least I'm excited to see what another company can do because it's clear that Adidas is not working as the NBA's supplier.

Also, the three stripes on things are such an intrusive design element that nobody ever talks about. It ruins almost every soccer uniform it's put on and they put it on almost every soccer uniform. If they had their way the NBA teams would probably all be wearing NBADL uniforms.

[CLEstones]

Yeah I don't put 100% of the blame for sleeves on Adidas. I think the NBA was trying to find a way to tap into the wearable jersey market. But I think it was something the Adidas brought to the NBA saying they have the capability to achieve the look.

Unfortunately, there is a disconnect between what is wearable and what is fashionable. The sleeves dont look AS horrendous now as they originally did... but they still look awkward. They look ill-fitting, ill-cut, and uncomfortable. As someone mentioned before, if you are wearing a jersey, 95% of the population is wearing something under it. Its hard to appeal to a tight fitting jersey to the mass public who isn't going to want to wear a skin-tight type of shirt.

That being said, I think we are definitely going to see a more colorful NBA... which I don't think ANYONE would be opposed to. The advantage Nike has is they can do fantastic classic/traditional style uniforms, as well as ultra modern and 1-offs. Adidas pretty much fails at everything EXCEPT extremely classic/traditional. So whether you are a fan of plain stripes or patterns, Nike SHOULD be able to accomplish both.