if under armour is serious about getting into running, why don't they save their local university track team???

I say yes. Best case scenario: Uncle Phil writes a check to UMD track, saves the program, and Under Armour dude looks like a complete fool.

This article says that Maryland has a 5-year deal with Under Armor worth 17.5 million to outfit all of their teams. Plank have given over 1.4 million to the department. It also goes into a bit of detail on how the CEO loans his plane to the athletic department all the time. That's pretty standard and it wouldn't save money really. He gets to write that off as a donation and that plane is burning money no matter where it is... but still.... what an embarrassment for Maryland.

oops

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-04-09/sports/bs-sp-terps-kevin-plank-0410-20110409_1_maryland-athletics-maryland-special-teams-ralph-friedgen

I already have a silent boycott against them on the grounds that their logo and users sucks.

(Except Ed if he does, in fact, wear UA shoes.)

Then you should also boycott Google, Seinfeld, and The Muppets. All created by MD alumni.

UA being a product of MD is not my reason for my boycott.

I have no problem with Google.

I have a soft boycott of Seinfeld because of his 501s and white shoes. And bad hair and fashion all around.

NEVER SPEAK ILL OF THE MUPPETS!

Testudo wrote:

Then you should also boycott Google, Seinfeld, and The Muppets. All created by MD alumni.

How does this have anything to do with UA sucking? The dude said he's boycotting UA because their gear sucks, not because of their founder's alma mater...

Conversely, while UA equipment does suck, that's hardly a reason to boycott them. Just don't buy the product.

That's what a boycott is.

would like to revisit this post and figure out why there is so much animosity around Under Armour in the running community? And to say their gear sucks...seems like prejudice (for whatever reason) against the brand influencing that opinion. The gear is best of the best...including new shoes...

I have always wondered why Under Armour (company founded 1996) created a logo that is very similar to a pre-existing company, Xara Soccer (company founded 1987), if they really wanted to create a unique and progressive athletic apparel brand:

http://www.soccerposttn.com/xara_logo_op_640x213.jpg

http://mps-outfitters.com/shop/catalog/images//under_armour_logo.jpg

I've heard animosity from runners towards Under Armour because their running gear isn't cut to fit runners, they've expanded too quickly and the bulk of their products other than the compression clothing they started out with are poor quality, they use non-runner body types in the running ads, send reps to marathon expos with no knowledge of the shoes.

My university is an Under Armour school and the basketball team went through like 5 pairs of shoes over the course of the season because the shoes were so awful and some of the athletes started wearing nike shoes and putting tape over the logo. The deal the athletic department struck with Under Armour also somehow manages to funnel money from our small budget sports into the sports that already have much larger budgets which is fairly bass ackwards. The small budget sports also end up paying more for Under Armour gear than they had been for whatever brand they had been using in the past.

I have no comment on their clothing nor their sponsorship arrangements (I know nothing of either) but I know how designers work, having commisioned a few. The Under Armour logo is an elegant and simple combination of 'U' and 'A' and hard to fault. I'd never heard of Xara soccer but it's an X in a circle. Pure coincidence.

It may be pure coincidence, but every time I see the UA logo, my thoughts imeediately go to Xara first (as a former soccer player), then to Under Armour, when I realize the brand. That is not something a brand wants, and I am not sure Under Armour football type founder/execs would even think of it or care, given the wa football people think. I may be an oddball, but I can't be the only one who has noticed the similarity in soccer circles. Just as other companies sue for such issues, it may have been previously determined by both parites that they are dissimiar enough to not worry about guys like me.

Nike has Oregon, UA could have Maryland. Seems like a good competitive move. Lock down the East Coast UA.

redux wrote:

I already have a silent boycott against them on the grounds that their logo and users sucks.

(Except Ed if he does, in fact, wear UA shoes.)

Who id Ed?