Adidas to terminate IAAF sponsorship deal four years early

agip wrote:

I always want to congratulate a company when it takes an ethical stand, so that's my first inclination...but knowing how poorly Adidas is doing makes me wonder if it is using this as a way to get out of a big contract.

Esp since they are staying with soccer even tho it has corruption problems too.

"how poorly Adidas is doing" ??? Please provide evidence.

losing out to bloody under armor in the US

in poking around I also see that adidas has a new CEO and more interestingly, they just cancelled their NBA contract also. Which tells me that Adidas is trying to save money - I suspect the new leadership is trying out some new moves since whatever they have been doing isn't doing great.

;_ylt=AwrBT8kcQ6ZWTDAAudBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBzdWd2cWI5BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxMAR2dGlkAwRzZWMDc3I-

BERLIN (Reuters) - Sportswear group Adidas AG will not renew its contract to supply kit to the U.S. National Basketball Association (NBA), saying it feels it would be better to invest its money in new products and players.

Adidas has been losing market share in the United States to Nike Inc and Under Armour Inc and the market is a priority for the German group this year, Chief Executive Herbert Hainer said earlier this month.

Adidas has provided apparel for the NBA since 2006 and its 11-year deal, worth an estimated $400 million, expires at the end of the 2016-2017 season.

... my first thought as well. Nike must be eagerly rubbing their hands!

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Of just a chance for Nike to "step-up" and sponsor the IAAF.

Of course this will be completely innocent...

Nothing to see here.

Fundraiser wrote:

More like unassailable.

ella guru wrote:

If Nike step in, will that make Coe's position untenable?

Coe will know nothing about it...

Juri wrote:

... my first thought as well. Nike must be eagerly rubbing their hands!

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Of just a chance for Nike to "step-up" and sponsor the IAAF.

Of course this will be completely innocent...

Nothing to see here.

Nike just bought out Adidas, paid Coe a few million, and padded IAAF's accounts, it's all part of the plan for world dominance.

you should be able to get them fairly cheap as they control less than 3% of the specialty market and continue to fade in the US

The specialty market is relatively small and none of the big brands really care about it. They say they do because of perception and it does build credibility but if you base your business on it you will be a small company at least when compared to Nike, Under Armour, Adidas, New Balance etc.

The worst thing about this is that Nike will probably get the contract based on Nike's casual view about doping.

If the IAAF wants to put its association with doping in the past, Nike is the last company that they should have as a sponsor.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

Forever_a_Red wrote:

adidas also paid $1,068,712 (£750 million) over 10 years to sponsor Manchester United, and don't even get the main logo on the kit. So yes, that's not a lot to be a sponsor of the IAAF.

I though of this to. Its mind blowing that the sponsorship for the IAAF is less than a tenth of of the yearly amount for Man U. I know Man U is a hugely popular club but I can't believe our governing sports organization is that insignificant in comparison. I think this shows how amateur the leadership of our sport is and how pathetic they have been on building the sport popularity wise and financially.

Why is it mind-blowing? I don't understand why people thinking sponsoring the IAAF is such a great return for a company.

Congratulations! All of the officials and volunteers at our events wear your logo, but the athletes/federations are free to wear whatever they please.

Yes, sponsoring the IAAF opens some doors for what you can/can't do to get exposure for your Brand, but it shouldn't be a surprise the deal is smaller than the NFL, Man U, etc.

malmo wrote:

I don't need any shoes right now but I'm going to buy a pair of adidas tomorrow. Gifts for the rest of the year? You guessed it -- adidas.

The IAAF's soul mate is Nike anyway. Both organizations are corrupt to the core.

Was this a joke? You realize that Adidas sponsored a bunch of football players right? Or do you just want shoe companies to appear to act "ethically" in T&F but not in any of the other sports where people don't care about doping?

Nike outbid adidas for NBA rights back 2015, maybe even late 2014.

adidas is losing college teams by the drove as well inc. Michigan (back to Nike); Notre Dame and Wisconsin to Under Armor are the BCS ones which come to mind)

TheFutureIsHere wrote:

What ethical stand? They realize that the sports obsession with drugs is ruining it. Meanwhile pro sports worldwide turn a blind eye to PEDs and attendance and marketing value are soaring.

agip wrote:

I always want to congratulate a company when it takes an ethical stand, so that's my first inclination...but knowing how poorly Adidas is doing makes me wonder if it is using this as a way to get out of a big contract.

Esp since they are staying with soccer even tho it has corruption problems too.

Adidas sponsors teams and players in soccer.

I don't believe that they sponsor FIFA.

Big difference.

Does anyone know if this breakup will affect the Diamond League? Thanks!

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Of just a chance for Nike to "step-up" and sponsor the IAAF.

You meant, and further "buy" the IAAF. Investing in the IAAF is the way to the medal stands.

business man wrote:

I'd like to see US track and field athletes burn down USATF and create a new organization which they control. Kind of like the PGA Tour in golf, but even more athlete-controlled.

With the PGA Tour, the commissioner makes a lot of $, but the tour does a great job organizing events and getting sponsors and $. The golfers are independent contractors, essentially, with great benefits and great earnings potential based on their performances. Also, they can strike their own sponsorship deals. Watch a PGA Tour event--the golfers have several sponsors on their outfits.

It's akin to the Diamond league, but that's controlled by the IAAF, which needs to get burned to the ground, too. Their HQ is in Monaco for god's sake...

Are the top T&F athletes willing to compete against each other 20-30 times per year and not duck each other except at the top events? Spieth has averaged 28 tournaments a year over the past 3, Day has averaged 20, McIlroy 23, Fowler 26, and Watson 23. Those are the top 5 in the world. Because they average playing about every other week or close to it and actually compete against each other many times per year, there is more money for them.

Forever_a_Red wrote:

adidas also paid $1,068,712 (£750 million) over 10 years to sponsor Manchester United, and don't even get the main logo on the kit. So yes, that's not a lot to be a sponsor of the IAAF.

Give me that £750 million and I'll pay them $2,068,712 through 10 years.

TheFutureIsHere wrote:

Meanwhile pro sports worldwide turn a blind eye to PEDs and attendance and marketing value are soaring.

I'm not a fan of pro sports, but they are handling the drug issue properly.

I wonder if IAAF told adidas that they are no longer accepting money to suppress drug positives in light of the recent scrutiny. Breach of contract.

The Dirty Duck wrote:

I wonder if IAAF told adidas that they are no longer accepting money to suppress drug positives in light of the recent scrutiny. Breach of contract.

I don't know why people here think that organizations like the IAAF have the ability to really cover stuff up. It always comes out.