Rutgers Athletics expected to sign new apparel contract with Nike

A deal should have been negotiated with NIKE soon after Dylan committed when we could have used them as leverage.

It was always crazy to me when people thought we would ink a lucrative deal with NIKE in the Summer/Fall leading up to their one and only season .

At that point Adidas was done and we lost all our leverage with NIKE, becoming a desperate school in need of an apparel deal.

Knight Shift said:

Fair enough, I suppose. On August 16, 2024, Hobbs stepped down as AD.

However, Hobbs screwed the pooch long before his resignation/dismissal, letting the Adidas deal expire and not negotiating a better deal. This should have been one of his key initiatives, but he was obviously distracted doing yoga with the gymnastics team. This is malpractice and failure to perform his basic duties to allow the apparel contract with Adidas to expire without negotiating a new deal. He left Rutgers flapping in the wind. The winner in any negotiation is the party with the next best alternative. Hobbs' nonfeasance or misfeasance cost Rutgers millions of dollars. By letting the contract expire and not negotiating and securing a deal before the Adidas experience left Rutgers without a leg to stand on in negotiations because Rutger had no other alternative.

October 22, 2024 Article:

"Rutgers is “no longer under contract” with Adidas and has "not been since the end of the 2022-2023 school year," according to Carino & Matson of the ASBURY PARK PRESS. Since that time, the brand has been outfitting the school “at a discounted price but without a contract." Last March, then-Rutgers AD Pat Hobbssaid the school had “extended our partnership with Adidas" and "the contract is being finalized." However, Carino & Matson note a "contract extension never happened." The “logical move from here is for Rutgers to partner with Nike," especially as star men's basketball freshmen Ace Bailey and Dylan Harper have been "wearing Nike sneakers" since they joined the program in the summer. Rutgers also spent five years with Nike before switching to Adidas in July 2017. But right now the athletic department is in the “process of exploring options with multiple outfitters.” "

Rutgers no longer with Adidas, in search of new athletic apparel provider

Rutgers is no longer under contract with Adidas, a school official told the Asbury Park Press. The school has not been since the end of the 2022-2023 school year, and since that time, Adidas has been outfitting the Scarlet Knights at a discounted price but without a contract.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

December 22, 2025 Article:

"The deal with Adidas ended in the summer of 2023 and since then, Adidas has been outfitting the Scarlet Knights "at a discounted price but without a contract." The apparel change "will be welcomed throughout the athletics department because Nike remains the preeminent apparel brand in college sports" (ASBURY PARK PRESS, 12/15)."

Rutgers moving to Nike as new apparel partner

The Rutgers University Board of Governors is expected to authorize a contract with BSN Sports that makes Nike the official outfitter of the Scarlet Knights on Tuesday.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

Click to expand...

Letting the Adidas deal expire was absurd. I'd love to hear more details on how this went down...was it a huge oversight by Hobbs or someone in the legal department, or was it a failed strategy to negotiate anything with Nike or Adidas.

Richie O said:

I’ve requested it multiple times and no such document exists. I went out of my way and spoke with BSN executives and they told me it’s because it’s just a handshake deal right now and nothing has been officially signed yet by either party.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying. It is often difficult to cut through puffery/BS/hyperbole on social media.

I'm familiar with the law. Regardless of the fact that there is no signed agreement, there is something in the law called the course of performance. And contracts do not need to be in writing to be enforceable.
On the other hand, certain contracts must be in writing to be enforceable (link below).

While many oral agreements are enforceable, the Statute of Frauds in New Jersey requires certain types of contracts to be in writing, including:

• Contracts for the sale of real estate
• Agreements that cannot be performed within one year
• Promises to pay someone else’s debt (surety agreements)
• Contracts involving marriage or prenuptial agreements
• Sales of goods worth $500 or more (under the UCC)

A question then, is the agreement between BSN and Rutgers one that "cannot be performed within a year"? That's an open question. And also, there is a doctrine in contracts referred to as the course of dealing when parties have been operating under a contract.

Both sides here can make arguments that there is or is not an enforceable 5 year contract. Rutgers abhors litigation (see Mike Rice Fiasco). To say that Keli is not doing what she is supposed to do on the Nike deal is off base.

Knight Shift said:

Thank you for clarifying. It is often difficult to cut through puffery/BS/hyperbole on social media.

I'm familiar with the law. Regardless of the fact that there is no signed agreement, there is something in the law called the course of performance. And contracts do not need to be in writing to be enforceable.
On the other hand, certain contracts must be in writing to be enforceable (link below).

While many oral agreements are enforceable, the Statute of Frauds in New Jersey requires certain types of contracts to be in writing, including:

• Contracts for the sale of real estate
• Agreements that cannot be performed within one year
• Promises to pay someone else’s debt (surety agreements)
• Contracts involving marriage or prenuptial agreements
• Sales of goods worth $500 or more (under the UCC)

A question then, is the agreement between BSN and Rutgers one that "cannot be performed within a year"? That's an open question. And also, there is a doctrine in contracts referred to as the course of dealing when parties have been operating under a contract.

Both sides here can make arguments that there is or is not an enforceable 5 year contract. Rutgers abhors litigation (see Mike Rice Fiasco). To say that Keli is not doing what she is supposed to do on the Nike deal is off base.

Click to expand...

On Rutgers and litigation involving the athletic department:

Rutgers has been in litigation for the past 8 months with the former gymnastics coach who is suing Rutgers alleging unlawful termination. This one has entered mediation because it is cheaper than a trial and keeps the parties dirty laundry out of the public record. Eventually, the parties will settle, somebody will file an OPRA request for the settlement agreement, Rutgers will refuse to provide it, then Rutgers will get sued, lose, and release the document.

Rutgers settled litigation earlier this month on an OPRA case involving Rutgers refusal to disclose a termination agreement with an athletics department executive. Rutgers would only produce a document with everything redacted. The person who requested the document (not me) sued Rutgers. After some back and forth in court, Rutgers released the unredacted document.

I don't think Rutgers is withholding a signed apparel contract. Richie received the old Adidas contract when he requested it. A few years ago, I asked Rutgers for the Jersey Mike's and SHI naming rights contracts and promptly received them. A more likely explanation is the apparel contract has not been signed 20 months after Rutgers issued a fake news press release announcing a "signed" deal with BSN and Nike. Maybe a non-binding letter was signed, but not a contract that Rutgers would be required to disclose under the OPRA rules.

Keli is responsible for the athletic department and has been for 11 months. Rutgers should have a signed apparel contract by now. At LSU, Tate signed a deal with Nike commencing the day after the previous apparel deal expired. Yet Rutgers has gone years without a signed apparel deal. Unacceptable.

Fat Koko said:

On Rutgers and litigation involving the athletic department:

Rutgers has been in litigation for the past 8 months with the former gymnastics coach who is suing Rutgers alleging unlawful termination. This one has entered mediation because it is cheaper than a trial and keeps the parties dirty laundry out of the public record. Eventually, the parties will settle, somebody will file an OPRA request for the settlement agreement, Rutgers will refuse to provide it, then Rutgers will get sued, lose, and release the document.

Rutgers settled litigation earlier this month on an OPRA case involving Rutgers refusal to disclose a termination agreement with an athletics department executive. Rutgers would only produce a document with everything redacted. The person who requested the document (not me) sued Rutgers. After some back and forth in court, Rutgers released the unredacted document.

I don't think Rutgers is withholding a signed apparel contract. Richie received the old Adidas contract when he requested it. A few years ago, I asked Rutgers for the Jersey Mike's and SHI naming rights contracts and promptly received them. A more likely explanation is the apparel contract has not been signed 20 months after Rutgers issued a fake news press release announcing a "signed" deal with BSN and Nike. Maybe a non-binding letter was signed, but not a contract that Rutgers would be required to disclose under the OPRA rules.

Keli is responsible for the athletic department and has been for 11 months. Rutgers should have a signed apparel contract by now. At LSU, Tate signed a deal with Nike commencing the day after the previous apparel deal expired. Yet Rutgers has gone years without a signed apparel deal. Unacceptable.

Click to expand...

You do realize that the only place "signs" appears in your link is in the title? You do realize that titles are often written by media people and not the legal department or BOG or AD? The fist line states: "Rutgers Athletics has agreed to a new multi-year partnership with Nike and BSN SPORTS. "

A little extreme to call this "fake news," when it could just be a sloppy oversight in the text of the announcement and the headline generated by a media person.

You do realize that Keli had nothing to do with that agreement on apparel.

You sound like you are on a witch hunt and looking for conspiracy theories where there is no witch or conspiracy. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your posts, but it sure sounds like you want to blame Keli for the current deal.

Rutgers Athletics was a dysfunctional mess for the two years preceding Keli Zinn's arrival which was just about a year ago. Order of business number one was to get NIL going. Hands down, nothing else mattered, as RU NIL was a world of shiiit until she got here. I totally disagree that Rutgers "should" have a signed apparel contract by now. I have no inside knowledge, but maybe they are working on it and trying to renegotiate or cancel the deal that "went into effect" (not signed) in 2025.

Ha, ha comparing Rutgers athletics to LSU. That's like comparing a Hot Wheels car with a Formula One race car.

IF the contract isn't signed, that's a good thing. We are on the clock with Nike. They want to see what we can do. If we prove worthy, Keli will make a good deal. She has the Nike relationship from her days at LSU where she ran point on their deal.

Adidas is done. Never say never, but I'd be shocked if we ever have an Adidas deal again. Hobbs blew that relationship up. The Nike/Ace/Dylan thing become a huge issue.

Knight Shift said:

You do realize that the only place "signs" appears in your link is in the title? You do realize that titles are often written by media people and not the legal department or BOG or AD? The fist line states: "Rutgers Athletics has agreed to a new multi-year partnership with Nike and BSN SPORTS. "

A little extreme to call this "fake news," when it could just be a sloppy oversight in the text of the announcement and the headline generated by a media person.

You do realize that Keli had nothing to do with that agreement on apparel.

You sound like you are on a witch hunt and looking for conspiracy theories where there is no witch or conspiracy. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your posts, but it sure sounds like you want to blame Keli for the current deal.

Rutgers Athletics was a dysfunctional mess for the two years preceding Keli Zinn's arrival which was just about a year ago. Order of business number one was to get NIL going. Hands down, nothing else mattered, as RU NIL was a world of shiiit until she got here. I totally disagree that Rutgers "should" have a signed apparel contract by now. I have no inside knowledge, but maybe they are working on it and trying to renegotiate or cancel the deal that "went into effect" (not signed) in 2025.

Ha, ha comparing Rutgers athletics to LSU. That's like comparing a Hot Wheels car with a Formula One race car.

Click to expand...

Just explaining my point of view on Rutgers relationship with its apparel suppliers. A supplier relationship worth tens of millions of dollars should be memorialized in a signed contract, whether it be at Rutgers, LSU, or any other organization.

I agree Rutgers athletics has been a dysfunctional mess for years. In March 2024, when most TKR posters sang the praises of Hobbs, I posted Rutgers needed a new athletic director, based on irregularities I saw everywhere with Hobbs and the department that others missed or ignored.

Keli established new senior business roles in the department and hired experienced people to do these jobs. The new team needs to get going and sign an apparel deal already.

What is wrong with comparing Rutgers athletics to LSU? Rutgers president Tate and AD Keli both were hired from LSU. Both are flagship state universities competing in power two conferences. LSU has a signed apparel contract with Nike and has announced a jersey patch sponsorship for the 2026-2027 sports seasons. Tate and and LSU's athletic director signed a deal with Nike in 2022. Why cannot Tate and Keli do the same at Rutgers in 2026?

Because LSU is powerhouse and Rutgers isn't. Keli isn't looking for the first deal. She's looking for the best deal. The more she can show Rutgers has it's **** together the better the deal she can get will be.

That said, the uniform patch deal being spoken about, if it comes to fruition, would be the best sponsorship deal Rutgers has ever had.

Fat Koko said:

Just explaining my point of view on Rutgers relationship with its apparel suppliers. A supplier relationship worth tens of millions of dollars should be memorialized in a signed contract, whether it be at Rutgers, LSU, or any other organization.

I agree Rutgers athletics has been a dysfunctional mess for years. In March 2024, when most TKR posters sang the praises of Hobbs, I posted Rutgers needed a new athletic director, based on irregularities I saw everywhere with Hobbs and the department that others missed or ignored.

Keli established new senior business roles in the department and hired experienced people to do these jobs. The new team needs to get going and sign an apparel deal already.

What is wrong with comparing Rutgers athletics to LSU? Rutgers president Tate and AD Keli both were hired from LSU. Both are flagship state universities competing in power two conferences. LSU has a signed apparel contract with Nike and has announced a jersey patch sponsorship for the 2026-2027 sports seasons. Tate and and LSU's athletic director signed a deal with Nike in 2022. Why cannot Tate and Keli do the same at Rutgers in 2026?

View attachment 1362592

Click to expand...

Of course such a deal should be memorialized in writing and signed and witnessed, and preferably notarized by both parties, by persons with authority to bind each party to the contract. I have reviewed probably over 1,000 such documents in my work.

As I noted, we are dealing with Rutgers here. An absolute clown show of a department for years, particularly during the Julie Hermann years, and under Hobbs, it improved (but that bar was low), but then he took his eye of the bar and instead trained his eye on the balance beam. . . .

Have seen several corporate disaster situations where paperwork, contracts, assignments of rights etc were very poorly executed, followed up and retained with numerous large entities.

With anything Rutgers, expect the worst, and hope for a shred of competence.

As I said, Keli came in with a full plate, and an empty cabinet of high level people because the AD's office lost the AD, Shawn Tucker, Ryan Pisarri, and their compliance officer to name just four key people before Keli joined the department. I highly doubt that given the awful state of NIL at Rutger that her first priority was to pore over various agreements and arrangements.

I will continue to disagree with you on two points:

The new team does not need to get going and sign an apparel deal already. As I said, and I have absolutely no inside knowledge, if it were my call, I would look for a way to cancel that deal and shop a better deal. But on that score, would Rutgers do any better consider how horrific the men's, women's hoops teams did last year and the terrible year Rutgers football had? I don't think so. IMO, better to let the current deal ride, and when things improve, look for a better deal.

What is wrong with comparing Rutgers athletics to LSU? Rome was not built in a day. Again, the apparel deal right now can ride while more important issues are addressed. Reasonable minds can disagree on this, and I am not saying you are wrong. But I am saying, it would not surprise me if Keli is aware of the situation and is either looking into it or has decided to let it ride for now. If you look at the list of deal in Richie's original article at the top of this thread, the deal is not terrible compared to other middling B1G schools.

Maybe Keli is accepting the messy status quo with BSN and Nike until her negotiating position improves by way of demonstrated competence in athletic department leadership along with winning by the teams, both of which be high standard deviations from the norm at Rutgers.

Good news - the department finally got rid of Michael Szul, who was chief operating officer and ran the department's business operations under Hobbs, causing all sorts of problems along the way. Szul and Keli overlapped at WVU. Days after Keli was hired in August 2025, she moved to terminate Szul immediately, but Rutgers agreed to allow Szul to "work remotely" and resign at the end of the year.

Time will tell if the new team is better than Szul. I hope so; it couldn't get much worse than Szul as department's #2.

Most of the consideration in apparel contracts between schools and apparel companies comes in the form of apparel product, not cash. Below is the breakdown from the LSU-Nike contract signed by Tate in 2022.

At Rutgers, the 10-year, $30 million apparel agreement with BSN and Nike, which the Rutgers BoG in 2024 authorized the university to negotiate, likely would pay the $30 million mostly in product and little in cash compensation. If Rutgers is able to make a better deal with Nike, the better deal will not be a game changer for the economics of the athletic department.

Fat Koko said:

Maybe Keli is accepting the messy status quo with BSN and Nike until her negotiating position improves by way of demonstrated competence in athletic department leadership along with winning by the teams, both of which be high standard deviations from the norm at Rutgers.

Good news - the department finally got rid of Michael Szul, who was chief operating officer and ran the department's business operations under Hobbs, causing all sorts of problems along the way. Szul and Keli overlapped at WVU. Days after Keli was hired in August 2025, she moved to terminate Szul immediately, but Rutgers agreed to allow Szul to "work remotely" and resign at the end of the year.

Time will tell if the new team is better than Szul. I hope so; it couldn't get much worse than Szul as department's #2.

Most of the consideration in apparel contracts between schools and apparel companies comes in the form of apparel product, not cash. Below is the breakdown from the LSU-Nike contract signed by Tate in 2022.

At Rutgers, the 10-year, $30 million apparel agreement with BSN and Nike, which the Rutgers BoG in 2024 authorized the university to negotiate, likely would pay the $30 million mostly in product and little in cash compensation. If Rutgers is able to make a better deal with Nike, the better deal will not be a game changer for the economics of the athletic department.

View attachment 1362681

View attachment 1362683

Click to expand...

The bar does not seem especially high given Szul’s level of achievement

Knight Shift said:

You do realize that the only place "signs" appears in your link is in the title? You do realize that titles are often written by media people and not the legal department or BOG or AD? The fist line states: "Rutgers Athletics has agreed to a new multi-year partnership with Nike and BSN SPORTS. "

A little extreme to call this "fake news," when it could just be a sloppy oversight in the text of the announcement and the headline generated by a media person.

You do realize that Keli had nothing to do with that agreement on apparel.

You sound like you are on a witch hunt and looking for conspiracy theories where there is no witch or conspiracy. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your posts, but it sure sounds like you want to blame Keli for the current deal.

Rutgers Athletics was a dysfunctional mess for the two years preceding Keli Zinn's arrival which was just about a year ago. Order of business number one was to get NIL going. Hands down, nothing else mattered, as RU NIL was a world of shiiit until she got here. I totally disagree that Rutgers "should" have a signed apparel contract by now. I have no inside knowledge, but maybe they are working on it and trying to renegotiate or cancel the deal that "went into effect" (not signed) in 2025.

Ha, ha comparing Rutgers athletics to LSU. That's like comparing a Hot Wheels car with a Formula One race car.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The damage was done way before Keli set foot on the banks. The fact that the Adidas contract was allowed to expire and there was no replacement borders on criminal. I don’t see a reason to run in and sign this contract. If I was Keli I wouldn’t be inclined to sign my name to something I didn’t sit across the table and negotiate the terms myself. Let it play out.

kupuna133 said:

Agreed. The damage was done way before Keli set foot on the banks. The fact that the Adidas contract was allowed to expire and there was no replacement borders on criminal. I don’t see a reason to run in and sign this contract. If I was Keli I wouldn’t be inclined to sign my name to something I didn’t sit across the table and negotiate the terms myself. Let it play out.

Click to expand...

What was so good about the Adidas contract that was allowed to expire.
In a previous post in this thread I posted an article that had in it:
>"An open records request of Rutgers' contract with Adidas revealed that Rutgers received $12,944,666.20 in value from Adidas and paid the company $16,257,918.46 over the six-year deal; the net result was that the university paid Adidas $3,313,252 over the duration of the agreement."<
I would think that deal wasn't worth keeping.
What am I missing that makes that deal worth keeping?
Not having a deal to replace it might be valid, but it seems Rutgers was paying for Adidas to use Rutgers as a promotional tool and it needed to go.

MADHAT1 said:

What was so good about the Adidas contract that was allowed to expire.
In a previous post in this thread I posted an article that had in it:
>"An open records request of Rutgers' contract with Adidas revealed that Rutgers received $12,944,666.20 in value from Adidas and paid the company $16,257,918.46 over the six-year deal; the net result was that the university paid Adidas $3,313,252 over the duration of the agreement."<
I would think that deal wasn't worth keeping.
What am I missing that makes that deal worth keeping?
Not having a deal to replace it might be valid, but it seems Rutgers was paying for Adidas to use Rutgers as a promotional tool and it needed to go.

Click to expand...

Where did I say it was good? Where did I say it was worth keeping? I said how do you allow a contract to expire without a replacement. That is what is criminal.

just get us the money!

Nike

Leonard23 said:

Click to expand...

Dear God that's embarrassing

Knight Shift said:

The negative drumbeat of some around here is tiresome. Perhaps people need more realistic expectations and comparisons to true peer institutions.

Click to expand...

Amen.

kupuna133 said:

Where did I say it was good? Where did I say it was worth keeping? I said how do you allow a contract to expire without a replacement. That is what is criminal.

Click to expand...

contract , if RU was paying more than receiving, needed to go was my point and maybe it being allowed to expire was better than having the same person negotiate a new deal or an extension or find a new supplier to pay .
Seems like when the Adidas deal expired in 2023 and then was terminated fully in OCT of 2024, Adidas continued to supply Rutgers with their product up to when the Nike/BSN deal was made in July of 2025 .

I would guess, but can't say true, Adidas and Rutgers continued going by their original deal
A google search found this:
Rutgers officially announced and signed that six-year partnership with Adidas on February 13, 2017. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Effective Dates: The deal took effect on July 1, 2017, right after the university's prior contract with Nike expired. [1, 2]
• Financial Value: The original agreement was worth roughly $11 million over the six-year span, which included gear allotments, a base payment, and a $300,000 sign-on bonus.
• The "Handshake" Era: While the original official contract ran through June 30, 2023, a formal extension was never finalized. As a result, Rutgers continued buying and wearing Adidas apparel at a heavily discounted rate on a handshake agreement until they eventually pivot to Nike in July 2025.<

It might look stupid to let that contract expire without a new deal lined up, but it could be what was being offered was worse than not having a deal lined up. with what the suppliers were offering and the way RU couldn't pitch their product to get better then they were getting without a signed deal with any apparel company.

But I do wonder if the that $3,313,252 Rutgers paid Adidas was for supplies after Adidas was after the contract expired.
Or was Adidas supplying its products under the original terms , despite the contract not in force or was it the price RU had to pay at a discount because of not having a contract with Adidas anymore .

Whatever happened makes Rutgers look like a fool and hopefully Zinn can get this deal with NIke/BSN signed or maybe find a better deal if Nike isn't rushing to sign because some if the deal isn't completely worked out yet .

MADHAT1 said:

contract , if RU was paying more than receiving, needed to go was my point and maybe it being allowed to expire was better than having the same person negotiate a new deal or an extension or find a new supplier to pay .
Seems like when the Adidas deal expired in 2023 and then was terminated fully in OCT of 2024, Adidas continued to supply Rutgers with their product up to when the Nike/BSN deal was made in July of 2025 .

I would guess, but can't say true, Adidas and Rutgers continued going by their original deal
A google search found this:
Rutgers officially announced and signed that six-year partnership with Adidas on February 13, 2017. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Effective Dates: The deal took effect on July 1, 2017, right after the university's prior contract with Nike expired. [1, 2]
• Financial Value: The original agreement was worth roughly $11 million over the six-year span, which included gear allotments, a base payment, and a $300,000 sign-on bonus.
• The "Handshake" Era: While the original official contract ran through June 30, 2023, a formal extension was never finalized. As a result, Rutgers continued buying and wearing Adidas apparel at a heavily discounted rate on a handshake agreement until they eventually pivot to Nike in July 2025.<

It might look stupid to let that contract expire without a new deal lined up, but it could be what was being offered was worse than not having a deal lined up. with what the suppliers were offering and the way RU couldn't pitch their product to get better then they were getting without a signed deal with any apparel company.

But I do wonder if the that $3,313,252 Rutgers paid Adidas was for supplies after Adidas was after the contract expired.
Or was Adidas supplying its products under the original terms , despite the contract not in force or was it the price RU had to pay at a discount because of not having a contract with Adidas anymore .

Whatever happened makes Rutgers look like a fool and hopefully Zinn can get this deal with NIke/BSN signed or maybe find a better deal if Nike isn't rushing to sign because some if the deal isn't completely worked out yet .

Click to expand...

I don’t necessarily disagree. Adidas bent Hobbs over. And you’re regurgitating what I have already said in this thread. In post 58 and 61 specifically.
Hobbs shat the bed. Easier to negotiate when you have a contract than when you show desperation when you don’t.

kupuna133 said:

I don’t necessarily disagree. Adidas bent Hobbs over. And you’re regurgitating what I have already said in this thread. In post 58 and 61 specifically.
Hobbs shat the bed. Easier to negotiate when you have a contract than when you show desperation when you don’t.

Click to expand...

Adidas gave us by far the best offer at the time. Nike gave us a laughable offer and UA didn’t even bid. Nike sure liked using Stringers name on a building for so called cultural purposes, but when it came time to pay they had no problem letting her team wear adidas. Image is everything.