The wisdominess of PK's move from Nike to Adidas is working wonders:

PSUFTG said:

He is probably thinking: "Its a s&&t-ton of money"
And he is probaly a soccer playr from Argentina, who plays in Europe (I expect).
And, if he were to think of it - which he wouldn't - he would realize none of it has anything to do with any topic at hand.

Because even though, IIRC, he has very little formal education - he is also probably not a complete imbecile.

Duh?? Red light flashes twice.

Click to expand...

PSUFTG said:

Didn't know that. Thanks.

Click to expand...

LMTLION said:

The Adidas offer was more than Nike. Kraft is a meathead for many reasons, but this was a good decision.

Click to expand...

bdgan said:

I'm not a Pat Kraft fan but I'm pretty sure that players don't care who pays them the money.

Click to expand...

PSUForever said:

Let's start a thread to bash Pat Kraft yet we operating from an area of absolutely no facts or inside information just emotional disdain for the guy. Nice.

Click to expand...

Nitt1300 said:

you must be new here

Click to expand...

BobPSU92 said:

Kraft:

“$400 million from Nike. $300 million from Adidas. 300 is greater than 400. I’m going with Adidas. I’m bringing more money into the school, and I’m a change agent.”

Click to expand...

PSUForever said:

Let's start a thread to bash Pat Kraft yet we operating from an area of absolutely no facts or inside information just emotional disdain for the guy. Nice.

Click to expand...

PSUFTG said:

Ah, yes! Now we have someone barking up the right tree - or at least sniffing around in the right forest. Hurray!

Let's look at a few facts:
Apparel deals - decades ago, when they first became common, were composed of two parts:
1 - Provide a bunch of gear pro-bono
2 - Maybe include a bit of cash money

Why? From the vendor's perspective, outfitting a prominent sports team with gear - gear that had the VENDORS "NIL" plastered onto it - was worth something. It gave more prominence to the vendor - essentially "advertising". Each time that client's teams took the field, thousands of folks saw the vendor's logo on display. That value to the vendor was quid pro quo-ed by giving the team free gear, and maybe a bit of $ sweetener. That is why, for example Texas got a better deal than North Texas. More folks watched Texas play - broader advertising value - than the number of folks who watched North Texas compete.

Now, what else now influences these deals?
3 - Sales of "licensed" gear (which was always a part, but now generally a MUCH more significant factor)
and, most recently:
4 - "NIL" deals

These deals between Nike/Adidas/Underarmour etc, and the teams also include licensing/royalty payments. When the deals are done, they typically include exclusive rights, to one degree of another, for the vendor to be the seller of "official" merchandise. The quid pro quo there? The vendor benefits, as all fans looking for official merchandise have to buy from them (NIke, Adidas, etc), and the team gets a cut of the sales (X% of the sales price of each official item).
In today's world that royalties amount can be a very sizable figure (look around you at a sports event and see how many fanatics are wearing "team gear" that costs them $100s, and cost the manufacturer $2 in Asian labor).
What determines how "good" the deal is for the team? Two things - how much stuff does the vendor sell (the sales volume generated on licensed merchandise) and the "X" - the percentage of those sales dollars that gets kicked back to the team. The "X" is easy enough to uncover - it is typically a flat number agreed to by both parties when consummating the deal. The sales volume? That is a different animal, but certainly from the team's standpoint you want a vendor who is "prolific" - who sells a ton of stuff in the markets in which your "fans" are buying. In the case of nearly every major college athletic program, that market is: the domestic college football market, and to a lesser degree, the domestic college basketball market. Anything else is rounding error.

"NIL" deals:
This is the new monkey in the wrench. The basic logistics are: Vendor uses some of their marketing and advertising budget to promote their gear (including gear with "officially licensed" merchandise of their stable of clients) - the quid pro quo is that the vendor uses the college teams players in that process - providing to the player some "NIL" money, and providing to the team a nice marketing pitch - "Come to our school, and you will have company(ies) willing to pay you to advertise their product and "build your brand"". Theoretically, any company could pay any athlete. Practically, companies are going to make deals with those athletes who are a part of their "stable" - part of the group of programs that they have merchandise deals with.


And now, you can see why you are sniffing in the right forest. I hope.

Which vendors can yield the highest royalty payments to the team?
Obviously, those with a dominating presence in the domestic college football market (and a bit of weight to the domestic college basketball market).

Which vendors can yield the highest "NIL" marketing benefits to the school (and the individual players)? Those with the highest advertising presence and "Q Value", if you will, and the largest advertising/marketing budgets - in the relevant markets.

Is the picture becoming clearer? Keep in mind, the "values" of the royalty part, and the "NIL" part are typically not contracted at "X" dollars - because the components of those values are not static.

Now, lets look at the two companies in question - Nike and Adidas:

1 - Within rounding error, Nike's annual sales are twice that of Adidas. But that is just the start.
2 - As you mentioned, of their sales, a far larger portion of Adidas is driven by soccer (fine for them, but there is essentially ZERO "soccer market" domestically for college programs. Ask any sports fan to name 5 top players in college soccer - or even 5 top teams in college soccer. Good luck). So that relevant part of Adidas' market - which started out at 1/2 of Nike's - is even "more smaller" in any market that PSU (or any other similar program) cares about
3 - Further - Adidas' market is skewed towards Europe, South America, and East Asia - far more so than Nike. Not a surprise - Adidas is a Euro company focused on soccer. Nike is a US company focused on Football and Basketball

So, to what degree can/will a deal be able to be mutually beneficial to PSU?

Put that all together, and a smaller and less prominent company (Adidas), whose "prominence" is skewed towards a market type that is irrelevant to college programs (Soccer), and whose demographic market type is skewed to regions that are irrelevant to college programs (Euro, South America, East Asia), and you have a whole confluence of factors that make vendor A (Nike) far better positioned to be of value to a USA college athletics program.
These factors, which are generally not contractually defined (not laid out in specific hard dollar contract terms - they really can't be) have HUGE implications in the era of NIL.
PSU just decided to go with a vendor B that will be operating (and therefore PSU operating) with one hand tied behind their back (maybe both hands).

That is, unless you believe the "stories" that came out from PSU athletics in conjunction with the deal being announced - that PSU was going to receive tens of millions of "NIL" money per year (as part of this "$300 Million deal") to buy CHAMPIONSHIP rosters for its sports programs. If you believe that, good luck.

Anyway, fan(atics) are free to believe whatever they want. They are free to "love" a deal simply because they want three stripes on their gear instead of a swoosh (or vice versa), they are free to "hate" (or love) one vendor because of where they are located. They are free and of no obligation to consider ANYTHING. It is not their duty to care.

But there WILL be implications for their favorite sports program. No doubt about that.
Generally, fan(atics) will never know what those implications are- not when the target program involved is PSU. Why not? Because PSU has a uniquely non-transparent way of conducting its business, and a unique level of non-righteousness in their history of "what they say" vs "the full truth".

Enough said. People can recognize common sense (and also know that there will be limits to their understanding - either because they don't really care all that much, or because getting full and accurate information is not possible for them).
Or they can choose to just wave the pom-poms, have a drink, and enjoy the game - win or lose. That may be the best option for most people.

Click to expand...

Catch1lion said:

PK’s Ouija board worked . The brand with the 3 stripes is thumping Nike.

NKE Stock Falls 4% to 12-Year Low: 3 Reasons Behind the Nike Crash

Nike stock fell below $40 to its lowest level since 2014, extending its 2026 decline to 38% and leaving NKE nearly 78% below its 2021 record high.

coinpaper.com

Click to expand...

RolexKong said:

So Nike intended to pay all or part of its offer to Penn State in Nike stock? Who knew? Maybe Kraft ought to take a turn at managing Penn State's endowment.

FWIW, Nike's earnings and cash flow are roughly 4.5 to 5 times those of Adidas.

Click to expand...

Catch1lion said:

PK’s Ouija board worked . The brand with the 3 stripes is thumping Nike.

NKE Stock Falls 4% to 12-Year Low: 3 Reasons Behind the Nike Crash

Nike stock fell below $40 to its lowest level since 2014, extending its 2026 decline to 38% and leaving NKE nearly 78% below its 2021 record high.

coinpaper.com

Click to expand...

LMTLION said:

That’s actually shocking. I just invest in index funds and don’t often follow individual stocks. I had no idea Nike is doing that poorly. It’s surprising because I have kids and Nike still does seem to be the premium brand for teenagers.

Click to expand...

ChandlerPearce58 said:

I am honestly surprised by this thread.
We have many experts on this board...you know..."x" as something you get rid of ...and spirt, that last squirt of fluid when you tinkle.
There are many big corporations which change directions....many quite larger than PSU.
Tying any financial decision to a singular reasoning is foolish....as many times in my professional career we have taken a step back to obtain a better positioning for the future.
PSU was no longer the top brand for Nike...common knowledge...and not all contractual details are made public.
Seems to be hasty to insinuate the logic to change within an initial financial quarter as premature.

Click to expand...

Marshall2323 said:

So PSU is doing better than Texas, Ohio State, Georgia, Oregon, Alabama, LSU, and Michigan?

Awesome!

Click to expand...

ChiTownLionPSU said:

What on earth...

Click to expand...

ChiTownLionPSU said:

What on earth...

Click to expand...

Midnighter said:

Honestly so smart.

Click to expand...

Midnighter said:

Honestly so smart.

Click to expand...

PSUFTG said:

Nike announces NIL signing with some of the nation's top high school football players – Nuuz.Net

Nike helped Kirby Smart amplify his NIL pitch to a larger audience

Gee, who could have predicted this?


To - on purpose - move away from the absolute dominant force in its market, to go with Adidas - was just stunning.
To do so - moving away from the entity that lays orders of magnitude more potential on the table, just as we are entering the "NIL"-driven era of college football - is just amazing.
Whatever benefits PSU ballplayers get from Adidas will likely be "sofa cushion" money compared to the potential of Nike. How is that going to work out?

Oh, but fan(atics) were supposed to buy the tales coming from PSU Athletics - tales about a "$300 Million deal". Laugh or cry?

Click to expand...

PSUFTG said:

Nike announces NIL signing with some of the nation's top high school football players – Nuuz.Net

Nike helped Kirby Smart amplify his NIL pitch to a larger audience

Gee, who could have predicted this?


To - on purpose - move away from the absolute dominant force in its market, to go with Adidas - was just stunning.
To do so - moving away from the entity that lays orders of magnitude more potential on the table, just as we are entering the "NIL"-driven era of college football - is just amazing.
Whatever benefits PSU ballplayers get from Adidas will likely be "sofa cushion" money compared to the potential of Nike. How is that going to work out?

Oh, but fan(atics) were supposed to buy the tales coming from PSU Athletics - tales about a "$300 Million deal". Laugh or cry?

Click to expand...

PSUFTG said:

You believed that? Seriously?

Do you have any idea how dominant Nike is, relative to anyone, including Adidas - in the US "football" market?

I know, I know.... Nike = Oregon = Bad.
Though:
How PSU working with the dominant company, that provides scads more in the way of marketing (ie "NIL") and licensed apparel sales (which generate a lot of $ for the licensed schools) isn't likely to be far better for PSU - regardless of what Nike/Oregon do (which is 100% irrelevant) - would be somehow "bad" for PSU is just deep freeze brain thinking.

Click to expand...