PAC-12 apparel deals

This is interesting, from Jon Wilner. Despite being a small-market program Utah does quite well (overachieving is kind of our M.O.):

*****

Apparel deals: The Pac-12 hierarchy

The news of Washington’s mega-apparel deal with Adidas sent the Hotline research department scurrying — not to determine where UW’s deal fits on the national pantheon but to gain a sense for apparel contracts across the Pac-12.

We know UCLA is king with the $280 million Under Armour deal, the largest of its kind in collegiate sports history.
And we know the Huskies are the new runner up with their $119 million whopper.

But then … who? And how much?
I turned to a series of sources, first and foremost the Portland Business Journal’s awesome database -- news reports were also helpful -- and generated the list below.

Note: The numbers are approximate and are based largely, but not exclusively, on the cash and product components of the contracts.
Average annual payments:

UCLA: $18.6 million (Under Armour)

Washington: $12 million (Adidas)

Cal: $8.3 (Under Armour)

Oregon: $8 million (Nike)

Utah: $6.5 million (Under Armour)

Arizona State: $4.2 million (Adidas)

Oregon State: $3.3 million (Nike)

Arizona: $3.1 million (Nike)

Colorado: $3 million (Nike)

Washington State: $2.3 million (Nike)

Reation to the numbers:

*** The top-three deals, and five of the top six, are not with Nike. All in all, the Swoosh represents just seven of the 12 schools.

*** The disparity between UCLA and WSU ($16.3 million) would itself be the fourth-largest apparel deal in the country, behind only UCLA, Ohio State and Texas.

*** Oregon obviously has received immense sums from Nike outside the parameters of its apparel contracts, but it’s nonetheless odd to see the Ducks with a lower annual haul than Cal.

*** We don’t know the value of the Stanford and USC deals with Nike — as private schools, they aren't required to disclose the terms.

However, multiple sources have told the Hotline that USC’s deal (believed to be in the $5 million annual range) is a fraction of its potential. The Trojans should be on the same level as Ohio State, Texas and UCLA given their location and the strength of the football brand; yet they're nowhere close.

*** So much of this is timing.
UCLA hit the jackpot because Under Armour was riding high at the time (spring 2016), wanted a piece of the nation’s No. 2 market and had to fend off Nike and Adidas. Washington also entered the marketplace at just the right moment, with Adidas oozing cash and looking to chisel away at Nike’s dominance in the Pacific Northwest.

The apparel market within the Pac-12 should settle, at least with the public schools: Everyone is locked up for the next few years. — Jon Wilner.
[/LEFT]