To settle this, I'll ask this question:
Based on the performance of the athletic department under Blake James's (mis)management, the apparel sales numbers, merch availability (assuming it would have been similar under Nike...not sure if it's a valid assumption, but I do know there were lots of Nike collegiate releases like shoes and other gear for other schools that weren't available for Miami - likely due to decisions made with the previous regime) - and the way Blake ran things under his watch; When you take all those variables into account, which deal would have made the school more money before we started to make a real investment into building a sustainable winning program?
I’ll try to be as concise as possible:
1. In the short term, The Adidas deal appeared to be the better deal, particularly for the 2015 season.
2. The 2016-18 seasons, in my honest opinion would’ve been a far and away better deal w/ Nike simply b/c of the reinvigoration of the program, & merchandise was selling…a lot of that merchandise was from 3 party retailers, too.
At the end of the day, Blake did what he “felt” was in the best interest of the school, but also what was in his best interest to make a statement as an AD. The problem is, & the issue I had w/ Blake, he was not qualified to be an AD here. His experience was ticket sales.
A lot of decisions he made were very short sighted, and not thoroughly vetted. When the scathing report came out how he didn’t understand language used in our contract w/ Adidas, that gave a glimpse into his qualifications. So it made all the sense in the world the lack of respect shown by Golden & Diaz towards him.
Here’s what’s crazy about the Adidas contract:
-We were told, promised that we would be the flagship program of the ACC, & neither a state school or ACC school would have a more lucrative contract than us.
Our contract is approx. 12 yr/$80
UL during this same period, signed a 10yr/$160m contract! A major part of this was nepotism as Tom Jurich’s daughter is an executive in their marketing dept. Not only does this violate Adidas’ own conflict of interest clause, but it also violates the stipulation that was found in our contract, being that UL is an ACC school.
Since our “marquee” contract in which Adidas was going to showcase & rebrand us:
KU: 14yr/$196m
UL: 10yr/$160m
UW: 10yr/$119m
Neb: 11yr/$128m
IU:$8yr/$54m
*TAMU haven’t released details of their new extension in 2022, but their previous contract was between $7.1 - $7.8m/yr.
I’m just saying, we low key got shafted on the deal & that’s b/c Blake overplayed his hand, while not sitting down & throughly vetting the complete picture.
I recall reading about why UTenn left Adidas, despite more $$, & the AD said, in part, that they had to look at the totality of the contract which included branding, brand recognition, apparel, global reach, finances, & it made sense to go w/ the “perceived” lower offer. So far, it appears UTenn is doing just fine financially. Ironically, Alabama, too, is perceived to have a low contract w/ Nike, yet they’re now reported to be 3rd in revenue despite Texas A&M’s contract “dwarfing” their Nike contract.
That’s the power of back end revenue.
