Article - How Nike lost Steph Curry to Under Armour

[Donoghus]

Long but really good read on the events that led to Curry going to Under Armour and the fallout.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/15047018/how-nike-lost-stephen-curry-armour

[Timdawgg]

Great Read. Very interesting. TP!

[Tr1boy]

I will read it, but isn't the answer money talks

[Donoghus]

I will read it, but isn't the answer money talks

Try reading it first.  Then you'll figure it out.

[Timdawgg]

I will read it, but isn't the answer money talks

Try reading it first.  Then you'll figure it out.

yeah it was really amazing sales pitch getting Bazemore to be such a huge factor...they owe Bazemore bigtime...

[Donoghus]

I will read it, but isn't the answer money talks

Try reading it first.  Then you'll figure it out.

yeah it was really amazing sales pitch getting Bazemore to be such a huge factor...they owe Bazemore bigtime...

Yeah, it was cool that UA actually recognized that and helped hook up Old Dominion because of it.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Really can't blame Nike. Steph was a rising star, but his ankles at the time were very questionable (and that's being nice). They also needed to resign Kevin Durant, who at the time is closing in on eclipsing LeBron James as the best in the world.

Big blow. UA's gamble paid off, literally. But I can't blame Nike for not taking on Steph. Nike had their fair share of shambles on this issue as well, but I think it all boiled down to Steph's then glass ankles.

-----

Also, I would just like to share a funny story that involves this.

When Manny Pacquiao got dropped by Nike because of his homophobic slurs, a Facebook post went viral, suggesting that "Steph Curry didn't choose Nike because they would not allow Steph to put in a bible verse in his shoes".

This went on, and a lot of people were so gullible that they believed it. I'm pretty sure a lot of Filipinos think that Nike is anti-Christianity because of this bogus claim.

[Moranis]

I will read it, but isn't the answer money talks

nope

[Moranis]

Really can't blame Nike. Steph was a rising star, but his ankles at the time were very questionable (and that's being nice). They also needed to resign Kevin Durant, who at the time is closing in on eclipsing LeBron James as the best in the world.

Big blow. UA's gamble paid off, literally. But I can't blame Nike for not taking on Steph. Nike had their fair share of shambles on this issue as well, but I think it all boiled down to Steph's then glass ankles.

-----

Also, I would just like to share a funny story that involves this.

When Manny Pacquiao got dropped by Nike because of his homophobic slurs, a Facebook post went viral, suggesting that "Steph Curry didn't choose Nike because they would not allow Steph to put in a bible verse in his shoes".

This went on, and a lot of people were so gullible that they believed it. I'm pretty sure a lot of Filipinos think that Nike is anti-Christianity because of this bogus claim.

Steph was already signed with Nike though.  They just flubbed the pitch and didn't match a pretty small offer from UA.  It will cost Nike billions of dollars over the life of Steph's deal.  Pretty big blunder.

[Donoghus]

According to a Sept. 16, 2015, report from ESPN's Darren Rovell, "Nike failed to match a deal worth less than $4 million a year."

Unreal to think.  Even in retrospect.   That's less than a drop in the bucket for Nike.

[manl_lui]

I'm glad UA is starting to do well. Their athletic gear is so underrated...actually my entire wardrobe are underarmour gear. Their T-Shirts are comfy and solid, where them to work every day. Their workout tanks and shorts are so comfy and absorbs sweat so well that it doesn't bother me. Nike while good but in terms of material, in my honest opinion is not comparable to UA.

Getting Curry obviously was a gamble and proved to be an amazing investment on their part. I was kind of disappointed that they didn't get the NBA deal to make their uniforms...that'd be interesting

[Denis998]

Meanwhile Nike gave Lebron a Billi not to run away.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Really can't blame Nike. Steph was a rising star, but his ankles at the time were very questionable (and that's being nice). They also needed to resign Kevin Durant, who at the time is closing in on eclipsing LeBron James as the best in the world.

Big blow. UA's gamble paid off, literally. But I can't blame Nike for not taking on Steph. Nike had their fair share of shambles on this issue as well, but I think it all boiled down to Steph's then glass ankles.

-----

Also, I would just like to share a funny story that involves this.

When Manny Pacquiao got dropped by Nike because of his homophobic slurs, a Facebook post went viral, suggesting that "Steph Curry didn't choose Nike because they would not allow Steph to put in a bible verse in his shoes".

This went on, and a lot of people were so gullible that they believed it. I'm pretty sure a lot of Filipinos think that Nike is anti-Christianity because of this bogus claim.

Steph was already signed with Nike though.  They just flubbed the pitch and didn't match a pretty small offer from UA.  It will cost Nike billions of dollars over the life of Steph's deal.  Pretty big blunder.

There was a Darren Rovell article where he said Nike just thought he would not sell signature shoes.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nba/post/_/id/2503/stephen-currys-underdog-story-extends-to-endorsements

Two years ago, Nike had a chance to pay Curry a lot of money and lock him up for the future. After offering less than $2.5 million a year, Nike had a second chance -- this time to match Under Armour's new offer. Unsure that Curry would ever be able to sell signature shoes, Nike let him go.

I'm speculating that it's due to his ankles constantly spraining at the time, I guess. But it looked like Nike was indeed skeptical, and why wouldn't they? Two years ago we didn't know if Curry ankles are really fully healed.

But, but... Not matching $4 million per year? Yeah, I want to back track, you're dumb, Nike.

[Moranis]

Really can't blame Nike. Steph was a rising star, but his ankles at the time were very questionable (and that's being nice). They also needed to resign Kevin Durant, who at the time is closing in on eclipsing LeBron James as the best in the world.

Big blow. UA's gamble paid off, literally. But I can't blame Nike for not taking on Steph. Nike had their fair share of shambles on this issue as well, but I think it all boiled down to Steph's then glass ankles.

-----

Also, I would just like to share a funny story that involves this.

When Manny Pacquiao got dropped by Nike because of his homophobic slurs, a Facebook post went viral, suggesting that "Steph Curry didn't choose Nike because they would not allow Steph to put in a bible verse in his shoes".

This went on, and a lot of people were so gullible that they believed it. I'm pretty sure a lot of Filipinos think that Nike is anti-Christianity because of this bogus claim.

Steph was already signed with Nike though.  They just flubbed the pitch and didn't match a pretty small offer from UA.  It will cost Nike billions of dollars over the life of Steph's deal.  Pretty big blunder.

There was a Darren Rovell article where he said Nike just thought he would not sell signature shoes.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nba/post/_/id/2503/stephen-currys-underdog-story-extends-to-endorsements

Two years ago, Nike had a chance to pay Curry a lot of money and lock him up for the future. After offering less than $2.5 million a year, Nike had a second chance -- this time to match Under Armour's new offer. Unsure that Curry would ever be able to sell signature shoes, Nike let him go.

I'm speculating that it's due to his ankles constantly spraining at the time, I guess. But it looked like Nike was indeed skeptical, and why wouldn't they? Two years ago we didn't know if Curry ankles are really fully healed.

But, but... Not matching $4 million per year? Yeah, I want to back track, you're dumb, Nike.

less than 4 million a year and they already offered 2.5 million, so even if the less than 4 million a year is 3.999999999 million that means it would have only cost Nike just under 1.5 million more than they offered to keep Steph.  Even if Steph's ankles go under, that isn't that much money and would have been worth the risk on a guy who was bombing three's like it was going out of style (and frankly they probably could have put an out clause in the contract if he gets injured again - though that might have cost a bit more). 

[Kane3387]

I enjoyed this. TP