clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

A Good Deal: The Full Details of UCLA's Deal with Under Armour

New, 21 comments

It took a few weeks for us to get, but Bruins Nation has obtained the full contract between UCLA and Under Armour.

It took a few weeks to obtain, but Bruins Nation has obtained a copy of the full contract the UCLA Athletic Department recently signed with Maryland-based Under Armour. The agreement is a detailed, 37-page document which is twice as long as UCLA's previous agreement with Adidas.

As part of the agreement, UCLA will be paid a $15 million signing bonus on July 1, 2017. UCLA will also be paid a $9 million rights fee each year for a total rights fee of $135 million. That's a total of $150 million in cash paid to the Morgan Center.

UCLA will also receive $112.85 million in Under Armour products over the life of the contract. Under Armour has committed to spending another $15 million marketing its support of UCLA Athletics as well as $2 million in rebranding for UCLA Athletics and Under Armour ($1M in each of the first and eighth years of the contract).

That totals out to $279.85 million.

The deal could go even higher based on the incentive bonuses which are included in the contract. The contract names football, baseball, and men's and women's basketball as four "Core Sports" and provides specific incentives to UCLA should any of these teams meet the incentive requirement.

For instance, Under Armour will pay UCLA a $500,000 bonus if the football team wins the national championship and a $200,000 bonus if the men's basketball wins the national championship. For all non-core sports teams, the national championship bonus is $50,000. There are also incentives included for winning the Director's Cup (or finishing in the top three).

For those who may have doubted me about the influence of ASUCLA in the licensing process, there are multiple mentions of ASUCLA including on the middle of page 8 where UA agrees to "invest a minimum of $150,000 to upgrade and rebrand UCLA's primary bookstore to market, promote and sell (UCLA and UA) co-branded products for retail sale...." And, that brings the total to $280 million.

But, that isn't the only mention of ASUCLA. There are two other mentions.

One starts at the bottom of page 19 and describes the "Use of UCLA Marks on Products." This section discusses how UA will not use UCLA Marks without prior written agreement from ASUCLA including promotional products or services. I've mentioned before how there have been licensing issues with ASUCLA on things like the "Gold Out" shirts that were given away at the Kentucky game. This contract acknowledges that ASUCLA needs to approve the licensing of certain UCLA Marks.

But, there is a stated intention that UA wants to work with ASUCLA beyond the agreement with UCLA Athletics.

On page 23, there is an entire section of the contract related to the Athletic Department introducing Under Armour to ASUCLA for the purposes of Under Armour negotiating a separate licensing agreement with AUSCLA.

One big difference between this contract and the Adidas contract is that the presence of a matching period in addition to an exclusive negotiating period. During the matching period, UCLA can freely negotiate with any company, but UA will have ten days to match the competing offer.

One item which appears to be missing from the agreement is what's known as a "most favored nation" clause. That is a provision where UA agrees to automatically increase the value of UCLA's contract in the event that UA should sign another school to a larger deal.

Under Armour has committed to opening at least two retail stores in the Los Angeles area including one in West Los Angeles during the first two years of the contract. They also committed to featuring UCLA gear at their "prominent Company branded" retail locations around the world. So, the days of not being able to find UCLA gear at the stores for UCLA's apparel outfitter should be over soon.

Another key provision many will wonder about is the overall design of UCLA's uniforms, especially of the football uniforms, even though UA Founder and CEO Kevin Plank addressed the subject in the press conference announcing the deal.

The agreement contains language which expresses UA's intention to comply with UCLA's traditions:

Company agrees to consult with UCLA in the design of Supplied Products that Company will supply to UCLA, including Authentic Competition Apparel, for the purposes of ensuring that quality, color and style of apparel items are unique to UCLA and consistent with UCLA's traditions.

Later in the contract, it also lays out where the blame may lies in the event that we get more "UCLA Stubs".

In the middle of page 20, it reads:

Company will supply UCLA with a mutually agree upon number of sample products and specifications for all intercollegiate varsity program game and practice uniforms or other Team uniform requirements upon request at no cost to UCLA. Any material modifications to the styles, look or color of Supplied Products, including without limitation any material changes in design or cut of the official uniform of any Team, must be reviewed and approved in advance by UCLA and must meet or exceed the standard of current uniforms or other items, as determined by UCLA in its sole discretion.

Feel free to read that again in order to get the full meaning of that section of the contract.

In other words, it means that UCLA has full and complete final say on the designs of its uniforms.

So, if the "UCLA Stripe" does not return to its full size in 2017, it is UCLA's fault and not Under Armour's. It also means that we should be able to avoid the horrendous designs that UCLA has received from Adidas for the Bruins' basketball uniforms, like the Zubazz ones from a few years ago.

As a result, we, as fans, now know who is responsible if we see a repeat of the stubs or the Zubazz after Under Armour starts supplying UCLA in 2017, but something tells me that a full-size "UCLA Stripe" will return just in time for Josh Rosen's junior year.

Go Bruins!!!