Now that they are giving Harden $200 mil, it got me thinking about Adidas and the guys they didn't sign. If we remove Jordan, Lebron sells the most shoes. $340 mil per year worth. If any of you guys saw the documentary about sonny vaccaro he stated that if the money was the same Lebron would have went with Adidas. If he had, would Adidas be closer Nike with Basketball? The counter point would be Kobe. Adidas had Kobe and they eventually lost him to Nike. An interesting fact is they also had a chance to get MJ if they had offered him similar money to Nike.
The internet says Nike is worth 20 billion more than Adidas. Based on that I'd guess not so much. Football and Futbol probably dictate the real money.
No they aren't. People don't go around wearing football shoes. Do you even hear about football players getting big shoe deals. In terms of revenue. Running is no 1. Basketball is 2. It is 15% of their revenue.
Nike does more than sell shoes. Why would they bother locking-in huge, league-wide apparel deals in other sports.
I think you're looking at it backwards. Lebron didn't make Nike bigger. Nike got Lebron because they are bigger. Say Lebron can sell $340m in Nike shoes, and they pay him $20m per year, or a 6% cut essentially. Addidas offers the same $20m, but even with Lebron they can only sell $100m-worth per year of Addidas gear. That's a 20% cut. Can the business guys justify the economics to their bosses and shareholders that the expense of paying Lebron is worth the payoff? Will the remaining 80% still cover the cost for material, labor, and overhead? Maybe, but if they can than Nike can probably offer $30m given their larger scale and outbid them for Lebron while still making money thanks to their scale. For Adidas to steal a big name from Nike, they essentially have to accept some bad economics in the short-term on the faith that it will build their brand to reap benefits in some unknown future.
If I remember correctly, Nike offered LeBron $90mil/7 Years before he was even drafted. And he was offered more from other brands but declined.
Didn't Lebron sign a $90 million lifetime contract with Nike as a rookie? I bet he's regretting that now.
I think he gets royalties. The $90 mill is the guaranteed portion. Hopefully an expert chimes in soon.
That 30 for 30 doco with sonny vaccaro regarding Nike & Adidas was very interesting. MJ essentially made Nike. Adidas had LeBron in the bag with Sonny getting a verbal agreement, but when it came to signing the contract, Adidas had reduced the amount verbally agreed to (I think by around $15mill) so LeBron didn't sign and instead went with Nike. Would've, could've should'ves... Didn't Curry sign with Under Armour for less than $4mill per year? Insane now he's MVP.
Nike's gross margin is 44% so if we take 340*.44=149.6. I don't know how much nike pays lebron, but lets say marketing + Lebron is 120 mil. That is still 30 mil in profit for Nike. If Adidas made Lebrons you think they would sell less shoes assuming they had some marketing budget?
That was a sarcastic comment right? My personal preference is Nike every day of the week. But that comment if a serious one, is silly. Someone posted in another thread the Nike stats re endorsements Vs injuries and that was equally if not larger than what you're saying about Adidas.
Considering Nike was dead before Jordan, that alone proves that one man can change the entire shoe game. If Jordan wasn't still on top, which is amazing in and of itself, and Lebron was the man, he would own the market and whoever has the man on their side has the power.
Adidas and Reebok make the best basketball shoe to play in.Nike makes the most fashionable shoe to play in.. LeBron sighning with adidas would have been that game changer they needed from a business standpoint .too bad they dropped that ball
Adidas shoes are way too narrow and feel kind of stiff in my limited experience. Nike definitely makes the best basketball sneakers - durable and highly functional. Reebok was not bad back in the day.
