Manchester United Secure $1.2 Billion Shirt Deal With Adidas

Manchester United have secured a new shirt deal with adidas, where the Old Trafford club will net $1.2 billion over the next 10 years.

The £75million-a-year deal begins with the 2015/16 season when Manchester United will wear adidas shirts instead of Nike. The last time United wore adidas was 1992. The German manufacturer had a memorable history with Manchester United from 1980 to 1992, where United won 3 FA Cup trophies wearing the kits with the three stripes.

As part of the agreement, adidas will supply product to Manchester United and outfit all of the club’s teams. In addition, adidas will have the exclusive right to distribute dual-branded merchandising products worldwide.

Manchester United joins the roster of adidas football partners, including some of the world’s top clubs such as Real Madrid, FC Bayern Munich, Chelsea FC, AC Milan, Flamengo and – also starting with the 2015/2016 season – Juventus.

“We are excited to team up with Manchester United, one of the most successful and most loved football clubs globally. Our new partnership with Manchester United clearly underlines our leadership in football and will help us to further strengthen our position in key markets around the world,” said Herbert Hainer, adidas Group CEO. “At the same time, this collaboration marks a milestone for us when it comes to merchandising potential. We expect total sales to reach 1.5 billion GBP during the duration of our partnership.”

The £75million a year deal is the biggest in club soccer, which is more than double what Real Madrid has. Nike, who pulled out of negotiations with Manchester United to renew its deal, will finish the 2014/15 season with United.

The money from adidas will certainly give Manchester United a huge boost financially, to help them finance some big transfer buys, as well as being able (if they so choose) to pay off some of the United debt.

13 thoughts on “Manchester United Secure $1.2 Billion Shirt Deal With Adidas”

  1. Something that should be noted is that United, as part of the deal for the next 10 years, have handed over all the merchandising rights to Adidas. So while Utd may get 70m per year, they will get 0 profits from kit sales as well as other merchandise that has the adidas logo on it.

    This is just my opinion, but I can’t believe in this age of inflation in football, big clubs are still signing long term kit deals. While this may be a big deal right now for Utd, in 5 years, it may very well appear average, at best, with another 5 years to go on the contract. Arsenal were forced into a long term deal with Nike in 2006 in order to finance the stadium. At the end of the Nike deal, it was borderline average, especially for a high profile club.

    The shorter deals that Arsenal & Liverpool have signed appear a much better business decision to me.

  2. Shocking really, especially with that terrible Chevrolet symbol on the front. It’s clear that the ManU shine has lost quite a bit of its luster over the last few years, both on account of their relatively poor form, but also on account of other teams stepping up their globally-focused branding.

    It’s a free market and Adidas are clearly allowed to spend however much they choose, but it seems like a poor investment to me.

    I will add that Nike took a significant hit in their branding strategy for this summer’s WC. Their premier franchise, Brazil, was embarrassed by Adidas’ premier franchise, Germany. The chosen player of the tournament, Messi, is Adidas’ core asset and the peoples’ choice for player of the tournament, James Rodriguez, is also an Adidas sponsoree. Nike’s ad campaign was focused on players that either had a terrible tournament (CRonaldo, Wayne Rooney, Iniesta) or were not even present (Ibra, Ribery). Only Neymar, who was unable to finish the tournament due to injury and Tim Howard had what could be considered to be “good” tournaments from those featured in the Nike ads.

    1. I get people hate United and have a bone to pick all the time but how is this a bad investment for Adidas?
      They’re sponsoring the premier team in England. We sell the most shirts, are a commercial juggernaut, and have the second highest brand value after Bayern Munchen.
      United has lost their luster a lot in the past few years according to you yet we’ve won the league 2/4 years and made a champions league final in 2011.
      You do know that Adidas could care less how good the teams they sponsor do at club and international level in tournaments right?
      Their main focus is selling shirts and other adidas merchandise. That’s what makes them money.
      You literally used one season to say United have lost their luster.
      I guess you see something about United that Adidas, Toshiba, Chevrolet, and the numerous other sponsors that United have don’t.
      Since United have lost their luster over the last few years then tell me how?
      We lost the title in 2012 on Goal difference and the title in 2010 by 1 point and we won the 2011 and 2013 titles. No other club maintained a level of such excellence. You have to go back to 2005 before the 2013-2014 season to when United last finished outside the top 2 in the premier league.

  3. It’s all about capturing share in emerging markets. ManU was once the preeminent brand, globally in soccer. Since then, clubs like Chelsea, ManC, PSG, Barca and Real have increased their global market share, and in doing so, decreased the share held by ManU. My only point is that Adidas is paying a lot more for the rights to outfit ManU than any of the other brands are paying to the other globally-branded clubs and it doesn’t appear that there is much market share left to capture that ManU hasn’t captured.

    To address the comment about not watching much football… On the contrary I watch more than my fair share. I’d say that much of the competition that ManU has faced for global attention and fan base stems from the unattractive play they’ve put forth over the last 3 seasons. With the exception of last season they have been successful, finishing at the top of the EPL table, but it hasn’t been pretty football to watch.

    1. DDont even put Manchester City, PSG, or Chelsea in the argument. None of them have the commercial pull of United.
      First of all United have dominated on and off the pitch since Chelsea came around in 2004 and City in 2009 and PSG is in a 1 team Ligue.
      The only thing thing those clubs have over United is that they have a rich benefactor and if they were taking a United’s global market share and essentially decreasing United’s global market share then why do you United top all 3 of those clubs in every aspect off the field???
      Revenue, Stadium, commercial pull etc. United is bigger than those clubs by far.
      The general consensus is the top 4 super clubs in terms of resources are Real Madrid, Manchester United, Barcelona, and Bayern Munchen.
      Guess what Chelsea are unattractive yet they still have match going fans and fill up the bridge.
      PSG for all the star power they have don’t play sexy football.
      City play good football but they have the most expensive squad bar Real Madrid and pay the most wages in all of sport.
      Your unattractive play argument lacks any basis and is pathetic.
      Not every team is Barcelona and I bet you not one Chelsea fan gave a flying F*** how their team played back in 2012.

      1. As of 14 May 2014, ManU ranked 3rd globally (almost $100M behind Real and Barca) in club revenue. Over the past year, ManU’s revenues represent an 11% decrease from the previous year (decrease in global market share). ManU hasn’t been the highest earning club since 2012. Market signs point to ManU’s global market share deteriorating.

        I agree that ManU has been a very profitable club in the past, but my comments were limited to Adidas’ sponsorship decision, a decision based on income to the company. I just personally don’t agree with the decision to pay far and above what other brands are paying to other clubs who are on the ascendency in global market share when ManU is clearly on the downslope.

        1. It’s almost impossible to compare United to Barcelona or Real Madrid in terms of wealth.
          They collect 50% of the Spanish TV rights. If United had 25% of the Premier league tv rights then we’d be ringing up Barcelona for Messi and Real for Ronaldo.
          If United finish in 7th then that’s going to impact their earnings negatively and having one bad season means the club is on the downslope?
          I’d say positions 3 and 4 are wide open with United, Liverpool and Arsenal fighting for those positions.
          Because Barcelona had a bad season this year does that mean they’re on the downslope???
          Arsenal won a trophy for the first time in 9 years and Chelsea haven’t won a trophy for the first time in a few years so does that mean Arsenal are now a more valuable commodity and will winmore trophies than Chelsea in the next few years???
          Ridiculous man that’s just short termism. Say whatever you want but 27 years of unparalleled success and history isn’t wiped out in one year.
          (Unless your Rangers)

  4. 10 years of variations on 3 stripes down the arms. You can almost see the new shirt now. I’ve no problem with Adidas but they quickly run out of ideas e.g Chelsea. Still anything is better than the dross turned out by nike. They made some terrible United kits. Horrible collars, dish cloth patterns etc. Most United fans would take an Adidas template over that.

    1. As a fan i feel umbro makes the best kits.

      But as an athlete i feel that Nike makes the best gear while adidas i dont like. So even though Nike’s kits arent great designs i still would rather Nike than adidas.

      Not a United fan obviously though.

  5. If adidas are to spend so much for this deal, I don’t understand why they don’t just make an offer for the entire club? Then they could display their brand as much as they wanted anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *