@Lulufulu
First, I am out of my league so to speak speculating on the NBA. Others follow it more closely than I do, so I am told.
So; all I can do as a Jethro Bodine-grade D1 fan, laymane and an NBA rube chewing straw by the cement pond is offer up some uninformed hypothetical speculation. To wit...
Hypothetically speaking, how could the NBA resist Nike, if the NCAA apparently struggles to?
Oh, well, maybe there is some way. Maybe appearances of the NCAA are not realities;that's always a possibility.
So: let me put it hypothetically another way, as I root around in Granny's kitchen for some sow belly.
I recall there are reputedly some more Nike contracted NBA players than adidas contracted players (Note: I don't know spit about whether these contracts require one to endorse shoes and/or endorse apparel). I also don't recall if it were as asymmetric as the shoe contracting with colleges in D1, or in the pre-college summer game reputedly is, but I recall it was reputedly a significant edge.
Further, I recall there are also reputedly more Nike contracted superstars than adidas contracted superstars in the NBA. Again, I don't recall the exact degree of assymetry, but I recall it was reputedly significant. But I won't swear to any of this, because I am an NBA functional illiterate. (And ah am igggorant, tew.)
Finally, the reigning super endorser--Lebron--is reputedly contracted with Nike, isn't he?
So: at least hypothetically speaking, it appears that if the NBA were to tell Nike to go fly a kite that it at least appears that Nike might hypothetically persuade its contracted players, plus perhaps some others that it might pursue, out of the NBA in a few short years and into a start-up competing league. After all, there are plenty of channels and networks that would like to have a new league's soap-pedalling content, especially if that new league were to have a significantly favorable asymmetric share of the best players. And there appears never to be a shortage of deep pocketed investors seeking to own a major professional sports franchise in a major media market in a league with the majority of the top players and desirable shoe endorsers, right?
In turn, it appears this notion that the NBA clothing endorsement doen't matter much is at least apparently contradicted by some corner dwelling gorillas.
Didn't adidas reputedly spend something like $400M in the not so distant past for the clothing endorsement?
And didn't Nike reputedly spend something like $1B for the clothing endorsement for the privilege of replacing adidas?
Those appear rather large corner dwelling gorillas to dismiss, even to someone like me who is relatively stupid...to say nothing of knowing less than a thimble full about the vaunted National Basketball Association.
Someone above has proposed that the clothing endorsement just isn't worth holding onto without the shoe contracts.
Hmmmm.
That doesn't quite cypher up right to me, but again I am the Jethro Bodine equivalent of NBA analysts, so naught may, contrary to my cyphering, go into naught and Uncle Jed may correctly go, "Ooooooooohweeeeeee, boy, they are right and you are wrong."
But over time, it at least appears to I, Jethro, that there may be more money to be made in globalizing markets in petro-apparel than in petro-shoes, though I don't know if Mr. Drysdale and Miss Jane would agree with me.
If I put myself in the position of a city slicker marketer at, say, adidas, I would really like to have the clothing endorsement contract with, say, Lebron, whether or not he was in Nike shoes. A uniform stands out on camera rather more than a pair of shoes, does it not? In fact, Lebron contracted with Nike shoes might make me want him to be contracted with adidas clothes even more, if such were to continue to be feasible. Wouldn't it be something of a marketing coup to have Lebron in one commercial praising his treads, and then countering that with Lebron praising some chic aididas petri-sports apparel, if either Nike, or adidas were willing to let it continue further?
On the other hand, if I were Nike and I were wanting a larger share of the global petro-sports apparel market, then it might not be enough for me to just have Lebron (or the NBA) in my shoes and being countered by adidas petro-apparel ads. I would want them in my petro-apparel too.
So: to me it seems like both adidas and Nike have strong incentives to try to get as many NBA players and the NBA itself committed to both petro-shoes and petr0-apparel, at least as many as their marketing budgets can afford to persuade.
Again hypothetically speaking, it at least seems vaguely possible to follow that either: a.) adidas just did not have deep enough pockets because of hard times to pay as much as Nike for the NBA petro-apparel contracts; or b.) adidas decided it could compete more effectively with Nike at the D1 level, so it decided to concentrate its forces and resources on D1.
I suppose it could be some of both, too.
I just don't know.
And I ain't right smart enough yet to say if adidas believes it has pull with off shore players in the amateur ranks that give it some kind of strategic edge in player-endorser procurement over time. But I reckon Granny and Ellie would want me to at least cypher on that some time, after ah git done cleaning Granny's still.
But to the uninitiated and unsophisticated laymen Jethro Bodine-grade D1 fans like me (you know, the ones that some board rats ask, "do you even watch the NBA? :-)), giving the NBA $1B to make sure NBA teams wear Nike petro-uniforms seems like there must be a lot of petro-apparel to be sold through such an association with the NBA.
And since adidas already paid the NBA a ton before, it must have helped them move a few petro-shirts, too. Or else I just don't understand endorsement worth a spit. Why spend that kind of money if'n that kind of money spent won't move at least a few shirts, eh?
But, as I said, I am just a layman, Jethro Bodine-grade D1 fan and an NBA ignoramus that don't even appear to watch the NBA.
So: Uncle Jed, what do I know that cain't be balanced on the pointy end of a skinny stick at the fancy eatin' table, right?
And thar ain't no consarned uh conspiracy theorizin' goin' on here, neeeether.
'Up through the ground come a bubblin' crude..."
