Thunderous Intentions
Fansided

Westbrook, Jordan, and Sneaker Wars: Nobody’s Bigger than the Jumpman

By SaintClair Edmunds III

May 2, 2015; Las Vegas, NV, USA; Chicago Bulls former player Michael Jordan in attendance before the boxing fight between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao at the MGM Grand Garden Arena. Mandatory Credit: Mark J. Rebilas-USA TODAY Sports
May 2, 2015; Las Vegas, NV, USA; Chicago Bulls former player Michael Jordan in attendance before the boxing fight between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao at the MGM Grand Garden Arena. Mandatory Credit: Mark J. Rebilas-USA TODAY Sports /
facebooktwitterreddit
Prev
5 of 5
Next

The sneaker giants, Nike in particular, have a reputation for not wanting to pay athletes royalties on sneaker sales, which is a percentage of money for each shoe sold. So why would they want to help build an athlete’s individual brand, especially if it’s not based on their on the court play.

Mandatory Credit: Cary Edmondson-USA TODAY Sports
Mandatory Credit: Cary Edmondson-USA TODAY Sports /

Let’s say for example, the Jordan Brand let Westbrook design his own collection, market himself as more than a basketball player, and escape the Jordan shadow. If his collection is successful this presents huge problems for them.

  1. They would have to pay Westbrook royalties when his contract is up or dump a bucket load of money over many years, similar to LeBron and Durant, to keep him on the Jordan Brand.
  2. Westbrook could overshadow the Jordan Brand. If this happens it would negatively effect the sales of other Jordan clothes and shoes by creating an internal competition. This is bad because Westbrook would be pushing himself, not the brand, which would give him leverage over the company.
  3. Other athletes would want to follow Westbrook’s path. Again, this would give players too much leverage. If your the sneaker giants, you can’t risk having every athlete pushing to develop their own collections and brands separate from basketball. If every athlete could do this they could carry their brand to other companies, such as Barneys, after they’ve grown it to a level where it’s marketable on a large scale. By using athletes as they currently do, to only push the sneaker company’s brand, when they decide to leave or their contract is up everything the athletes worked to market and grow stays with the sneaker company.

In closing, the sneaker wars of new is not between Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour, it’s between the athletes and the companies.

Remember what I said above, Steph Curry’s estimated value to Under Armour could approach 14$ billion dollars.

How much of that do you think Curry will see?

Not much.

Related Story: Game of RINGZ Part 1

The companies are working to use athletes popularity by pushing their greatest, while simultaneously and purposefully avoiding pushing anything outside of the basketball world.

Moving into the future it’s unlikely we’ll see any more Durant and LeBron like deals from Nike to athletes. They’ve seemed to figure out the game. Their no longer relying on athletes to sell their products, but to push their brand.

It’s all about the Swoosh and, in the case of the Jordan Brand, the Jumpman.

And nobody’s bigger than the Jumpman.

Nobody.

Home/Thunder News