United and adidas extend partnership

Decent deal. Adidas have been alright so far, created some really good shirts as well as a couple of questionable ones but I'm all for creativity. They created a brilliant set for this season so hope they continue like this.

Nike are not as popular as they once were, and Adidas are always a safe bet so I'm glad that they are here for the long run. God forbid getting Puma as a manufacturer, that would've been a horrible.
 
crossy1686 said:
No there isn’t. What are Adidas going to do if Kim Jong-Un does his next presser in a United shirt while threatening to nuke the states? Adidas have no control over who wears their shirts once it leaves their property. Think about it for just a second and unless we live in 1984 there’s nothing they can do about Greenwood, Ched Evan’s or Adam Johnson wearing one. Just because it’s on TV doesn’t mean anything.
Click to expand...
If/when he does return take note of what boots he wears. I guarantee they’ll be blacked out as no one will want him wearing theirs.
 
macheda14 said:
Do you not think they would have spoken to United about this during the contract negotiations? That’s where they can have power over who wears their shirts. They can pull sponsorship from anyone the sponsor if they believe it brings the brand into disrepute.
Click to expand...
Why would they? There’s 25 other players wearing the shirt on any given day, you think people are going to say “well I’m not wearing that shirt now I’ve seen him it, shame that because it looks really good on the other 24 players, and all my mates that bought one too”.

Plus, that’s a 10 year contract, don’t think Adidas and United got hung up on whether or not Greenwood will still be a United player for the entirety of that contract? He might not be here next week. Adidas have absolutely no say who United decide to play and who wears their shirt, if that was the case then Adidas might as well manage the entire club if they’re picking the team now.
 
crossy1686 said:
No there isn’t. What are Adidas going to do if Kim Jong-Un does his next presser in a United shirt while threatening to nuke the states? Adidas have no control over who wears their shirts once it leaves their property. Think about it for just a second and unless we live in 1984 there’s nothing they can do about Greenwood, Ched Evan’s or Adam Johnson wearing one. Just because it’s on TV doesn’t mean anything.
Click to expand...
3 dropped Chelsea when they were going through their problems.
Still haven’t got a shirt sponsor funnily enough
 
crossy1686 said:
Yeah but wasn’t that because they were a sport washing project funded by Putin? Not because one of the players got arrested once.
Click to expand...
It was because of the toxic nature the brand had become. The exercised a morality clause.
I’m just saying they exist and are used. If Greenwood returns and all hell breaks loose then they will be having their say.
Imo we’ll see this to a greater affect when the unnamed EPL player finally gets named and how a club has handled that mess gets exposed.
 
I couldn’t care who made the kit

As long as it’s red with the right crest on it, whoever pays the most please

I do feel in my bones this makes the sale less likely though, the ability to squeeze every sponsor and avenue for more money is still available to the leeches
 
macheda14 said:
Do you not think they would have spoken to United about this during the contract negotiations? That’s where they can have power over who wears their shirts. They can pull sponsorship from anyone the sponsor if they believe it brings the brand into disrepute.
Click to expand...

If using products from forced labour camps hasn't brought the brand into disrepute. Not sure why letting someone who hasn't been convicted of any crimes would be such an issue.
 
cyberman said:
It was because of the toxic nature the brand had become. The exercised a morality clause.
I’m just saying they exist and are used. If Greenwood returns and all hell breaks loose then they will be having their say.
Imo we’ll see this to a greater affect when the unnamed EPL player finally gets named and how a club has handled that mess gets exposed.
Click to expand...
Shirt makers aren’t going to literally take the shirts off the backs of clubs because one individual did something naughty. The clubs manage these situations in house, sponsors and shirt makers have no authority on who plays or when they play. It would be a totally different story if United decided to play all their games behind closed doors but the like of Adidas just want their shirt to be seen. The whole point of a sponsor is to raise their profile, absolutely no one is going to associate Greenwood with Adidas in anyway, shape or form. He’s already lost all his personal sponsors also.

Where does it end? Has he got to walk around bollock naked because no one ‘allows’ him to wear their clothes?

come on lads, let’s stop being silly now.
 
What's the point of getting records deal? The news outlets keep harping on City is the most valuable team now. City has higher spending power than us even excluding under table and whatnot.
 
crossy1686 said:
Shirt makers aren’t going to literally take the shirts off the backs of clubs because one individual did something naughty. The clubs manage these situations in house, sponsors and shirt makers have no authority on who plays or when they play. It would be a totally different story if United decided to play all their games behind closed doors but the like of Adidas just want their shirt to be seen. The whole point of a sponsor is to raise their profile, absolutely no one is going to associate Greenwood with Adidas in anyway, shape or form. He’s already lost all his personal sponsors also.

Where does it end? Has he got to walk around bollock naked because no one ‘allows’ him to wear their clothes?

come on lads, let’s stop being silly now.
Click to expand...
Sponsors care very acutely about how their brand is represented. Tiger Woods lost most of his sponsorships after having an affair. I’m not saying Greenwood won’t come back and Adidas will care but they 100% had a conversation about it and will have weighed up the PR. If they strongly believed they didn’t want him attributed to the brand they could raise it in those meetings and United would have listened because money talks at the end of the day.

This is going to be an absolutely massive news story if he’s allowed back. Not ‘oh someone did something naughty’ but it will have huge implications across the sport and there will be lots of continued discussion about sexual abuse. The women’s team will have a lot to say. In a much more insignificant level I personally will stop supporting the club and have seen a lot of people say the same (not enough for it to be enough). Do you honestly think brands will want to be attached to that?
 
Dorris said:
Weren’t there rumours over the weekend Adidas had given their ok for #11 to return over the weekend? Then this gets released this morning. Feel like it’s inevitable (sorry to derail the thread).
Click to expand...

strandty said:
They've denied that
Click to expand...

Dorris said:
Yeh I saw that
Click to expand...

It's misleading of you to say that Adidas "denied that".

Adidas' statement was:

Last night Adidas said of a return of Greenwood: “That’s a question for the club. As sponsors we have no influence over team line-ups.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/2324...aining-man-utd-sponsor-adidas-approve-return/

...

That means that if the club decided to bring back Greenwood then Adidas would not make an objection, kick up a major fuss, and stand in the club's way. Adidas also wouldn't object if the club wanted to remove Greenwood. Basically Adidas are saying they would be ok with whatever the club decides.

One would imagine that the club will have outlined what their investigation has involved and how it is progressing to Adidas in advance of this, mind.
 
Last edited:
macheda14 said:
Sponsors care very acutely about how their brand is represented. Tiger Woods lost most of his sponsorships after having an affair. I’m not saying Greenwood won’t come back and Adidas will care but they 100% had a conversation about it and will have weighed up the PR. If they strongly believed they didn’t want him attributed to the brand they could raise it in those meetings and United would have listened because money talks at the end of the day.

This is going to be an absolutely massive news story if he’s allowed back. Not ‘oh someone did something naughty’ but it will have huge implications across the sport and there will be lots of continued discussion about sexual abuse. The women’s team will have a lot to say. In a much more insignificant level I personally will stop supporting the club and have seen a lot of people say the same (not enough for it to be enough). Do you honestly think brands will want to be attached to that?
Click to expand...
So you agree that a sponsor for an individual in and individual sport has that authority but a shirt maker for a team sport cannot decide who wears their clothing seeing as the FA dictate every team must wear a matching kit?

I’m sure people want it to be a big deal but it won’t be because United won’t just put him in the first team one day. They’ll be a massive PR campaign to test the water, he’ll probably do a candid interview and how he’s ’learned a lot’ in the last year, and if all goes well he’ll be reintegrated and everything will carry on.

Or you know, he’ll just play and it won’t be a big deal like it wasn’t for Van Persie, Dani Alves, Giggs, Mendy, etc.

Not everyone watches football for the morality of what’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’, and Adidas sell shirts predominately to kids who will be getting Rashford or Bruno on the back anyway.

And absolutely no one is going to stop supporting the club because Mason Greenwood wore a United shirt.

Also, these guys make their clothes in sweatshops in Asia, I think their morality left the conversation years ago.
 
macheda14 said:
Sponsors care very acutely about how their brand is represented. Tiger Woods lost most of his sponsorships after having an affair. I’m not saying Greenwood won’t come back and Adidas will care but they 100% had a conversation about it and will have weighed up the PR. If they strongly believed they didn’t want him attributed to the brand they could raise it in those meetings and United would have listened because money talks at the end of the day.

This is going to be an absolutely massive news story if he’s allowed back. Not ‘oh someone did something naughty’ but it will have huge implications across the sport and there will be lots of continued discussion about sexual abuse. The women’s team will have a lot to say. In a much more insignificant level I personally will stop supporting the club and have seen a lot of people say the same (not enough for it to be enough). Do you honestly think brands will want to be attached to that?
Click to expand...

If Greenwood is allowed back in what exactly is Women's team will say honestly I am not being an ass just a genuine question , we didn't hear them say any thing till now what is stopping them or you are just talking about behind the scene conversations and input from them in this case .

I honestly don't see much issue in that you can't simply reduce United's brand value to the decision of keeping Greenwood or not .
 
crossy1686 said:
So you agree that a sponsor for an individual in and individual sport has that authority but a shirt maker for a team sport cannot decide who wears their clothing seeing as the FA dictate every team must wear a matching kit?

I’m sure people want it to be a big deal but it won’t be because United won’t just put him in the first team one day. They’ll be a massive PR campaign to test the water, he’ll probably do a candid interview and how he’s ’learned a lot’ in the last year, and if all goes well he’ll be reintegrated and everything will carry on.

Or you know, he’ll just play and it won’t be a big deal like it wasn’t for Van Persie, Dani Alves, Giggs, Mendy, etc.

Not everyone watches football for the morality of what’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’, and Adidas sell shirts predominately to kids who will be getting Rashford or Bruno on the back anyway.

And absolutely no one is going to stop supporting the club because Mason Greenwood wore a United shirt.

Also, these guys make their clothes in sweatshops in Asia, I think their morality left the conversation years ago.
Click to expand...

are you dim? I’m not saying they will make him play in a different kit. I’m saying they would have discussed whether to sponsor the club at all. It would have been a discussion.

You dont because you always seemingly supported him which is grim. But it will be a very big deal. It will be front page news.

And yes there will be people who stop. A lot of women supporters will question their ties to the club. It’s already reported that the women players are vocally against it. And I personally will.

It’s not about morality it’s about PR.

Anyway regardless I hope we don’t get your wish and have him play for the club again.

gajender said:
If Greenwood is allowed back in what exactly is Women's team will say honestly I am not being an ass just a genuine question , we didn't hear them say any thing till now what is stopping them or you are just talking about behind the scene conversations and input from them in this case .

I honestly don't see much issue in that you can't simply reduce United's brand value to the decision of keeping Greenwood or not .
Click to expand...
It’s been well reported by the Athletic that the women’s teams are all against his return.

And yes you can reduce United’s value if they choose to keep him.
 
macheda14 said:
are you dim? I’m not saying they will make him play in a different kit. I’m saying they would have discussed whether to sponsor the club at all. It would have been a discussion.

You dont because you always seemingly supported him which is grim. But it will be a very big deal. It will be front page news.

And yes there will be people who stop. A lot of women supporters will question their ties to the club. It’s already reported that the women players are vocally against it. And I personally will.

It’s not about morality it’s about PR.

Anyway regardless I hope we don’t get your wish and have him play for the club again.


It’s been well reported by the Athletic that the women’s teams are all against his return.

And yes you can reduce United’s value if they choose to keep him.
Click to expand...

I don't support the guy and prefer it if he didn't play for us again, but in all honestly on this so what? Short end of a wedge if first team business is dictated by the womens team opinions.
 
Suspect all this deal means is that the Glazers will be able to take dividends again.
 
macheda14 said:
are you dim? I’m not saying they will make him play in a different kit. I’m saying they would have discussed whether to sponsor the club at all. It would have been a discussion.

You dont because you always seemingly supported him which is grim. But it will be a very big deal. It will be front page news.

And yes there will be people who stop. A lot of women supporters will question their ties to the club. It’s already reported that the women players are vocally against it. And I personally will.

It’s not about morality it’s about PR.

Anyway regardless I hope we don’t get your wish and have him play for the club again.


It’s been well reported by the Athletic that the women’s teams are all against his return.

And yes you can reduce United’s value if they choose to keep him.
Click to expand...

Didn’t Adidas actively sponsor Benzema AND Ribery…?
 
macheda14 said:
are you dim? I’m not saying they will make him play in a different kit. I’m saying they would have discussed whether to sponsor the club at all. It would have been a discussion.

You dont because you always seemingly supported him which is grim. But it will be a very big deal. It will be front page news.

And yes there will be people who stop. A lot of women supporters will question their ties to the club. It’s already reported that the women players are vocally against it. And I personally will.

It’s not about morality it’s about PR.

Anyway regardless I hope we don’t get your wish and have him play for the club again.
Click to expand...
I couldn't give a toss if he plays for United again, stop derailing the thread by making everything about Greenwood.

If you think a billion pound deal was almost scuppered because a lad that has barely played for United might wear the shirt again then I honestly don't know what to say to you at this point apart from maybe you're more obsessed with this than most people.

The only deciding factor on whether or not to renew this deal on behalf of Adidas was how much money they made over the course of the last deal and how much they stand to make over the course of the next deal.

Manchester United's value doesn't decrease based on the actions of certain individuals who have a handful of appearances for the club, and it's wild to believe that.
 
It's a good deal overall. There have been a few shockers in terms of kits over the current deal, but actually like the new releases for the season.

Nike's kits are dreadful... Just look at Chelsea and Spurs!
 
PoTMS said:
10 years is surprising. Will bringing in £90m annually be seen as that much in 2033?
Click to expand...

Judas said:
No. Hence why I don’t think it’s that impressive.
Click to expand...

It is a real terms reduction on the value of our current deal. I wonder if we will learn anything about the T&Cs - on the face of it, this looks pretty disappointing, but the performance-related add-ons may be significant.

Tiber said:
Depressing news. Glazers are going nowhere and another decade of mostly shite kits
Click to expand...

I'm not really too bothered about the Adidas vs Nike debate - as long as the kit is red and has the club's badge on it, I'm happy enough. I don't think we can really infer very much about the ownership situation from this deal, though (it neither indicates that the Glazers are leaving nor that they are staying).
 
macheda14 said:
are you dim? I’m not saying they will make him play in a different kit. I’m saying they would have discussed whether to sponsor the club at all. It would have been a discussion.

You dont because you always seemingly supported him which is grim. But it will be a very big deal. It will be front page news.

And yes there will be people who stop. A lot of women supporters will question their ties to the club. It’s already reported that the women players are vocally against it. And I personally will.

It’s not about morality it’s about PR.

Anyway regardless I hope we don’t get your wish and have him play for the club again.


It’s been well reported by the Athletic that the women’s teams are all against his return.

And yes you can reduce United’s value if they choose to keep him.
Click to expand...
That's fair enough but the fact none from Women's team have gone on record to raise the issue of Greenwood suggest's to me they aren't willing to burn the bridges with the Club in case Club actually decides to bring him back and Did we lose any Sponsors due to Ronaldo who had rape allegations against him and while we actually continued playing him as well.

My personal opinion issue of shit show due to integrating Greenwood back is bit overblown once the decision is made you would hardly see any blowback from United's players that includes Women's team as well , some part of United's fan base as well as Opposition would create noises initially but that would also die down soon enough .
 
van Nistelrooy said:
It's a good deal overall. There have been a few shockers in terms of kits over the current deal, but actually like the new releases for the season.

Nike's kits are dreadful... Just look at Chelsea and Spurs!
Click to expand...
Very weird coming from a RVN fan when he wore arguably some of our most memorable Nike kits
 
mu4c_20le said:
Very weird coming from a RVN fan when he wore arguably some of our most memorable Nike kits
Click to expand...

Very true, but as mentioned, Nike's current standard of kit release is pretty poor in comparison to Adidas. Nothing like the quality shirts Ruud wore for United.
 
they did mention that the increase in the kit deal was b/c of the womens team and the funding going towards building that into a bigger entity
 
crossy1686 said:
Wait until you see City's new £3b deal later this year...
Click to expand...
Plus Madrid and Barcelona probably squeezing over £1 billion each from Nike and Adidas respectively just to say they have the biggest. It's just how shirt sponsorships work. The latest one is always the biggest one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.