Jason Day signing with Nike?

[nevets88]

Not official official, so take it at face value.

Quote

Sources tell ESPN.com that the world's largest shoe and apparel company has signed Jason Day to wear its shoes and apparel, including its hat.

The move became possible when Nike suddenly announced last month that it was leaving the equipment business. Day, whose contract is up at the end of the year with TaylorMade-Adidas, is happy with his equipment, so he re-signed with TaylorMade. Those who have TaylorMade clubs usually get paired with Adidas shoes and apparel. But that has changed as Adidas, amidst continued consumer pressure in the golf business, is selling its golf businesses.

Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but one source said the No. 1 golfer in the world will get paid north of $10 million a year. Day's agent Bud Martin of Wasserman did not return a call seeking comment.

http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/17536452/jason-day-signs-endorsement-deal-nike

[nevets88]

Now it's official. Nike commercial w/McIlroy, Day and Woods to come in 3... 2... 1...

Quote

Day’s deal will make him the highest paid golfer in the game, as his Nike contract is reportedly worth north of $100 million over its term.

Day will continue to play TaylorMade clubs, having re-signed an equipment deal with TaylorMade-Adidas Golf that should be announced soon.

http://golfweek.com/2016/09/13/pga-tour-nike-signs-jason-day-apparel-taylormade-equipment/

[Ernest Jones]

So, if Nike is not making gear anymore, does that mean Rory gets to keep the money and go back to Titleist gear as long as he keeps wearing Nike apparel? Or is Nike going to continue to make gear for Rory alone? That seems impossible.

 

*edit - sorry, I guess this is OT. Feel free to move it to the appropriate thread. 

[nevets88]

46 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

So, if Nike is not making gear anymore, does that mean Rory gets to keep the money and go back to Titleist gear as long as he keeps wearing Nike apparel? Or is Nike going to continue to make gear for Rory alone? That seems impossible.

*edit - sorry, I guess this is OT. Feel free to move it to the appropriate thread. 

That's a good question. I'm guessing there's some kind of proration written into the contract?

[Groucho Valentine]

Day is going to look good in Nikes COLOR RUSH NFL golf wear. Since he's practiclly built like a linebacker anyway. 

[colin007]

7 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Day is going to look good in Nikes COLOR RUSH NFL golf wear. Since he's practiclly built like a linebacker anyway. 

he'll look great, hes in shape.  linebacker?  lol not even in the same gym.

[Groucho Valentine]

39 minutes ago, colin007 said:

he'll look great, hes in shape.  linebacker?  lol not even in the same gym.

He's pretty jacked, though. Saw him at the Barclays this year. Definitely has a football players physique. Or i guess rugby in his case. 

[newtogolf]

3 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

So, if Nike is not making gear anymore, does that mean Rory gets to keep the money and go back to Titleist gear as long as he keeps wearing Nike apparel? Or is Nike going to continue to make gear for Rory alone? That seems impossible.

 

*edit - sorry, I guess this is OT. Feel free to move it to the appropriate thread. 

Spoiler

It's a legal question based on how the original contract between Nike and Rory and Nike and Tiger was written.  Their contracts I believe were full equipment and apparel contracts, since Nike no longer makes equipment, the contract could be renegotiated or Nike could just waive the equipment portion of the agreement and let them play whatever equipment they like as was done with Jason Day.  

Signing Day is telling in two areas; 1) It shows additional risk for Adidas, they lost a key athlete to represent their apparel which could impact their apparel business revenue and market share.  2) It shows Nike makes a lot of money on their apparel in that they're willing to pay Day over $10M per year to represent just apparel and shoes.  

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Since he's practiclly built like a linebacker anyway. 

He isn't even close.

[Hardspoon]

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

He isn't even close.

It's like they are twins:

 

[Kalnoky]

I love Nike apparel, but they clearly do not make it for the typical American diet.  I'm not a big man by any stretch but I think these shirts are made for 14 year old boys. Or linebackers. Or people in da club scene.

 

 

[Spitfisher]

21 hours ago, nevets88 said:

That's a good question. I'm guessing there's some kind of proration written into the contract?

the contract for Rory, Tiger, heck even brooks for that matter is a "head to toe" contact, if nike makes it he has to wear it, including sunglasses. Since Nike no longer produces clubs, there is no money to keep. he can play anything, however over the months of fine tuning product for his needs, unless its inferior, he'll likely change in the off season- if he needs to.

 

als lets face it, he played titleist for the same reason he played nike- a pay check. same goes for Oakley. There is no loyalty, just a check.

[Spitfisher]

18 hours ago, newtogolf said:

  Reveal hidden contents

It's a legal question based on how the original contract between Nike and Rory and Nike and Tiger was written.  Their contracts I believe were full equipment and apparel contracts, since Nike no longer makes equipment, the contract could be renegotiated or Nike could just waive the equipment portion of the agreement and let them play whatever equipment they like as was done with Jason Day.  

Signing Day is telling in two areas; 1) It shows additional risk for Adidas, they lost a key athlete to represent their apparel which could impact their apparel business revenue and market share.  2) It shows Nike makes a lot of money on their apparel in that they're willing to pay Day over $10M per year to represent just apparel and shoes.  

Im sure Adidas would have prefered to keep Day, make no mistake with that. Adidas according to my sources offered a 5 year-5 mil per year deal. Nike offered 10 million per year.

Its a common understanding that apparal has the highest margin (profit) both for adidas and UA for that matter. Im no rocket scientist but Nike golf presently, according to sales figures 700 million world wide , with clubs , balls and bags doing about  $150 - <200 million of that. Im no rocket scientist but that leaves about 500 million for apparal and yet Nike is on the hook for yealy endorsement in the range of over 100 million. 

As i travel around at both private and public courses, Clearly young and old are wearing UA, Adidas, some oakley, Puma and even some Travis, Callaway, Png & FJ.  There is a fair amount of nike shirts out there, not like before though. These other brands clearly own the lionshare of business and are also stepping it up in popularity with Kids- especially UA.

Weekend Golfer " Bob " is not plunking down 80-90 for a Nike golf shirt and feeling good about it. UA, Travis, Footjoy and Adidas is a different story.

" Nike golf " feels threatened with thier 500 mill trending south, so they have adopted their "nike" footwear strategy of buying athletes. Hence the Jason day signing, this is how they operate. The fresh bitter taste is still in the their mouth of losing Stephan Curry has cost them Millions in footwear. Not millions of dollars, millions of footwear SKUs. They blew it with their presentaation to him. 

So with Rory, Tiger, and #1 Day in their stable will this translate and resonate with the consumer into buying golf shoes and golf shirts?

Golf is entirely different and now a much older and mature person. 

Personally I don't buy a golf shirt because some one is wearing it. Nor a club And as a fan of jason Day that still won't change.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Spitfisher

[ScouseJohnny]

51 minutes ago, Spitfisher said:

Weekend Golfer " Bob " is not plunking down 80-90 for a Nike golf shirt and feeling good about it. UA, Travis, Footjoy and Adidas is a different story.

So with Rory, Tiger, and #1 Day in their stable will this translate and resonate with the consumer into buying golf shoes and golf shirts?

Golf is entirely different and now a much older and mature person. 

Personally I don't buy a golf shirt because some one is wearing it. Nor a club And as a fan of jason Day that still won't change.

I'm never going to feel good about laying down $90 for a shirt, unless it's a dress shirt to accompany a nice suit. $90 for a golf shirt? No way in hell would I pay that; plenty of perfectly nice golf shirts can be found for half that price, even a third of it if you peruse the sales.

I thought your analysis was perceptive - I actually wonder if golfers, owing to the demographic you describe, are almost immune to the charms of marketing. I wear FootJoy DryJoys because I do a lot of walking and I always find them very comfortable. Off the top of my head, I would honestly struggle to name a tour pro who wears them off - I didn't buy them because of their affiliation with a player on the PGA Tour.

I'm not sure Jason Day wearing a Nike hat is going to cause a massive uptick in existing golfers rushing out to buy Nike clothes. I'm not sure it's going to cause a sudden wave of brand new golfers, either (clad in Nike, of course).

Edited September 15, 2016 by ScouseJohnny

[Ernest Jones]

35 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

I'm never going to feel good about laying down $90 for a shirt, unless it's a dress shirt to accompany a nice suit. $90 for a golf shirt? No way in hell would I pay that; plenty of perfectly nice golf shirts can be found for half that price, even a third of it if you peruse the sales.

I thought your analysis was perceptive - I actually wonder if golfers, owing to the demographic you describe, are almost immune to the charms of marketing. I wear FootJoy DryJoys because I do a lot of walking and I always find them very comfortable. Off the top of my head, I would honestly struggle to name a tour pro who wears them off - I didn't buy them because of their affiliation with a player on the PGA Tour.

I'm not sure Jason Day wearing a Nike hat is going to cause a massive uptick in existing golfers rushing out to buy Nike clothes. I'm not sure it's going to cause a sudden wave of brand new golfers, either (clad in Nike, of course).

Yeah. I was perusing a PGA store in an airport of all places and they had a plethora of good quality golf shirts at $25-$35. $90 for a polo is ridiculous. 

[Grinde6]

Everyone says they don't buy a shirt or clothes that a Tour player is wearing, but look at PUMA.  Rickie Fowler has made that company a lot of money.  You can say it is young kids mostly, but watching golf I have seen a lot of adults wearing PUMA shirts and hats also.  I think you will see plenty of people wearing Nike with Jason Day moving over.  I think Nike golf clothing is some of the most comfortable clothing there is and I wear it everyday for work.  Bought a few things because Tiger was sponsored by them, and then just liked how their stuff fit and felt so I keep wearing it.  I have never paid over $60 for a shirt or pair of pants.

[drmevo]

I don't think I'd pay more than $35 for a golf shirt. I've had good luck finding Nike, UA, and other golf shirts at TJ Maxx/Marshall's for a good price, but you have to go at the right time. A few times I've seen shirts I like the looks of at Dick's Sporting Goods but the prices are just insane unless you buy one of the off-brands.  Truth be told, I've found that Nike shirts fit me much better and tend to a last a lot longer, so I longer bother with Walter Hagen or any of those brands any more.

[70sSanO]

I'm just hoping that there isn't any violence when the Air Days are released.

Never can tell what will happen if the muni kids can't afford them.  I'm sure there will be extra security around the private clubs.  One can only hope for the best.

...lol

John