UCLA Suing Under Armour For Breach Of Contact???

#4
#4
Guess we will see what happens when PAC schools want their TV money from their partners...as if those programs aren't already paying to be on TV 🤫🤫😠
 
#8
#8
bamawriter said:
They cancelled spring sports only after the NCAA cancelled all spring championships.
Click to expand...

I am sure that doesn't matter to UA.

Under Armour said in June that it "recently made the difficult decision to discontinue our partnership with UCLA, as we have been paying for marketing benefits that we have not received for an extended time period."
Click to expand...

They are both right, by my account. UA is to be receiving marketing benefits from the university via televised sports which stopped completely in March. UCLA accuses UA of wanting out of a bad deal they signed, without saying it was a bad deal, because UA has financial issues. Unfortunately, COVID and the cancellation of spring sports gave UA a perceived out and they took it.

I'm no lawyer, but I would assume that UCLA would have to prove they did not breach the contract first with the cancellation of sports for an extended period. Maybe there is a clause in the contract that covers "natural disasters" that they will use to make their case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BUBear
#9
#9
95 Vol Alum said:
I am sure that doesn't matter to UA.



They are both right, by my account. UA is to be receiving marketing benefits from the university via televised sports which stopped completely in March. UCLA accuses UA of wanting out of a bad deal they signed, without saying it was a bad deal, because UA has financial issues. Unfortunately, COVID and the cancellation of spring sports gave UA a perceived out and they took it.

I'm no lawyer, but I would assume that UCLA would have to prove they did not breach the contract first with the cancellation of sports for an extended period. Maybe there is a clause in the contract that covers "natural disasters" that they will use to make their case.
Click to expand...

It seems odd that, in June, UA would reference "an extended time period" that only covered three months. Further, it would be odd that UA wouldn't have attempted to back out on any other school given that each and every one shut down Spring sports at the exact same time.
 
#11
#11
bamawriter said:
It seems odd that, in June, UA would reference "an extended time period" that only covered three months. Further, it would be odd that UA wouldn't have attempted to back out on any other school given that each and every one shut down Spring sports at the exact same time.
Click to expand...
Exactly. UA has other BIG 10 and PAC 12 schools but I haven't seen any mention of backing out of those deals, though I may have missed it.
 
#12
#12
BUBear said:
You're the only one that didn't see this coming?
Click to expand...

Colorado St, Cal, Hawaii, Kent State, Maryland, Northwestern, Old Dominion, Utah, and Wisconsin all wear Under Armour and none of them will be playing football this Fall. Under Armour hasn't backed out on any of them.

But, by all means, keep making the easily disprovable argument that this is about Covid cancellations.
 
#13
#13
bamawriter said:
It seems odd that, in June, UA would reference "an extended time period" that only covered three months. Further, it would be odd that UA wouldn't have attempted to back out on any other school given that each and every one shut down Spring sports at the exact same time.
Click to expand...

It appears that some of the period is referring to the poor returns on investment related to extended poor performance in their 2 flagship sports - football and basketball. And then included a force majeure notice related to cancellations.

I believe they are also trying to get out of their deal with Cal.

My assumption is that they are targeting larger accounts first due to their current financial situation - which is UCLA's argument. If the voids stick, then they may do the same with smaller contracts.

It wouldn't be surprising if UA just folds shop and goes bankrupt while all the lawyers get the real money arguing. And UCLA will still have to rebid their too good to be true contract under much worse circumstances and swallow the "loss."
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and 508mikey
#14
#14
95 Vol Alum said:
It appears that some of the period is referring to the poor returns on investment related to extended poor performance in their 2 flagship sports - football and basketball. And then included a force majeure notice related to cancellations.

I believe they are also trying to get out of their deal with Cal.

My assumption is that they are targeting larger accounts first due to their current financial situation - which is UCLA's argument. If the voids stick, then they may do the same with smaller contracts.

It wouldn't be surprising if UA just folds shop and goes bankrupt while all the lawyers get the real money arguing. And UCLA will still have to rebid their too good to be true contract under much worse circumstances and swallow the "loss."
Click to expand...

I think you're pretty much correct. UA signed a bad deal, and then started bleeding red ink. They needed out long before Covid became an issue. It is nakedly disingenuous for UA to argue that UCLA breached the contract by not playing without also trying to void every other deal (and for that matter, who was UCLA supposed to play in order to avoid this "breach"?).

UA dug a hole with a number of terrible business decisions, and they're trying to weasel their way out of them. They just need to be honest with their shareholders and declare bankruptcy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top