Under Armour Ucla Agreement



“By 2020, Under Armour wanted to pull out of this deal, not because of something UCLA did, but because the deal now seemed too expensive for the financially troubled sportswear company,” the complaint says. “Under Armour has decided to use the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to `terminate` the sponsorship agreement. But neither the current agreement nor the law allows Under Armour to do so. This action attempts to keep Under Armour in the promises he made. Another important provision that many will be surprised at is the overall design of UCLA uniforms, especially football uniforms, although Kevin Plank, AU founder and CEO, raised the issue at the press conference announcing the deal. As part of the deal, Under Armour paid UCLA $15 million in advance, as well as approximately $11 million per year in fees and marketing costs. The apparel company also agreed to provide the school with an average of $7.4 million in clothing, footwear and equipment per school year, while providing $2 million over an eight-year period to upgrade the sports facilities. According to the lawsuit, UCLA`s agreement with Under Armour contains a force majeure clause that states that “each party will be liable for any breach of its obligations under this agreement to the extent that the breach has rejected a case of force majeure, provided that it: immediately informs the other party of the nature and cause of the force majeure event and its details, how the party mitigates its losses in relation to the force majeure event; and [t]akes take all reasonable steps to circumvent, reduce or mitigate the effects of the force majeure event. If an event of force majeure lasts more than one hundred (100) days, either party may terminate this agreement with immediate effect by written notice. In 2014, the brand signed a record one-year contract with the University of Notre Dame for $90 million, followed by a larger 10-year, $96 million contract with the University of Wisconsin. In particular, Under Armour claims that if the catastrophic event lasts more than 100 days, the agreement would allow the contract to be terminated. UCLA intends to fight against Under Armour`s efforts to terminate the deal, as it will lose significant financial benefits from the deal. UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero, whose 18-year term at the school is set to end this week, appeared to challenge Under Armour`s ability to unilaterally dismantle his agreement with the school in a letter he sent to Bruins voters. In June, Under Armour ucla and Cal announced that they were ending their sponsorships with the schools by invoking a force majeure clause in the agreements. In 2016, Under Armour secured a 10-year sponsorship deal of $85.6 million with the Bears.

News from the San Jose Mercury indicated earlier this month that Cal`s deal had never been signed and that the two sides had been working on a roadmap for the past four years. However, there is the stated intention that UA wishes to cooperate with ASUCLA beyond the agreement reached with UCLA Athletics. “Under Armour recently made the difficult decision to end our partnership with UCLA because we paid for marketing benefits that we didn`t get for an extended period of time,” the company said in a statement made available to the Los Angeles Times. “The agreement allows us to terminate the contract in such a case, and we exercise this right.” The complaint also states that the university was not aware of any accounting irregularities that are currently under investigation by the United States. Securities and Exchange Commission and found other issues, such as the brand`s waning popularity among younger teens and the impact of a public scandal where senior male executives travel to strip clubs…