Arkansas Sports 360 - ArkansasSports360.com

6/28/2010 at 12:00am

FAYETEVILLE — Nike and the University of Arkansas technically enter a five-year, all-sports agreement when a new fiscal year begins July 1. However, that doesn’t mean shelves will be fully stocked with new apparel for fans or athletes right away.

Because the Athletic Department’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30, there are some early logistical challenges associated with switching to Nike after spending six years with Adidas.

Consider, for example, that Hog Heaven manager Robert Mann does not typically order new inventory for his store in Bud Walton Arena during the month of June. It makes accounting easier to not have invoices and inventory being delivered for one year, but billed in another.

Even if a shipment of new Nike apparel arrives July 1, there’s still time spent processing, pricing and stocking new inventory. Demand might very well exceed supply, during the first few days of the new contract.

“I expect people beating down the doors,” Mann said. “Everyday as it gets closer, the more phone calls we get and the more people come by to ask about Nike.

“It’s a big deal. We’re excited about it, but the transition is not as easy it might sound.”

Razorback coaches and administrators could experience similar delays logistically in the early days of the Nike contract. A deal was struck between the company and the university, following what Kit Morris, Nike director of college sports marketing, called an “ambitious schedule for producing a signed agreement.” Initial contact between the school and the shoe giant began in October and a contract was signed Nov. 9, 2009.

Orders for the school’s 19 sports are being placed throughout the summer and some are being made without the benefit of having product samples in-hand. Artist’s renderings of some items are the best the Athletic Department has to go on, a byproduct of both parties having less than a year to prepare.

“It’s a labor intensive changeover,” Arkansas Athletic Director Jeff Long said in a May 17 interview on 103.7 The Buzz’s Sports Talk. “It will take us time to build up our inventories. …”

Multiple requests seeking additional comments from Long went unfulfilled after being submitted to media relations director Kevin Trainor. Long has spoken to other outlets about the switch, but has provided little in the way of details about the process or how the school will benefit from a contract with Nike.

Still, it’s clear that switching to Nike has its short-term challenges. However, Arkansas Athletic Department employees think those early issues will be worth it when weighed against the long-term benefit of switching to Nike.

Where does an apparel switch help the UA? What does it mean to be linked with a company that is working to reach $23 billion in global business for fiscal year 2011?

It is believed to be a benefit financially for the UA.

No terms of the deal were disclosed by the UA — the UA cited a competitive advantage exemption and redacted any financial details — when it provided a copy of the contract to ArkansasSports360.com under the state Freedom of Information Act. Nike releases contract terms with only select schools.

Looking at deals from around the country isn’t a sure-fire gauge of what the Razorbacks’ deal is worth. However, it does provide insight into the money available for top-tier schools.

Nike’s most lucrative known college contract is with Alabama, which has a deal valued at $30 million over eight years, an average of $3.75 million annually. Virginia Tech is on the lower end of high-profile programs with an eight-year deal reportedly valued at $1.2 million per year.

Arkansas’ apparel contract is believed to be significantly lower than those figures. There is the prospect of increased licensing revenue with more apparel being sold to fans.

Mann estimated a switch in apparel provider could lead to a “20-30 percent increase in sales in a year under normal circumstances.”

Put aside the economics of changing outfitters for a second and there’s another reason the Razorbacks benefit. Think cachet, rather than cash.

“Kids think Nike is pretty cool,” Arkansas baseball Coach Dave Van Horn said.

There is no way to quantify the impact the apparel switch will have on recruiting, but nearly every Arkansas coach asked expected positive results. Worldwide, the Nike brand is recognized as the best, and the perception of being linked to Nike is generally thought to be a good one.

Only basketball Coach John Pelphrey seemed unconvinced that a different shoe could help recruiting efforts. Perhaps that could change in the future, Pelphrey said, but up to this point any recruiting benefit has been nothing more than “lip service.”

“Nobody has said that they’d come to Arkansas yet because of the Swoosh,” Pelphrey said.

But athletes might go elsewhere without it. Track Coach Chris Bucknam said recruiting can be a challenge when athletes are used to a specific brand and are asked to change decades of training and competing habits.

Nike has tended to be the shoe of choice for track athletes. It’s also very prevalent on basketball courts.

“You add the Nike brand to what we’ve got in terms of facilities and tradition, and you’ve got to think that helps,” Bucknam said.

Coach Bobby Petrino expects to see benefits from Nike.

“When you go out and recruit, the recruits are always wanting to know who you’re associated with and who your sponsors are, and they like the Nike shoes,” Petrino said. “They are very good football shoes, and that’s something we’re excited about.”