Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
SipHockey

Non-Retail Sock Brands (Nike, Adidas, UA)

Recommended Posts

So I have become very curious lately about the socks many NCAA teams and national teams have worn that are branded Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. Obviously the teams have to maintain uniformity in their team apparel if they are sponsored as an entire athletic department, but a couple things stick out in my mind:

-As Adidas owns Reebok, I am assuming the Adidas branded socks (like Michigan wore up until this year) are simply Reebok socks with an Adidas logo stitched on?

-With the Nike Swifts, any reasoning as to why these aren't available retail? They are an incredible sock in my opinion and it seems odd that Nike would make a fully unique sock (vs just branding some standard sock) but yet make it only available to Nike sponsored teams.

-Does anyone have any experience with UA socks? Never seem them in person and would be interested to see how they compare and how unique they are. I know Notre Dame and BC wear them.  As under armour is an independent company, I would guess they aren't just some rebranded sock. With UA coming out with hockey visors this year, I wonder if this is the start of their entrance into hockey like they did with lacrosse (Starting with a select few pieces of gear and then branching out.

 

On another note, if anyone is trying to unload some Nike/UA/Adidas socks let me know :biggrin:   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SipHockey said:

So I have become very curious lately about the socks many NCAA teams and national teams have worn that are branded Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. Obviously the teams have to maintain uniformity in their team apparel if they are sponsored as an entire athletic department, but a couple things stick out in my mind:

-As Adidas owns Reebok, I am assuming the Adidas branded socks (like Michigan wore up until this year) are simply Reebok socks with an Adidas logo stitched on?

-With the Nike Swifts, any reasoning as to why these aren't available retail? They are an incredible sock in my opinion and it seems odd that Nike would make a fully unique sock (vs just branding some standard sock) but yet make it only available to Nike sponsored teams.

-Does anyone have any experience with UA socks? Never seem them in person and would be interested to see how they compare and how unique they are. I know Notre Dame and BC wear them.  As under armour is an independent company, I would guess they aren't just some rebranded sock. With UA coming out with hockey visors this year, I wonder if this is the start of their entrance into hockey like they did with lacrosse (Starting with a select few pieces of gear and then branching out.

 

On another note, if anyone is trying to unload some Nike/UA/Adidas socks let me know :biggrin:   

The question of why Nike doesn't make anything retail is a mystery... because no one knows and people can never find out. That same question goes for their jerseys which they sponsor for international tournaments but rarely sell them or don't sell certain teams.

Edited by Hills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hills said:

The question of why Nike doesn't make anything retail is a mystery... because no one knows and people can never find out. That same question goes for their jerseys which they sponsor for international tournaments but rarely sell them or don't sell certain teams.

Just a thought- Is there any chance that when Nike and Bauer parted ways there was some sort of Non-Compete clause involved? Something in the sale of Bauer that stipulated Nike could not make any retail gear, and could only make team-issued uniforms for teams that they sponsor and replica jerseys of those teams? That is the best answer I can come up with. I think if Nike sold Swift socks and dri-fit practice jerseys at retail they would be immensely popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SipHockey said:

Just a thought- Is there any chance that when Nike and Bauer parted ways there was some sort of Non-Compete clause involved? Something in the sale of Bauer that stipulated Nike could not make any retail gear, and could only make team-issued uniforms for teams that they sponsor and replica jerseys of those teams? That is the best answer I can come up with. I think if Nike sold Swift socks and dri-fit practice jerseys at retail they would be immensely popular.

Perhaps you might be on to something, as before that purchase Nike was really good with selling international jerseys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That theory holds up with CCM and adidas as well, but that doesn't continue to UA.  Of the three of them they would be the ones I would guess would be selling their branded hockey socks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TeamHonda401 said:

That theory holds up with CCM and adidas as well, but that doesn't continue to UA.  Of the three of them they would be the ones I would guess would be selling their branded hockey socks. 

CCM and Adidas are the same company so that doesn't really make sense. For that company it makes sense to sell the hockey gear as CCM but advertise the brand (and sell replica jerseys) as Adidas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...