Jump to content


Photo

Pro gear endorsements


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 wrbush31

wrbush31

Posted 03 August 2012 - 10:46 AM

I think that's a common misconception Numan, people think gear is free? When in fact the team pays for all the gear....Free to player sure, but not free to team.... ;)


But to numan's point, the gear is free to the player...so their endorsement deal providing free gear to the player is a pointless business relationship between the brand and the player.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that not ALL teams in the NHL are under the CCM/Reebk contract that is offered to the league. Those teams have to pay for their Reebok/CCM stuff, but the teams that do agree to the terms (whatever they may be that I'm not aware of) get the Reebok/CCM stuff free...and by the boat loads. Again, I'm sure there's a lot of holes there and there's more to it.

#22 numan

numan
  • LocationDallas

Posted 03 August 2012 - 07:47 PM

I think that's a common misconception Numan, people think gear is free? When in fact the team pays for all the gear....Free to player sure, but not free to team.... ;)



Haha exactly! Can't tell you how many kids I've ears say they wanna be sponsored by Bauer or CCM when they play in the NHL for the free gear.... Just get to the NHL it's all free and you get paid.... Crazy concept

#23 Junkyard Athletic

Junkyard Athletic
  • LocationUSA

Posted 07 August 2012 - 11:43 PM

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that not ALL teams in the NHL are under the CCM/Reebk contract that is offered to the league. Those teams have to pay for their Reebok/CCM stuff, but the teams that do agree to the terms (whatever they may be that I'm not aware of) get the Reebok/CCM stuff free...and by the boat loads. Again, I'm sure there's a lot of holes there and there's more to it.

Yes, you are wrong.

#threadcloser


#24 wrbush31

wrbush31

Posted 08 August 2012 - 06:28 AM

Yes, you are wrong.


So rather than be condescending about it, care to elaborate and educate me/us?

#25 Junkyard Athletic

Junkyard Athletic
  • LocationUSA

Posted 08 August 2012 - 12:55 PM

So rather than be condescending about it, care to elaborate and educate me/us?

Wasn't being condescending about it. Was going to come back and edit the post but had an injury and ended up in the hospital.

#threadcloser


#26 wrbush31

wrbush31

Posted 08 August 2012 - 01:48 PM

Wasn't being condescending about it. Was going to come back and edit the post but had an injury and ended up in the hospital.


That sucks, hope you're alright and you get a sick battle wound story out of it!

#27 Pensgolf

Pensgolf

Posted 08 August 2012 - 01:50 PM

I think that's a common misconception Numan, people think gear is free? When in fact the team pays for all the gear....Free to player sure, but not free to team.... ;)



you are spot on with this.. the team has to pay for everything and the players do get it for free

#28 dsjunior1388

dsjunior1388

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:57 PM

Crosby's deal with Reebok is apparently $10 million for 7 years. I'd imagine that no other company pays an NHL athlete more than that, so take from what what you will.

I remember when they originally signed up, the deal was worth $2.5 million or something, which at the time was the richest endorsement deal a hockey player had ever gotten.

Crosbys deal is a shoe deal. He's making $10 million to be in zigtech commercials, not to wear 20k skates or use 11k sticks. Hockey equipment deals do not begin to approach the shoe deals you see for athletes like Peyton Manning, Kevin Durant, etc. because the gear is very much a niche industry, whereas a pair of sneakers has mass appeal.