We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Would you sign Jordan Spieth?

I say no at $10 million plus unless he goes all in with the brand. If he went all in, then absolutely and would have no problem going above TW and Rory deals.
 
This why IMO Nike ended up making golf clubs and golf balls. For a massive endorsement opportunity they wanted to make sure Tiger represented top to bottom, then Rory. The pay out premium endorsement contracts for that, and to protect t those investments opted to get in the equipment market. Addidas did similar buy purchasing Taylormade, mutual kept the TM badging. I'm not sure that helped them sell a ton more clothing because the dominant logo on most AdIdas players is the Taylormade hat.

Under Armour is in a unique position where they maybe could gamble and pick up Adams from Adidas, keep the technology and rebrand it as Under Armour. They are like Nike in that they have so Mich other revenue that a small division losing a bit of money isn't going to overtly impact their bottom line.
 
I say yes if he agrees to a neck or forearm tattoo of my company logo, otherwise no. :bananadance:
 
cbaker2882 said:
No idea honestly. I'd have to think there is a peaked interest in Titleist if nothing else. It doesn't help that they are one of the more expensive brands and the irons he plays are pushing $1,300 after tax. I don't think Titleist grabs the casual golf fan because of that alone at least for equipment sales.

You saw what TW did for Nike though. There are no Nike golf clubs without a guy like Tiger repping the brand. And I don't think it would have had that much of a negative effect on the brand even if he was wearing someone else's clothes and the bag is AT&T in that situation either. People would have been looking at his clubs at stores no matter what.

It's all obviously IMO of course, but a frequently winning player will bring eyes to your brand no matter what. I mean it's just his putter, but google searches for Zach Johnson's putter have to sky rocket when he wins.
Click to expand...

Titleist is a different bread. They are all about the golf ball. So in this instance it works for them because for them selling clubs is 10000000% secondary.
 
cbaker2882 said:
No idea honestly. I'd have to think there is a peaked interest in Titleist if nothing else. It doesn't help that they are one of the more expensive brands and the irons he plays are pushing $1,300 after tax. I don't think Titleist grabs the casual golf fan because of that alone at least for equipment sales.

You saw what TW did for Nike though. There are no Nike golf clubs without a guy like Tiger repping the brand. And I don't think it would have had that much of a negative effect on the brand even if he was wearing someone else's clothes and the bag is AT&T in that situation either. People would have been looking at his clubs at stores no matter what.

It's all obviously IMO of course, but a frequently winning player will bring eyes to your brand no matter what. I mean it's just his putter, but google searches for Zach Johnson's putter have to sky rocket when he wins.
Click to expand...

TW is a bad example here however because we are saying soft goods are off the table. $10 mil+ for just the sticks in the bag is crazy talk IMO. If you are already an established brand I don't think there is enough of a sales spike to justify $10 mil/year. If you are an newer brand to the market it may work but without a visable logo on TV, I just don't think it gets you there without sinking several million more into an add campaign that a start-up club maker likely couldn't afford.
 
ddec said:
Titleist is a different bread. They are all about the golf ball. So in this instance it works for them because for them selling clubs is 10000000% secondary.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that at all.
 
YetiLooper said:
Under Armour is in a unique position where they maybe could gamble and pick up Adams from Adidas, keep the technology and rebrand it as Under Armour. They are like Nike in that they have so Mich other revenue that a small division losing a bit of money isn't going to overtly impact their bottom line.
Click to expand...

Actually TM likely has rights to all of the Adams tech/patents. If they were to sell the Adams brand, it would pretty much be selling just the name.
 
I would sign him.
Headcovers alone are worth a bunch, and the guy is always on TV whether he plays well or poorly.

The only way I don't is if I already have a great stable full of winners.
 
Howzat said:
TW is a bad example here however because we are saying soft goods are off the table. $10 mil+ for just the sticks in the bag is crazy talk IMO. If you are already an established brand I don't think there is enough of a sales spike to justify $10 mil/year. If you are an newer brand to the market it may work but without a visable logo on TV, I just don't think it gets you there without sinking several million more into an add campaign that a start-up club maker likely couldn't afford.
Click to expand...

true, $10+mill sounds high for it. If it only typically costs say a million for club deals for example, then no it's not worth it for $10mill. But I'm not sure what the average cost of signing a top player to use your equipment would be though. If $10mill turns out to be what it typically costs for a guy like that, I'd still say it's worth it. If Titleist is paying say a million for him to use the clubs, I'd say it's worth it at 2 mill.

But yea, I'll agree that the $10mill price seems high. If that's what it would take then maybe that price would turn me off of the deal.
 
No. As much as the media loves to show him, if I don't see my logo plastered everywhere, then I'm wasting money.
 
If I owned say the Ben Hogan brand, I would really be tempted to offer Jordan some ownership in the company. This way I could likely cost less up front and would really get Jordan invested in making sure the brand does well. Maybe a win/win that also helps create exposure?
 
Howzat said:
If I owned say the Ben Hogan brand, I would really be tempted to offer Jordan some ownership in the company. This way I could likely cost less up front and would really get Jordan invested in making sure the brand does well. Maybe a win/win that also helps create exposure?
Click to expand...

sounds like a Ryan Moore type of deal.
 
ddec said:
Here's the scenario. You are in charge of putting together your company's tour staff. Coming off of a huge year, Jordan Spieth hits the free agent market in terms of clubs. Would you sign him for whatever amount he wants? Here's the rub though, he gets to keep playing his golf ball, his putter, and his current deals for golf bag and apparel are still intact. Essentially you get to say that he plays your clubs, but your companies logo is not on his body or bag. So knowing all of that, would you sign him? Is it a no-brainer? Would you spend $10 Mil+ a year on a guy who you would be hard pressed for the avg golf fan to know which clubs he plays?
Click to expand...

Definitely wouldn't sign him for 10+ mil a year without being able to have sponsor logo on apparel and bag.

I might sign him in the $1-1.5 million range for just using clubs. If he were willing to do commercials and print advertising for the clubs as well, then I'd probably double that.
 
I don't think he is worth the $10 mil price tag even though he is the hottest player going.....not enough logo placement for me, sure headcovers are worth something, but you would have to do a big media push...print and TV to get a good bang for your buck.

Howzat said:
If I owned say the Ben Hogan brand, I would really be tempted to offer Jordan some ownership in the company. This way I could likely cost less up front and would really get Jordan invested in making sure the brand does well. Maybe a win/win that also helps create exposure?
Click to expand...

I actually REALLY like this idea...I know it failed with Ryan Moore but that was different....the Ben Hogan name still has some market recognition from years ago and I can really see Jordan wanting to be associated with Ben Hogan's legacy. There are even some tie ins between Hogan and Spieth as far as Texas and the DFW area would be concerned.
 
I'd try to sign him just to make sure he doesn't sign with any other company.

Especially if my company makes a flashy looking driver.
 
caeleric said:
well, there's not a lot of tmag apparel worn except for the hat and glove, and i've always heard they spend bookoodles of money on their staffers. so i don't think it's out of the question. i think he needs one more year of productivity before he gets that kind of money. if he can win a few times next year and compete in the majors, then he's worth it.
Click to expand...

Pretty high standards if the past two years didn't cut it.
 
Bucketsofjoy said:
I'd try to sign him just to make sure he doesn't sign with any other company.

Especially if my company makes a flashy looking driver.
Click to expand...

That is an extreeeeemely good point right there. If Spieth started to game a white driver, is there any doubt at all as to what company he is playing? You could even elevate that with the partly white, partly black head of the M1 and I think it's about as obvious as obvious gets.
 
Its a tough sell for that kind of dough. Even if you go hard on the media. Lifesize cut outs in golf shops, commercials on Golf Channel every break, ads in every publication... you're plugging Under Armour(and AT&T if you show the bag).
 
TrueFX said:
Pretty high standards if the past two years didn't cut it.
Click to expand...

let's compare rory to jordan because rory's dominance and status as heir apparent to tiger led to his massive $250 million deal with nike. so i'm thinking jordan's new dominance would possibly also lead to a massive deal. i'm saying that jordan needs one more year of consistency to ink a massive deal, saying he needs 3 wins and competing in majors, so we'll say top 5s in each major. you mention the past 2 years as being big years for jordan. so let's compare 3 years of rory prior to signing his deal with nike (2010-2012) to the past 2 years from jordan (2014-2015) + my hypothetical 2016 (3 wins and 4 top 5s in majors).

rory signed his deal with nike in early 2013. in 2010, rory had 1 win (quail hollow), t3 in 2 majors and mc in the other 2. in 2011, rory had 1 win (us open) which was a major, and was outside the top 5 in the other 3 majors, and 1 euro tour win. in 2012, rory had 4 wins (honda, pga, deutsche bank, and bmw) one of which was a major, missed 2 cuts in majors and was outside top 5 in the other major, and 1 euro tour win. so 6 pga tour wins including 2 major wins, 2 top 5s in majors he didn't win, 4 missed cuts in majors, and 2 euro tour wins.

in 2014, jordan had -0- wins, 1 top 5 in majors, and 1 missed cut in a major. in 2015, jordan had 5 wins (hero world challenge, valspar, masters, us open, tour championship) of which 2 were majors, and 2 top 5s in majors. in my hypothetical 2016, jordan will have 3 wins, and 4 top 5s in majors. so 8 wins including 2 major wins, 7 top 5s in majors he didn't win, and 1 missed cut in a major. all of those numbers, assuming 2016 plays out like i said it needed to in order to ink a big deal, would be either the same as or better than rory.

but let's say we don't have the luxury of my hypothetical 2016, and instead use 2013-2015 for jordan. in 2013, jordan had 1 win (john deere), no top 5s in majors including 2 missed cuts and no invite to the masters. so if jordan's results are 2013-2015, he has 7 wins including 2 majors, 3 top 5s in majors, and 3 missed cuts in majors not counting the masters against him. to me, they're pretty close under this analysis, so maybe he would STILL deserve a big deal right now. and rory's big deal came on the heels of him dominating 2012, lending all the more credence to giving jordan a big deal now based on results.

the biggest reason to not compare jordan to rory is op's original question because rory was "all-in" with nike, but this deal we are contemplating with jordan is only clubs, no clothes, no bag, no putter, no ball.
 
I don't think he is moving the needle on club purchases so I am not making the deal.
 
Greg Kulbick said:
Its a tough sell for that kind of dough. Even if you go hard on the media. Lifesize cut outs in golf shops, commercials on Golf Channel every break, ads in every publication... you're plugging Under Armour(and AT&T if you show the bag).
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't his apparel modified in his SuperStroke commercial?
 
Yep. Canadan and Bucketsofjoy nailed it. This kids face on my TV/print/internet ad campaign plus keeping him from going elsewhere. It's a 10M investment/gamble on my company's future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top