Did South Carolina get a good deal in its Nike partnership? A closer look
Apparel contracts are a bit tricky. Not because they include gobs of graduate-level verbiage, but because there is not one clear number to key in on.
We know South Carolina football coach Shane Beamer will make $8.15 million this year. Dawn Staley will pull in $4.25 million. On and on.
And when South Carolina begins its partnership with Nike on July 1, 2026, it will pull in — well, the value is multi-layered. Here’s what we know: The 10-year deal guarantees South Carolina $70 million in product, $5 million cash, $2.5 million in supplemental product and 15% of net sales on all co-branded South Carolina-Nike gear.
The obvious question: How does that compare with everyone else? That’s where it gets tough.
“All these deals, they’re not apples to apples,” USC Athletics Director Jeremiah Donati said.
Again, what does that mean?
Well, for instance, Tennessee recently signed an apparel deal with Adidas that placed a high emphasis on the brand shelling out for NIL deals with Volunteer student-athletes. Though the exact financials weren’t reported, Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellenger estimated the deal at $100 million — or about $10 million annually.
So that’s more that South Carolina got, right? Maybe. But it’s unclear if Tennessee got any money via product allotment. If that’s the case, say the Vols spend what South Carolina is allotted from Nike — $7 million annually. All of a sudden, the deal doesn’t look as great.
South Carolina’s previous agreement with Under Armour — the 10-year deal signed in 2016 — was fairly even between cash and gear, with UA giving the Gamecocks $26.5 million in cash and $44.5 million in product.
But, aside from the Tennessee deal, it seems apparel companies are signing more deals with less cash and more money for gear. Last year, Texas Tech signed a deal with Adidas to receive just over $9 million cash and over $50 million in product.
So while South Carolina’s agreement is not cash-heavy, that’s pretty standard in 2025.
And as for where South Carolina’s total value stacks up — again, that’s a bit tough to parse out. No financial terms were released from Auburn’s recent switch to Nike, and other deals are tough to compare because of when they were signed.
For reference: South Carolina’s deal with Nike is far more lucrative than the agreement Clemson inked back in 2018. That 10-year extension between the Tigers and Nike gave Clemson $4 million in cash, $54.5 million in product and a 14% royalty on co-branded gear.
Kentucky is probably a better comparison. The Wildcats extended their deal with Nike just last week and, well, it’s pretty similar to what the Gamecocks received.
As part of a 10-year extension, Nike agreed to give Kentucky $72.5 million in product allotment and 15% royalties on co-branded gear. There’s no cash, though the contract stated Nike must pay UK at least $4 million in royalties.
And for those still hung up on the fact that Under Armour gave more cash to South Carolina than what Nike is promising, it has to be stated that, per Donati, Under Armour had a chance to at least match Nike’s offer and declined.
Donati also said that the only two companies he had conversations with were Under Amour and Nike. And if all that is true, than the deal Nike provided was the best offer to South Carolina.
And even if Under Armour matched, there is an inherent swag associated with Nike. It wasn’t hard to find former South Carolina student-athletes mad that this move didn’t happen when they were in school.
If everything else is equal, Nike is the top dog.
Under Armour’s decline
When South Carolina signed its first apparel deal with Under Armour in 2007, it was treated like the Gamecocks were wearing clothes from Mars. There was talk of the new-age moisture-wicking performance wear, about the upscale options of Under Armour’s climate-controlled materials.
South Carolina wore Under Armour during its greatest stretch of football success (2010-13) and re-upped with the company in 2016 with a 10-year contract worth over $71 million.
Then-athletic director Ray Tanner signed that deal on Sept. 16, 2016. The agreement seemed to catch Under Armour at a peak ... just before the company’s financial issues came. Just over month after Tanner put pen to paper, Under Armour’s stock plummeted. By February, the share price was down over 30% year over year.
And it wasn’t just stock price. Popularity in the company waned even more. In the mid-2010s, as Steph Curry and Jordan Speith and others repped Under Armour, it was behind only Nike in sports apparel sales. A decade later, it’s miles behind Nike and Adidas and even trailing Puma in market share.
Since then, a number of schools have left Under Armour, including: Boston College, Cal-Berkley, Cincinnati, Hawaii, Texas Tech, UCLA and, most recently, Auburn. When South Carolina moves on from Under Armour next July, the brand will represent just five Power-4 schools, most notably Notre Dame.
Yet no school in the SEC will be wearing Under Armour in 2026.
