13 Apr Under Armour Ucla Agreement
Another important provision that many will be surprised about is the overall design of UCLA uniforms, especially football uniforms, although AU founder and CEO Kevin Plank raised the issue at the news conference announcing the agreement. As part of the agreement, UCLA will receive a $15 million signing bonus on July 1, 2017. UCLA will also receive a fee of $9 million per year for a total fee of $135 million. This represents a total of $150 million in cash paid to the Morgan Centre. UCLA intends to fight Under Armour`s efforts to terminate the agreement, as it appears to be losing significant financial benefits from the agreement. But there is a stated intention that AU wants to cooperate with ASUCLA beyond the agreement with UCLA Athletics. “Until 2020, Under Armour wanted to withdraw from this agreement, not because of something UCLA did, but because the deal now seemed too expensive for the financially troubled sportswear company,” the complaint says. “Under Armour has decided to use the COVID 19 pandemic as a pretext to “end” the sponsorship contract. But neither the governing agreement nor the law allows Under Armour to do so. This action aims to keep Under Armour in the promises it has made. As part of the agreement, Under Armour prepaid $15 million in advance on approximately $11 million per year in marketing fees and fees. The apparel company also agreed to supply the school with an average of $7.4 million in clothing, footwear and equipment each school year, and to contribute US$2 million to upgrade sports facilities over an eight-year period.
“Under Armour recently made the difficult decision to end our partnership with UCLA because we paid for marketing benefits that we did not receive for a long time,” the company said in a statement sent to the Los Angeles Times. “The agreement allows us to terminate such an event and we are making use of that right.” Page 23, there is a full section of the contract that relates to the athletic division`s introduction of Under Armour to ASUCLA for Under Armour, which are negotiating a separate licensing agreement with AUSCLA. UCLA sued Under Armour in federal court on Wednesday, saying it had terminated its $280 million sponsorship deal with the Bruins not because of the coronavirus pandemic, but because the record deal was too expensive for the financially troubled apparel company. The agreement defines a force majeure event as a cause or event that meets at least two criteria: “It is outside the economically reasonable control of [Under Armour] (or the proper control of UCLA) and “makes the performance of the agreement by the party concerned either impossible or unenforceable.” As part of the agreement, examples of force majeure events include floods, floods, earthquakes, fires, work or work stoppages, natural disasters, national emergencies, declarations of war, riots, riots, sabotage, explosions, acts of God, acts of any regulatory authority, governmental authority and/or agency responsible for the party concerned, including, but without restriction, laws, regulations, acts or mandates that prohibit or regulate the performance of the party concerned.” Statement from #UCLA on @UnderArmour agreement.