U.S. Speedskating Woes Mean Big Trouble for Under Armour

Is it the suit that makes the speedskater, or the speedskater that makes the suit?

On the cusp of this year's Winter Olympics, Team USA believed it was a little bit of both. A state-of-the-art project led by two multi-billion-dollar companies created what athletes deemed "the fastest speedskating suit ever made," something most assumed would give Americans a leg up on their competition.

This week, though, rumors are percolating that U.S. Speedskating's potential advantage has become a weakness. The Wall Street Journal reports that the suits, designed by Under Armour (NYSE: UA  ) and Lockheed Martin  (NYSE: LMT  ) , could have a "design flaw that may be slowing down skaters."

Has this become the biggest story of Sochi?

Source: Under Armour.

The background
In late 2011, U.S. Speedskating announced its new apparel sponsorship with Under Armour, canning its near-decade-long deal with Nike's (NYSE: NKE  )  Swift Suit technology. Although the value of the arrangement was never made public, between $10 million and $20 million is a reasonable estimate, considering the average value of most major sponsorships and what Under Armour has spent in the past.

Over the next two years, the company, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, spent "millions" more developing its new speedskating suit, according to The Washington Post. Dubbed the Mach 39, the suit was universally praised by athletes and the experts who tested it.

A rough exterior fabric (seen above) is noted as the "biggest alteration" from designs of the past, something the Chicago Tribune described in detail last month. On the level of outperformance, the company's director of materials, Mark Cumiskey, reportedly said the Mach 39 "creamed" Nike's suit, claiming, "it wasn't close."

The fallout
All of this hype meant nothing when The Wall Street Journal's story broke this week. The outlet cited people familiar with Team USA who think the Mach 39's heat vents -- another of its innovations -- are slowing skaters down. 

Although an Under Armour VP responded on Bloomberg, saying, "it's not the suits … because these are great athletes … everyone is searching for answers," questions remain. America hasn't made a single speedskating podium thus far, despite the fact that its World Cup season was strong, and the sport is historically the country's best Winter Olympics event. Before Sochi, the U.S. had won 29 gold medals in speedskating; the next best was figure skating and alpine skiing, with 14 each. 

No matter who's at fault, will this hurt Under Armour's business?

Source: Under Armour. The company's original design for the U.S. Speedskating team.

With millions of dollars at stake, it very well could.

The Olympics is one of the most-watched sporting events on the planet, and sponsors want their time in the sun to shine as bright as possible. Unlike a long-term IOC partner like Coca-Cola or Procter & Gamble, apparel providers are prone to greater turnover if their gear doesn't work. Before Nike in 1998, U.S. Speedskating was sponsored by Mizuno, and there were others before that.

With rumors swirling that this year's skaters -- superstars like Shani Davis and Brittany Bowe -- will switch to an older suit for the rest of their races, things aren't looking good for Under Armour. Even though the replacement will probably be an older Under Armour model, it's a lose-lose scenario for the company.

If U.S. speedskaters have success the rest of the way, critics will claim the Mach 39 should've gone through more tests. And if the team continues to struggle? Many will say it should have stuck with Nike. Either way, Under Armour's viability as the sponsor of America's best Winter Olympics sport will come into question over the coming months, and the ramifications could be even more profound.

The future
With sponsorship costs rising by around 20% a year and more than $2 billion in expected 2013 revenue, Under Armour is very reliant on its partnerships to drive growth. A highly competitive athletics market and zero patents on fabric or processing methods gives the company little room to breathe.

Innovation has traditionally been Under Armour's best defense against peers, and a lack of it on such an enormous stage -- perceived or real -- poses significant risks for the company. In its latest annual report, Under Armour revealed that an inability to develop new products and issues with global brand awareness could endanger its long-term health.

The speedskating troubles represent the absolute worst-case scenario for both of these prospective hazards. Under Armour is receiving global brand awareness, but as a company whose products are a hindrance to performance. The company's international reputation is very much at risk from what might turn out to be a hasty launch and the negative press that accompanies it.

Although not every piece of its $200 million annual sponsorship portfolio will be a success, this is an unmitigated disaster. For millions around the world who are getting their introduction to Under Armour at these Olympics, the perception -- fair or not -- is of a company that is turning winners into losers.

The next step for you
Want to figure out how to profit on business analysis like this? The key is to learn how to turn business insights into portfolio gold by taking your first steps as an investor. Those who wait on the sidelines are missing out on huge gains and putting their financial futures in jeopardy. In our brand-new special report, "Your Essential Guide to Start Investing Today," The Motley Fool's personal finance experts show you what you need to get started, and even give you access to some stocks to buy first. Click here to get your copy today -- it's absolutely free.


Read/Post Comments (6) | Recommend This Article (6)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 15, 2014, at 10:06 PM, obga18 wrote:

    there is no way this hurts UA. there are to many kids running around in 35-75 $ shirts / hoodies/ shoes .. etc etc. UA is here to stay , and besides who is buying speed skating suits anyway other than speed skaters ?

  • Report this Comment On February 16, 2014, at 2:15 AM, kabrink wrote:

    Oh brother. I don't think this hurts UA at all. Nor do I believe the suit is any hindrance. Our athletes are just getting their butts kicked by better athletes that apparently prepared better. So, our athletes are looking for excuses. They are losing by seconds not hundredths of seconds. A suit doesn't make that kind of difference.

  • Report this Comment On February 16, 2014, at 8:03 AM, digitalroom wrote:

    the athletes, not the suit, are to blame for the losses. What a copout!

  • Report this Comment On February 17, 2014, at 12:39 PM, miteycasey wrote:

    Is there such a thing as bad publicity?

    I could see Nike adding a tag line about performing your best. And kids questioning if they'll jump higher in Nike instead of UA because of this.

  • Report this Comment On February 17, 2014, at 5:10 PM, gskinner75006 wrote:

    lol. This has to be the ultimate in trader stupidity. Sell stock of a company because an athlete somewhere is being outclassed. Morons.

  • Report this Comment On February 17, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Rook98006 wrote:

    Half the market activity for a stock can be blamed on the media. Wonder why the hater? Especially without any real proof or evidence to back up the outrageous headline!

    Even if there was some evidence, what is the point of trying to drag down the company/stock? Are you really helping investors by slamming UA? We should hurry and sell now is that the point?

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2840525, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/22/2014 4:45:56 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement