Should Under Armour Have Broken Up With Steph Curry?

Under Armour shocked many with its decision to end its 13-year relationship with Steph Curry, the two-time league NBA MVP who is considered by some to be the greatest shooter in the sport’s history.

Last Friday following the announcement, however, shares of Under Armour only fell 13 cents to $4.35 as some analysts applauded the move. Commentary suggested the brand was putting a renewed focus on its core performance apparel offerings as part of its lengthy turnaround efforts, while also reducing exposure to the flagging footwear category.

“Founder Kevin Plank is getting back to basics here, and we like it,” wrote Randy Konik, an analyst at Jefferies, in a note. “Parting ways with Curry makes so much sense. He’s a great athlete, but we always questioned his marketability and believed the Curry shoes and apparel products never resonated w/a wide audience.”

Footwear revenues declined 16% in Under Armour’s fiscal second quarter, ended September 30, after sliding 13% the prior fiscal year.

Ending its relationship with Curry follows other restructuring moves to realign costs with declining revenues, including ending sponsorships with UCLA and the University of Cincinnati, and deciding not to open a flagship at the original famed FAO Schwarz location in New York City.

Other Analysts Weigh In on Under Armour’s Move

Tom Nikic, an analyst at Needham, estimated that after a strong run at the beginning of the partnership, revenues are down for the Curry brand, “at least 50 percent from peak, if not more.” He also felt the partnership, which included the creation of a Curry Brand sub-brand, was at best minimally profitable.

Nikic still felt Under Armour could face some reputational damage. He wrote in a note, “Mr. Curry is viewed by consumers as one of the key faces of the brand. Thus, even with Mr. Curry likely being towards the end of his playing career (currently 37 years old), UAA will have to replace the intangible benefits he’s brought to the brand since first partnering with UAA 13 years ago.”

At Telsey Advisory Group, analyst Cristina Fernández agreed that the Curry partnership “never materialized to its full potential” — and that the separation will support moves to better align Under Armour’s cost structure, and offset the impact of tariffs. On the downside, she felt Under Armour could face challenges signing other star athletes, particularly in basketball, as well as securing more shelf space at sneaker retailers like Foot Locker.

Some felt Under Armour missed an opportunity with Curry, whose jersey regularly ranks among NBA best-sellers.

In his substack, The Sneaker Newsletter, Nick Engvall, a footwear consultant and founder of Sneaker History, noted that Under Armour’s Curry partnership started out strong with some “chunky, strap-heavy early designs,” but less-edgy designs in following years failed to connect with sneaker culture.

“Basketball shoes aren’t just performance products; they’re status symbols, fashion statements, cultural artifacts,” wrote Engvall. “Nike understands this. Adidas understands this. Under Armour thought they were making athletic equipment when they should have been making art.”

Under Armour’s management told analysts that other competitors have faced similar challenges scaling their signature athletic footwear lines, with the exception of Jordan.

“This move lets two strong teams do what they do best,” Plank, Under Armour’s CEO, said in a statement. “Under Armour is focused on product innovation and performance for athletes at every level. Curry Brand gets the independence to determine its own future. That’s good for Stephen and good for UA.”