Reebok's loss of NFL contract could hurt local plant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The National Football League's decision to replace Reebok with Nike Inc. in a new apparel licensing deal could be bad news for a local plant that employs about 1,000 people.

Nike Inc., the world’s largest sporting-goods maker, won the license to make NFL-branded apparel and uniforms, replacing Reebok, the league announced Tuesday.

NFL owners approved a licensing deal with Nike that will begin in 2012, the league said in an e-mailed statement. Reebok, which was acquired by Adidas AG in 2006, has held the license since 2001.

Adidas AG’s Reebok U.S. sports licensing division is headquartered on the east side of Indianapolis just west of the intersection of 25th Street and Post Road. The facility manufactures, designs and distributes apparel for the NFL, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Major League Baseball and the NCAA.

A plant manager could not be reached for comment late Tuesday morning.

John Horan, publisher of trade publication Sporting Goods Intelligence, said layoffs are a strong possibility.

“The NFL business, I’m sure, is a huge percentage of what the [plant does], so it’s a big deal,” he said. “I assume they’re going to have to make some adjustments. Nike certainly isn’t going to use the facility.”

Reebok’s NFL license represents $350 million of its $565 million in U.S. apparel revenue, Kate McShane, an analyst at Citigroup Inc. in New York, wrote in a report to investors Monday. The license may boost Nike’s earnings per share as much as 3 percent in 2012, said McShane, who is based in New York and has a “buy” rating on the shares.

Nike had the resources and is willing to pay for it, Chris Svezia, an analyst for Susquehanna Financial Group in New York, said in an interview. “Is it game-changing for them? No. $300 million to $500 million is 2 percent to 3 percent of global revenue. That’s small.” Svezia has a “neutral” rating on the shares.

Adidas spokeswoman Katja Schreiber declined to comment to Bloomberg on the report and wouldn’t give an estimate of NFL-related sales.

Adidas, which bought Reebok in 2006, wants to make the unit more profitable by repositioning it as a fitness-apparel and shoe specialist.

“If we lose the NFL, it won’t make or break our company,” Adidas CEO Herbert Hainer told CNBC on Sept. 29.


  • Huh?
    What's "loose"?
  • Huh?
    What's "loose"?
  • Huh?
    What's "loose"?
  • Jim, jim, jim
    I do have a problem with your comment. Do you not think that Reebok did the same thing to some company back in 2001 when they got the NFL contract and that company had to layoff workers. But I am sure that didn't matter then because the business came to Indy and hired people from Indy. So back then the free market was fine as long as it benefited Indy and not another town. I am sure you weren't writing letters back then stating that the free market is terrible and this shouldn't happen to those people who lost their jobs because Reebok Indy was creating jobs. The free market has developed these situations for years and our economy has yet to collapse.
  • How did the Colts vote?
    I wonder how the Colts voted on this lic deal.
  • Free Market at its Best
    I am sure that these shirts will be made overseas in a sweatshop. But that is business, the more jobs we loose overseas is all part of Capitalism. Besides, I am sure all those jobs that will be lost will finally put lazy bums on notice to work for less money, less benefits, and longer hours. Hurray for Free Market Trade. Also lets make sure that those who loose their jobs will get NO UNEMPLOYMENT, NO MONEY FOR JOB TRAINING. After all, we don't have the money to do that, and it is not our fault they lost their jobs.
  • Sorry to hear this. Bad for the City and for the employees. And what will the local reporters do Superbowl Sunday night if they cannot shoot live at them making shirts for the umpteenth year in a row?

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. A Tilted Kilt at a water park themed hotel? Who planned that one? I guess the Dad's need something to do while the kids are on the water slides.

  2. Don't come down on the fair for offering drinks. This is a craft and certainly one that belongs in agriculture due to ingredients. And for those worrying about how much you can drink. I'm sure it's more to do with liability than anything else. They don't want people suing for being over served. If you want a buzz, do a little pre-drinking before you go.

  3. I don't drink but go into this "controlled area" so my friend can drink. They have their 3 drink limit and then I give my friend my 3 drink limit. How is the fair going to control this very likely situation????

  4. I feel the conditions of the alcohol sales are a bit heavy handed, but you need to realize this is the first year in quite some time that beer & wine will be sold at the fair. They're starting off slowly to get a gauge on how it will perform this year - I would assume if everything goes fine that they relax some of the limits in the next year or couple of years. That said, I think requiring the consumption of alcohol to only occur in the beer tent is a bit much. That is going to be an awkward situation for those with minors - "Honey, I'm getting a beer... Ok, sure go ahead... Alright see you in just a min- half an hour."

  5. This might be an effort on the part of the State Fair Board to manage the risk until they get a better feel for it. However, the blanket notion that alcohol should not be served at "family oriented" events is perhaps an oversimplification. and not too realistic. For 15 years, I was a volunteer at the Indianapolis Air Show, which was as family oriented an event as it gets. We sold beer donated by Monarch Beverage Company and served by licensed and trained employees of United Package Liquors who were unpaid volunteers. And where did that money go? To central Indiana children's charities, including Riley Hospital for Children! It's all about managing the risk.