Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by brinkeguthrie, Apr 23, 2013.
They're in every other product segment- what am I missing?
As I understand, clothings have higher profit margin than things like
racquets and shoes.
Tennis isn't a priority for them yet. Why shoes? The barely really even have a tennis line of clothing. Anything tennis comes from the golf specific line or from their general fitness/work out stuff.
Not knocking it, I just picked up an AU shirt in green with the wire/aluminum short and cold black hat.
Their running shoes are garbage. Their soccer shoes are garbage. The only people wearing them are brand wh^%es and athletes paid to wear them.
They've almost reached Nike-like levels of being a marketing company who happens to make a few tangible goods.
Their clothing is nice, if a touch overpriced.
Spot on......UA did have some test models out that some players and folks were testing about 2+ yrs ago........stuff was horrible
True - I've tried a couple of their running shoe offerings and they were dreadful.
Their polos are good. I didn't buy them full priced though. Have a breast cancer awareness pink one for my matches in May.
Yeah, I'm surprised at their shoes since their clothing is generally very good.
It's just like every other popular brand name that decides to expand into another line of products. They contract it out to another brand's factory, but slap a different name on it. Poper design and quality construction aren't priorities, profit margin is.
Sloane Stephens was wearing them. Has she stopped now?
Sloane is still sponsored by UA, but shoe wise, they're either one-off shoes only produced for a few pros or another shoe with the UA on them. Haven't been close enough to tell.
I know that Mattek-Sands wore their B-Ball shoes one tournament.
I really like the clothes, but I've used some of their running shoes for just general gym work, and they weren't comfortable for me at all.
I've bought some of their baseball specific training gear and the issue I have is the inconsistent sizing. However, the wicking and comfort of the shirts and shorts are on point as well as their compression undies and shorts.
I think most everybody likes UA clothing. Everything I've purchased has been quality stuff - various types of shirts (crews, sleeveless, golf, in various materials), running shorts, general workout gear, sweatshirts. Some of it can be ridiculously expensive (Yes, UA, that zip up hooded sweatshirt is well-constructed and looks great, but for $69.99?; give me a break), but there are sales and clearance racks.
So, why they don't seem to put the same care and quality into the shoes is a bit of a mystery.
It's a lot tougher to produce shoes (far more r&d and trial and error needed than for clothing) that compete with the likes of adidas, Nike, Asics at al who have been in the game for far longer.
Agreed re the rest of their gear, it's good stuff.
For manufacturers clothing is relatively cheap to produce, but for retailers the mark up on clothing isnt all that great, better mark up on most shoes and definitely on rackets.
I tried their soccer cleats, what a waste. I certainly wouldn't try tennis shoes based on that experience. Their apparel is nice though.
Don't think that UA has any chance of claiming any ground in the tennis shoe market, i didn't like their soccer boots either.
Separate names with a comma.