Kit supplier question/observation

[inckleyboyz]

So can anyone scratch an itch I have about rugby kit suppliers?

An idle observation is that 10-20 years ago it seems rugby got “cool” “sexy” possibly even “lucrative” (?) in the eyes of big brand sports brands, i.e. Nike and Adidas who started to replace legacy rugby kit suppliers like Cotton Traders and Cotton Oxford who if memory serves me correctly supplied England and Tigers at various points in the 1990s (and no doubt before).

Tigers switched to Canterbury a perhaps more international supplier albeit with heritage in rugby. I’m sure people know they supplied last 2 British & Irish Lions tours (replacing Adidas from all the previous pro era tours, if memory serves) and are present supplier to Ireland.

I liked the Canterbury Tigers products (I’ve still got a really nice shell jacket and cap) and haven’t been prompted to buy any accessories since Tigers left them as I haven’t been “grabbed” by the designs/styles etc (yes, I know I’m a bad fan). Hence this got me thinking about this…

Nike have supplied England, France and South Africa at points in 2000s. Adidas we’re supplier to France in the 1990s and now to New Zealand and Argentina… and presently Quins in the Premiership.

But more recently it seems smaller, perhaps rugby specialist brands, have moved in, especially for club sides e.g. Samurai for Tigers, Macron for a few others in the Premiership.

Asics now supply South Africa and Australia and Coq Sportif now supply France. England similar to France have a more domestic focussed supplier in Umbro (more famous for round ball kits).

Does this mean that the bigger brands have lost interest in rugby? I assume this is the case as I can’t imagine they couldn’t outbid these smaller companies if they wanted to?

Is this good or bad news for rugby?

I’d like to know if anyone has some quantifiable insight or can point to any research or analysis. I couldn’t find anything searching online.

[kpj tiger]

Personally I just think there are more kit manufacturers than ever and the big brands haven't really been doing anything noteworthy (Nike and Adidas particularly), interesting to note Hummel and Castore are getting in on the Rugby Kit action with Wasps and Saracens respectively this season

[sam16111986]

Big brands have limited resources to spend on a small project (in their terms) like a rugby team. For smaller manufacturers a Premiership rugby team is a big deal and they will go to greater lengths to generate the income. This includes more unique product lines which is what we are seeing since we moved to Samurai.

[TigerFeetSteve]

I think that with the change in kit technology it has changed and developed different manufacturers for kits, for example Samurai I think started doing headguards and under padding before moving on to kits, I think possibly the larger manufacturers were slower to bring in the newer under padding technology which allowed a few smaller brands to flourish.

Also coupled with bespoke kits for grassroots clubs being more and more technologically advanced it allowed smaller brands to do the custom stuff for them (gone are the days of buying a batch of plain rugby shirts and getting your club badges embroidered on) which again got the smaller brands traction in the bottom.

So while some of the major brands did top down from internationals the newer brands developed from a bottom up process.

[bendy]

Umbro are owned by Nike, so England's sponsorship is hardly a case of a plucky local manufacturer winning the big gig.

Although it is interesting that Nike or the RFU presumably didn't want that swoosh on the kit.

[JP14]

Umbro are owned by Nike, so England's sponsorship is hardly a case of a plucky local manufacturer winning the big gig.

Although it is interesting that Nike or the RFU presumably didn't want that swoosh on the kit.

Not quite true I’m afraid, Nike sold Umbro to Iconix Brand Group in 2012.

[JP14]

Swings and roundabouts really in terms of the big companies, Adidas’ range of rugby boots and headguards means it still holds an advantage over Nike. However, considering when in 2017 they only did Argentina (with the Jaguares as part of that agreement), Nike now do Fiji (possibly the Drua side now too), after going back to Toulouse and also now do Toulon and Racing 92 in the Top14.

I would say the current big company making considerable moves in rugby union is Macron, who were a reasonable big supplier in football, and now do Falcons, Sale, Northampton, Bath in the Prem, Wales, Cardiff, Scarlets, and Italy off the top of my head.

[inckleyboyz]

Thanks all. Thats given some fresh info and insight.

To summarise then…
- the kits from specialists might be better, especially in some technical/playing aspects. So clubs are actively seeking them out, and/or were not satisfied with big brand offerings.
- they also offer a portfolio of other kits items (head protectors etc) as well as the shirts, shorts etc. So Tigers we’re likely already a customer, just not for shirts etc so it may also make things simpler to have one supplier vs many.
- possibly the return on investment is better for specialist brands: they sell more kits to smaller clubs/teams. I also wonder if maybe they offer a more attentive service than bigger brands? i.e. they make more of an effort!
- Umbro is owned by Nike (didn’t know that) who let their smaller child brand get exposure through England.

So I think the last one is more what I was getting at. The brand halo effect of rugby is not perceived as so valuable as it once was, especially by Nike.

Maybe it still is by Adidas but they’re being a bit selective? Key brand relationships, e.g. All Blacks. I also wonder if there’s a relationship with Argentina due to them supplying the football team for a while also?

I remember reading about Nike’s deal with Liverpool where they guzumped New Balance and had Lebron James walk around Anfield. Somewhat incongruous…

Nike if I recall are VERY focussed on 3-4 key areas; Football, Basketball, Athletics and ‘Training’.

So if you’re not a fan of one of these sports or a gym rat then they’re not that interested in you as a consumer - or at least not in terms of selling you things with a Swoosh on them. Hence, why Nike are supplying England FOOTBALL but NOT England RUGBY (albeit they are but just under another brand label).

[Hot_Charlie]

- Umbro is owned by Nike (didn’t know that) who let their smaller child brand get exposure through England.

As stated earlier, Nike sold Umbro several years ago, hence the revival it is now having. Nothing to do with Nike anymore.

Nike if I recall are VERY focussed on 3-4 key areas; Football, Basketball, Athletics and ‘Training’.

Aye. Nike are very focussed on where they're gonna sell a lot of product.

That's not rugby.

Iconix were clever in getting the England kit deal; it's given a historic brand (with fairly decent rugby heritage) a foothold in another sport having been well and truly pushed out of football in the late 90s early 2000s by Nike and to a lesser extent adidas megabucks. It'll be interesting to see how a more niche brand like Samurai survives as brands like Umbro and Macron muscle more and more into the market.

Hummel was a right surprise too.

[JP14]

Umbro now do Ospreys as well as Brizzle and England.