Source: Georgia Tech and Under Armour have agreed to a new 10-year deal for UA to become the official apparel provider, effective July 1 of 2026. The deal is expected to be nearly six-times more than the average annual amount that GTech is getting from current adidas deal. pic.twitter.com/MeZfbDkuTU— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) October 3, 2025
Georgia Tech signs 10-year deal with Under Armour
As reported by the AJC's Chad Bishop, Georgia Tech will no be renewing its apparel and uniform contract with Adidas after it expires at the end of June, and has signed a 10-year deal with Under Armour to become the apparel provider for the Jackets.
According to Bishop the specific terms weren't announced, but a source reported to him that Tech will make close to six times on an annual basis what Adidas was sending Tech. We know that Adidas sent an average of $3.11 million, so crank that up to $18.66 million per year and now we're getting some real cash out of this.
For those wondering, Tech makes less than $2m per year from our Nike contract.
Comments
I was told you can't get any recruits if you don't use nike... I bet we could buy some recruits with an extra 17M in revenue though...
Times have changed... Universities can give money directly to recruits, this stuff doesn't matter much.
The brand itself doesn't matter much. The money from the brand sure does
Guess selling the hotel paid off for Plank. Thought UA was pulling back from big deals, especially from schools that are good at the footballs. Ended deals with Auburn, USCe, Wisconsin, Notre Dame (they still have time to re-up, but I doubt it.)
Pretty surprised to see this tbh. I've read many experts say that the days of monster apparel deals are gone. Not only that, but UA doesn't have the best record of actually honor contracts through their lifetime.
Another bad look for Whit...
To be fair, UA prob drives away more recruits than it brings in. That's why this works at GiT........
If we took this bag, and didn't improve, would it be because Whit got us more money, or UA doesn't bring the athletes to the yard, or what...point being this isn't a bad look for Whit. Not everything is connected to VT. And Whit is fine with passing, not reaching out, blocking UA in my book. Other stuff, yeah, but this has zero reflection on him or VT. Just picks at the Nike deal we have and that's about to be reworked.
In an era where (a) we can pay athletes and (b) VT is broke (relative to our expectations), I think Whit would be a fool to turn this money down. UA isn't the Saudis...
Maybe Whit can renegotiate the deal, then leave it for his successor to sign.
(....too soon?)
FTFY.
More reasons to openly bid our next apparel deal. Invite All-birds, Hoka, etc to the table. As bar1990 said, recruits won't care as much about the uniform brand as they will about the money coming to their pockets.
Would a player still be able to sign an endorsement deal with a different brand than the school's apparel provider?
How much is uniforms, and how much is cash to the team or NIL to players?
I'd expect these deals to get bigger.
Given that this contract is reportedly 6X their previous Adidas contract, I would imagine that there's a substantial amount of cash, but also that uniforms and equipment would be included in that deal. All of that money is going to go to the athletic department and they will distribute two players at their discretion (just like all rev share money)
On the bright side, they shouldn't have to steal other team's jersey's for the practice field in the future.
Sure.
Now they can do it because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to.
These jerseys should be a one time only effect game. What a weird story and good game. And then we obviously had to scribble out the Russell logo since we were a Nike school, but somehow our equipment people drew the swish backwards on these? Lol only at VT.
If I remember correctly, it was Eddie Royal and Sean Glennon who had the idea to draw the swoosh, but because they did it on themselves, they accidentally drew it on backwards
I guess it's a good thing that the GT players that wore those numbers were roughly the same size. Could you imagine if #5 was a lineman?
This is interesting to me on many levels. Others have noted the UA track record with these deals. However, I find it more striking that a deal of this dollar amount and number of years was made with a middling ACC team. If football is moving toward a breakaway P2, why ink a 10-year deal with a program unless you believe or have some solid assurance that they will be part of said breakaway? Makes me wonder if they have said assurance or the deal has a way out for UA should GT get left behind in the looming realignment.
I also wonder the details of the deal - how much is cash vs uniforms and shit. Is it all guaranteed?