If NFL teams had individual uniform sponsorships

As I was sitting being a mature adult and playing NCAA Football '14 (shoutout to the GOAT video game), a discussion between my brother and I was sparked from the realization of how bizarre Georgia Tech's Russell Athletic uniforms are. You'd expect Russell Athletic uniforms out of an irrelevant program, or a Pop Warner practice uniform, but not the Yellow Jackets. It turns out that Russell Athletic is based in Atlanta, so supplying G-Tech sports isn't as unreasonable as it seems.

So this got us to talking; what if today's NFL teams had individual contracts with uniform sponsorships like we see in college teams? What would be the criteria for each team's decision? Would the brand identity more accurately reflect the franchise's culture, or the city's culture? Would there be influence from star players' endorsements? The truth is, I have absolutely no idea. But let's give it a whirl.

Pete Carroll Nike Air Monarchs

The most obvious answers easily deal with the Seahawks and Ravens. With Nike headquartered in Oregon, Seattle is the closest NFL franchise. And since Nike took over the NFL uniforms, the major changes to the Seahawks uniforms made it seem as if the Swoosh focused largely on its relationship with the "hometown" team. The Ravens would obviously be Under Armour, as Baltimore is home of the company's headquarters. Even the Ravens' practice facility is named the Under Armour Performance Center, so the Ravens would for sure be the first Under Armour NFL team.

If franchises were to match their uniform sponsor with the team or city's culture (they don't always resemble each other), it's important to interpret the brand identities within the athletic apparel industry. The two top dogs of the industry are clearly Nike and Under Armour. To put it simply, Nike is the king and Under Armour is the revolution. The king has yet to be officially overthrown, but the uprising of Under Armour is undoubtable. In regards to age, you'd assume Nike (founded in 1964) is the guy at the end of the bar drinking Schlitz tall boys yelling at the TV that basketball "just isn't played the way it used to be." At the door of that same bar, Under Armour's (founded in 1996) fake ID just got taken away. But oddly enough, age doesn't seem to have too much of an impact on the look of each brands' products. The 52 year old company pumps out futuristic looking threads (Oregon, new Seahawks uniforms, their entire basketball line) while the barely legal Under Armour majorly produces traditional looking gear (Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Auburn) Tom Brady, Curry 2 lows) with the exception of Maryland football. In a marketing sense, Under Armour is innovative. Yet in a fashion sense, they're not doing anything too flashy or obnoxious.

If you haven't been concerned with the lack of Adidas mentions throughout this post, congratulations. That means your a reasonable human. Adidas is trash. Simple as that. Having Adidas uniforms doesn't automatically make you a scrub program, but it just means you don't care about how you look. Again, it doesn't mean you're destined for failure. Do you think Bill Belichick cares about fashion? 

Adidas is the bullseye in the "eh, yeah it doesn't suck as much as Caleb's blogs, but it's definitely not great" radar. Could be better, could be worse. And for that reason, a few teams make sense to me as Adidas teams just based off of gut instinct. 

If you don't agree that the Indianapolis Colts would rock Adidas uniforms, we probably won't agree on much. It's just one of the most valid assumptions I've made sans evidence.

If the Internet was perfect, we'd be able to Google "Adidas synonyms" and the word "wildcard" would pop up in there. The Chargers have a couple of wildcard personalities in Rivers and Woodhead. They have also played in a Wildcard game in 4 of 6 playoff appearances since 2004. Lorenzo Neal, a full back, being a well known name for years is a wildcard move. Chargers=wildcard=Adidas.

Detroit and Miami, for whatever reason, came to my mind for some more Adidas NFL teams. Detroit, because it's technically still a major city of the U.S. in terms of notoriety and significance, but not necessarily in value. Miami? I don't quite know why. The Miami 'Canes are Adidas, which certainly played a factor. But as different as they are in their own respects, I feel like the Motor City and the 305 are both considered major American cities while still being pretty JV. Also the Dolphins seem to always get hyped up as if they're going to compete, maybe stealing a game at Sun Life from the Pats, but eventually amounting to nothing. Not completely irrelevant, but scratching and clawing for legitimate relevance.

Going back to the Nike-Under Armour one-two punch, what teams would sign with the top dogs of the industry? 

There are many aforementioned factors that could potentially go into the decision of picking a uniform sponsor, so I'll try my best to consider all aspects that could contribute.

I had taken note of the possibility of star players, the faces of the franchise, having pre-existing endorsement deals that could influence the franchises' business decision. I think it depends on the organization. While Tom Brady has been the face of New England football for 15 years, I don't think that his Under Armour ties would extend to the entire Patriots franchise. First of all, as much as I hate to even think these words let alone say/type them, we don't have that much longer with the GOAT. There will be (unfortunately) a new face soon. And Kraft's relationship/deal with Nike is more reasonable. Even without that deal, Nike is more "corporate feel" just like "Patriot Way." Pats as a franchise doesn't relate to the fan base's culture in a synonymous manner by any means. Nike seems to fit perfectly.

Carolina, on the other hand, I believe would be Under Armour. Cam Newton is the sole face of that organization. Not to say he doesn't have a great supporting cast, mostly looking at you, Luke Kuechly. But without Cam Newton, the Panthers wouldn't resemble their current selves in any way, shape or form. Plus, Under Armour is a definitively modern brand, much like this franchise that has seen a major stock increase in recent years. Even the face of the franchise, who just so happens to be an Under Armour endorser, fits the innovative image of the brand. He's a "new" and "innovative" quarterback because of his transparent confidence and attention grabbing demeanor. Going against the grain. It's just a personality thing. Also, how could a franchise not be defined by a Heisman winning, National Champion quarterback out of the SEC? Oh right. Tebow. Come on Timmy throw me a bone here. Under Armour for Carolina.

One of the more intriguing franchises would be the Green Bay Packers. Neither the franchise or the city have a big wig, corporate feel to them, but it's simply too big of a football Holy Land for the powerhouse corporations to not swoop in on a business opportunity like this. The Packers define Green Bay, so Nike and Under Armour would be pitching their absolute best sales pitches in order to land this. I could see Green Bay choosing to go with Adidas simply for its lack of glamour. But if it were up the fans owners, the Packers would be going shirts vs. skins "every gosh darn game. You betcha. Go Pack." 

I'm sure Los Angeles would be another major target for signing a uniform contract. L.A. is known as one of the most trendy, hip, fashionable cities in the country. "Materialistic" wouldn't even begin to describe that city. I think Under Armour would be a legitimate option considered, but maybe that's not even trendy enough for LA. Could the Rams be the first team with Tesla uniforms? If that's too far fetched, could they be the first NFL team with Jordan uniforms?

I think after signing a contract with Michigan football, Jordan would be all in to sponsor at least one NFL team. The Rams have the perfect market for it, but their on-field performance would not be up to the Jordan standards. So would Jordan want to target a city/area he already has ties with? Chicago? Carolina? Much like the Rams, Chicago wouldn't necessarily allow the Jordan brand to resonate with eliteness by any means. I could honestly see the Bears wearing Adidas because even in their own city, especially as of late, they are sort of the bottom of the barrel. Chicago has way more of a following, and/or sees much more success, out of the Blackhawks, Bulls, and Cubs. Da Bears are just kind of background noise.

I feel like the Titans would end up wearing Under Armour uniforms after Under Armour gives an unreal business pitch, in attempt to take over the state of Tennessee. You would have the Under Armour wearing Titans in Nashville, one of the country's most booming cities, and the Under Armour wearing Volunteers in Knoxville. If UA could pull that off, they'd have an entire state of football fans covered. 

If the Denver Broncos really wanted to connect with the hometown faithful, the home uniforms would just be drug rugs and Patagonia hats while the away uniforms would be sponsored by Papa John's.

"Go Broncos, man."

I would advise the Oakland Raiders to stick with their roots, not forget where they came from, and bring back Starter into the athletic apparel game. The Raiders are the only franchise that could pull it off, but the retro aspect of it would rake in some serious cash.

The Cleveland Browns, in representing both their franchise and their city, would have to do a discounted team order off of Eastbay.com.

The Buffalo Bills would essentially be the AFC version of the Green Bay Packers, playing shirts vs. skins just hoping that enough booze was consumed to ignore the hypothermia.

And to bring it back full circle, the Atlanta Falcons would wear Russel Athletic just like Georgia Tech. I mean come on, it's not like the Falcons are a sexy team to begin with. They're just so plain and not very successful. Exactly like their hypothetical uniform sponsors.

If you thought I was going to break down all 32 teams, you're crazy man. If you think of any other good points, let me know on Twitter @CalebBlackmur. Thanks for reading, enjoy, spread the word.