DFB General Secretary Andreas Rettig has clearly rejected criticism from German politicians about the controversial change of supplier from Adidas to Nike. The official of the German Football Association also expressed surprise at statements made by Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck. “I was very surprised that politicians, without any knowledge and, above all, without the facts, would lean so far out of the populist window. I have to honestly say that it is a new quality,” said Rettig at ran: “You have to say clearly: it might have been better to remain silent a time or two.”
The DFB surprisingly announced on Thursday, two and a half months before the start of the home European Championship, that the contract with long-term partner Adidas would expire at the end of 2026 after more than 70 years. From 2027 until the end of 2034, US rival Nike will equip the DFB. Numerous politicians criticized this, Green Party politician Habeck said he could “hardly imagine the German jersey without the three stripes”. For me, Adidas and black-red-gold always belonged together. A piece of German identity.” He would have “wished for a bit more local patriotism.”
“To make such a statement without knowing the general conditions and the process is quite surprising – that an economics minister would make such a statement,” said Rettig. According to a report by the “Handelsblatt” citing industry circles, Nike’s involvement with the DFB will cost more than 100 million euros per year. Adidas is said to have paid 50 million euros annually to the association so far. The offers were “not remotely comparable,” said Rettig, without giving specific figures.
This is what Green Party leader Nouripour says about the change in supplier
The former DFB director and national team manager Oliver Bierhoff also spoke up – also with a clear criticism of Vice Chancellor Habeck. Bierhoff wrote on LinkedIn: “By the way, politicians should stay out of the discussion. You don’t know the background and facts. Where is the local patriotism in German economic policy? I would have liked it to contribute more to local patriotism. Instead, companies are leaving us because of high energy costs, high taxes and too much bureaucracy.” He sees such politicians’ comments “as own goals.”
also read
Bierhoff also made it clear that the cash-strapped DFB probably had no choice but to enter into the lucrative partnership with Nike: “The days of staying with a sponsoring partner out of patriotism are over. We simply can’t afford that anymore. So if the DFB decides on the economically better offer, then it will be carefully considered.”
In 2007, Nike’s offer was already unbeatable
Bierhoff also recognizes further potential of the new supplier. Nike is “very interested in the development of women’s soccer due to its American roots. “I expect new impulses for German women’s football here too.”
In 2007, the 55-year-old, as DFB manager, had already conveyed an offer from Nike to the association. However, the deal failed due to resistance from the presidency. In the “Spiegel” interview he said that there should have been a discussion about how much tradition counts, “and how much do other aspects count, namely economic aspects? In my opinion, this has not been questioned enough. The income from such a contract does not go into the pockets of the officials, but into popular sports. Back then, people didn’t dare to take the plunge. The fact that this is possible now shows that economic aspects are taken more into account in the assessment than before.”
“Adidas’ reaction suggests it wasn’t stylish”
“You can’t keep a deal with this dimension secret until after the European Championships,” says BILD sports director Walter M. Straten about the DFB’s change of supplier. The DFB will play with Nike instead of Adidas from 2027. The contract with the US sports manufacturer is scheduled to run until 2034.
Source: WELT TV / Nele Würzbach
Bierhoff did not want to reveal what sums were involved at the time. However, he said, as early as 2007 there was “a glaring, huge difference between the offerings from Nike and Adidas. They were unbelievable numbers, but they at least led to renegotiations with Adidas and the offer was raised slightly.”
also read
The then President Theo Zwanziger was initially determined to see the deal through, but in retrospect Bierhoff was no longer able to answer what exactly led to the failure with Nike as a new partner. However, an association is “accountable to its members. And with a large economic difference in the offers, you have to consider what good you can do for the members with so much more income. It would be negligent not to consider something like this.”
“With this decision, a piece of German history has come to an end”
The DFB is letting its contract with long-term partner Adidas expire and will be equipped by Nike from 2027. The DFB justified the decision by saying that Nike had made the economically best offer. “Today the only thing that counts is greed for money,” comments former DFB press spokesman Harald Stenger.
Today’s Nike offer is estimated to be worth a total of 800 million euros over the entire contract period. Bierhoff was asked in the “Spiegel” interview whether the dimensions were comparable to back then. “Not on that scale, but it was far more than four times what you got from Adidas. “You shouldn’t forget: The DFB is coming out of a difficult time in terms of sport and economy,” he replied.
Adidas behaves the same way as Nike
Sports economist Christoph Breuer sees it similarly. From the association’s perspective, there is “no alternative” to the controversial change of supplier. “If a non-profit football association can earn almost twice as much and almost 400 million euros more over eight years and put at least a larger part of it into the development of children’s, youth and women’s football, then there is no alternative,” said the professor at the German Sports University in Cologne. If you then see that “the once rich DFB has become an association that has to turn over the euro twice, there is no alternative to taking action.”
Some sponsorship markets are characterized by special features. “And the sporting goods market is such a special one. What is special about this industry is that very few companies have a very dominant market position,” said Breuer. Nike is considered number one in the industry, far ahead of Adidas. Puma follows even further behind.
also read
In such markets, players not only want to further develop their own brand, but also want to beat a fierce competitor and “deprive them of an attention platform,” said Breuer. You are prepared to pay an additional price. “And of course the best thing is to beat the toughest competitor in the home market on a project that has become an essential part of the company’s DNA,” he added. Adidas behaves the same way.
Nike instead of Adidas – “It’s also about getting one over on the competitor”
The DFB surprisingly changes its supplier. The new partner Nike celebrates its success against rival Adidas. “It is also a method that you pay a premium to take an important asset away from your main competitor,” said sports economist Christoph Breuer on WELT TV.
According to Breuer, the reactions of politicians surprised him. “Firstly, that they rate it at all, and secondly, how they rate it,” he emphasized. “From a welfare economics perspective, two aspects are relevant: On the one hand, it is valued more highly if a non-profit association in Germany has significantly more funds available for charitable work.” On the other hand, there is “not much left” in terms of the shareholder structure at Adidas left over from a German company”.
From a marketing perspective, expert Frank Dopheide sees only one winner. “The DFB takes the most damage in the deal,” said Dopheide. The founder of the human unlimited agency also sees Adidas as a loser. In his view, the only winner is Nike. The rumored additional income of 50 million euros per year is a “powerful argument,” said Dopheide. On the other hand, the DFB has “sawed off part of its history – it’s like a tree, it doesn’t grow back. Maybe they didn’t take that into account.”
“Adidas and Nike are strong brands. Not even the DFB can destroy it.”
The DFB will change its supplier and will play with Nike instead of Adidas from 2027. The contract with the US sports manufacturer is scheduled to run until 2034. “The DFB has been in the red for a long time on the brand account,” says Christoph Hildebrand, managing director of Busch Markenberatung, on WELT TV.
Source: WELT TV / Nele Würzbach
It seems to him that “the side effects have not been taken into account”. The “emotional damage” is enormous, said the brand expert. The DFB “torpedoed its own values”. Above all, “the timing was catastrophic.” From Dopheide’s perspective it is clear: “Adidas is suffering. This goes to the core of the brand and the founding story. This can no longer be repaired. Adidas takes damage”
For the marketing specialist, Nike leaves the pitch as a “winner. “It was a big hit, volley and pure,” commented Dopheide in Football German. An important difference to the DFB: “With the timing before the European Championships in Germany, this is a direct hit” for the US company.
