Is Under Armour’s expensive comeback plan a doomed path?

At one point, Under Armour was considered the athletics apparel brand of champions and sportswear enthusiasts, being second only to sportswear giant Nike.

The US-based brand launched in 1996 and its stock price peaked at US$52.05 in 2015, when revenue hit US$3.9 billion, marking a 28 per cent increase over the year prior.

This year, however, as of September 11, shares of Under Armour have fallen 23 per cent over the past year and are down 87 per cent from their high in 2015, erasing US$18 billion of the company’s market value.

This has led the team to dive deep into a costly comeback plan, which has become increasingly expensive. In an update on its fiscal 2025 outlook, Under Armour revealed that it expects its pre-tax restructuring expenses to be in the range of US$140 million to US$160 million. 

Part of the rising cost stems from the company’s plan to close one of its primary distribution centres, in Rialto, California. The retailer plans to exit the facility by March 2026 and will incur an additional US$70 million in restructuring costs as a result. 

In addition to the upped costs, the fiscal report revealed that Under Armour anticipates an operating loss of US$220 million to US$240 million, versus its prior estimate of just US$194 million to US$214 million. 

To say that Under Armour has a long, and expensive, road ahead of it would be an understatement. 

What happened to Under Armour?

As GlobalData managing director and retail analyst Neil Saunders commented, “Under Armour has dropped down the consumer radar in terms of consideration and has been overshadowed by newer and more interesting brands.”

These include companies with a high-performance product design, like Switzerland running-shoe maker On, and American sportswear brands like Vuori and Sporty & Rich, which are selling the lifestyle of the brand in coordination with its products’ performance. 

Meanwhile, as analytics firm Statista reported, OG sportswear brands like American Nike, and Germany’s Adidas and Puma, are still leading the market, with revenues of US$16 billion, US$7 billion, and US$1.9 billion, respectively. 

Whether it’s through partnerships with socially relevant celebrities like Zendaya (On) or creating an aspirational lifestyle brand (Sporty & Rich), these new-school and old-school players are staying ahead of the curve in a way that Under Armour hasn’t been able to do. 

As Saunders noted, not only has Under Armour failed to keep up with its competitors by lacking an array of interesting products, but also by failing to reconnect the brand to consumers who have drifted away from it – a problem that is not only tough to crack but one “that needs time to remedy”. 

It didn’t help that Under Armour dug itself deeper into the grave with a series of poorly made wholesale decisions, like its partnership with Kohl’s. 

“Wholesale is another ongoing area of weakness, particularly in North America, where Under Armour is exposed to some very poor players,” Saunders has previously pointed out. “A business like Kohl’s, for example, cannot deliver the growth that Under Armour needs because it is suffering from customer erosion and challenges on its own sales line.”

As the retail analyst observed, however, Under Armour’s central problem is that the brand “has suffered from years of chopping and changing strategies. Under Armour’s brand position and its assortments are all over the place, and this has not been aided by constantly changing strategies as senior management teams have been reshuffled.”

Liza Amlani, the principal and co-founder of Retail Strategy Group, seconded Saunders’ thoughts on the brand’s product assortment and leadership board.

“Under Armour needs to focus on its product assortment. Cutting stock-keeping units is only part of the equation, truly understanding what the brand wants to stand for and making this clear internally and then externally is critical,” Amlani noted. 

She also pointed out that “there are too many cooks in the kitchen and Kevin [Plank, Under Armour’s founder and CEO] needs to let his product teams do their jobs. He is known to make changes and shift merchandising strategies late in the game. His leadership style impacts the company culture, which is making the product strategy unclear to teams and also in the market.” 

Is all hope lost for Under Armour?

GlobalData’s Saunders is cautiously optimistic about Under Armour’s potential for a commercially viable comeback story. 

He explained, “The central idea is to create a more premium positioning for the brand with better storytelling and improved product innovation and quality. This is the right direction to head in.”

“However,” the retail analyst warned, “the difficulties of this journey should not be underestimated. It will take time to reposition the brand, and successful execution will require some painful decisions.”

Amlani added, “I believe Under Armour can make a comeback but the brand needs to make changes in how it goes to market, first, and what it wants to be known for. Otherwise, the customer won’t buy the brand.”

The post Is Under Armour’s expensive comeback plan a doomed path? appeared first on Inside Retail Australia.