• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Boks with new clothes: SARU will replace Canterbury by Asics

Jaguares

International
TRF Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
5,061
Country Flag
Argentina
Club or Nation
Argentina
[h=1]Asics to Sponsor South Africa’s Springbok Kit in Six-Year Deal[/h]The South African Rugby Union said Asics Corp. (7936) will replace Canterbury as the clothing and kit sponsor for the national side, the Springboks, and provincial teams from Jan. 1.
The company, based in Tokyo, signed a six-year agreement with SARU, Mark Alexander, deputy president of the nation’s rugby governing body, said in a presentation in Johannesburg today.
The Asics deal will cover the Rugby World Cup in 2015 and the tournament in 2019. The Japanese company competes with Adidas AG (ADS) and Nike Inc (NKE) and sponsors running in France, Australia, the Netherlands and Italy. Absa, the South African bank controlled byBarclays Plc (BARC), which was renamed Barclays Africa Group Ltd. (BGA) on Aug. 2, is the main sponsor for the national team.
“Asics has made a strategic decision to make the sport of rugby a priority,†Alistair Cameron, Asics’s head of Europe, Middle East and Africa, said. “The Springboks are one of the most important assets in the sporting-goods world. We want to build the brand awareness together.â€
Asics is also considering setting up factories in South Africa, he said.
The Springboks, which won the World Cup in 1995 and 2007, is currently the ranked secondbehind New Zealand’s All Blacks, according to the International Rugby Board.

http://origin-www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-28/asics-to-sponsor-south-africa-s-springbok-kit-in-six-year-deal.html


Cheers
 
Geez. Assics is for those who can't afford Nike's or Adidas. WTF
 
Wow, wonder what their kit would look like..

I know Castres uses Asics but I'm sure they'll interpret the Bok jersey a little differently. Interesting that the provinces are part of the move, wonder if that includes the SR franchises?

should have been reeBOK!
 
Geez. Assics is for those who can't afford Nike's or Adidas. WTF

Ehm, actually it's the brands paying the union, not the other way around. Asics probably offered more than Canterbury, Nike, Adidas or Puma.
 
Ehm, actually it's the brands paying the union, not the other way around. Asics probably offered more than Canterbury, Nike, Adidas or Puma.
Em nope. I think no one wanted to buy a R800 Nike Springbok jersey knitted under a fireworks factory for R20 in China
 
You really don't get it, do you? You say Asics is for people who can't afford Nike and Adidas. It has nothing to do with that, mainly because Asics is in the same category as the other 2 and even exists longer than Nike. Actually, Nike as a company was founded by the same man that started Asics 15 years earlier. But that's just a side-note.

The reason a team picks a company to design their kit etc. is usually because they pay the most. The All Blacks re-newed their deal with Adidas in 2007, because they offered more than Puma, who were also close to a deal with the NZRU. Just an example. It works that way. The reason SARU picked Asics, is most likely because Asics came to the table with the best deal. Re-newing a contract with a current sponsor is always the better option, but Canterbury probably wasn't able to compete with Asics, a much larger company.

Same happened to the Sharks franchise and province when the deal with Canterbury expired in 2009, and the Sharks signed a deal with Reebok.
 
You really don't get it, do you? You say Asics is for people who can't afford Nike and Adidas. It has nothing to do with that, mainly because Asics is in the same category as the other 2 and even exists longer than Nike. Actually, Nike as a company was founded by the same man that started Asics 15 years earlier. But that's just a side-note.

The reason a team picks a company to design their kit etc. is usually because they pay the most. The All Blacks re-newed their deal with Adidas in 2007, because they offered more than Puma, who were also close to a deal with the NZRU. Just an example. It works that way. The reason SARU picked Asics, is most likely because Asics came to the table with the best deal. Re-newing a contract with a current sponsor is always the better option, but Canterbury probably wasn't able to compete with Asics, a much larger company.

Same happened to the Sharks franchise and province when the deal with Canterbury expired in 2009, and the Sharks signed a deal with Reebok.
Well Nike pay you in advance and then take all the money for the sale shirts the next few years. At R800 a pop I am sure not many bought the jersey and Nike did make as much they would have hoped for. So I can assure you they offer wouldn't be that high.

Correction Canterbury charged R999 for a jersey!
 
Last edited:
Silfpay... Nike or any company for that matter do not take the profit from selling shirts. They take a % of the profit. This can also be the key points that the contract was lost with Canterbury. Asics, either offered a better upfront deal, or a backend deal.

Just saying.
 
shame for Canterbury

wasn't too long ago the AB's Wallabies and Boks all had
Canterbury
 
shame for Canterbury

wasn't too long ago the AB's Wallabies and Boks all had
Canterbury

I think Canterbury should go back to Ireland. They ran out of Australia a few years ago, this year they ran out of Scotland and South Africa, they should go back to IRFU, now the only top team they have is England.

IRFU is now looking new brand because Puma said to be no longer interested in rugby, is the opportunity to Canterbury to have another top team.

Cheers
 
Silfpay... Nike or any company for that matter do not take the profit from selling shirts. They take a % of the profit. This can also be the key points that the contract was lost with Canterbury. Asics, either offered a better upfront deal, or a backend deal.

Just saying.
Where did you hear this crap? What is the payment for xxx amount of years? Em they make the shirts so they get the money when suppliers buy them so yes they take the cash from shirt sales. Do you think Man Utd get the shirt deal cash and the money for the shirts sales? Nooooooo
 
I probably over stepped when I said that many company's only take a % of the profit. At the end of the day, it is up to each company to offer a contract to Springboks or Man UTD that they feel will let them win, but also give them business.

Also many companies purposefully take losses in these contracts. They believe that the brand recognition will help in future sales, almost like a different style of marketing.

And to answer your last question, I believe that Man UTD (The biggest sports brand in the world) does take a cut of the jersey sales. It is one of the perks of being the biggest name in sports and having every company want to partner up with you.
 
What do the South African and Aussie fans think about this? I personally reckon that the last KooGa effort for the wallabies was our best jersey to date, but think Canterbury have gotten a little boring for the boks. Either way, I've never actually seen ASICS make a top class Rugby jersey in either League or Union, so I'm curious how this will play out.
 
What do the South African and Aussie fans think about this? I personally reckon that the last KooGa effort for the wallabies was our best jersey to date, but think Canterbury have gotten a little boring for the boks. Either way, I've never actually seen ASICS make a top class Rugby jersey in either League or Union, so I'm curious how this will play out.
The Asics ones in France look poor. I don't regard them as a premier kit manufacturer, theirs are like Burrda, weird and cheap looking. That being said, maybe they are trying to change things. Haven't liked the Canterbury ones since they switched from the swirl and high collar. Asics have already made a Blitzbokke kit:
South-Africa-2014-Rugby-Sevens-Asics-Jersey-3.jpg
 
I really liked the Bok jersey with the nike logo. That was for me the best looking bok jersey. Still is.
 

Latest posts

Top