These kind of fees make you wonder if they ever make their money back. I know about "brand development" but it just seems farfetched

>>67660019
It's literal pennies for them. Nike are a bigger company than 100 biggest football clubs put together.

Last year their revenue was $30b with $5b profit, 60m a year is literally nothing for them.

Now all the Chelsea kits can match the fanbase

Chelsea are not cool and neither is Nike so sounds right

>>67660019
I read once that Coca Cola and Pepsi were 50/50 in the soda industry. Then Pepsi decided to stop advertising for a month to save money. Coca Cola has been #1 in soda industry since.

if nike ain't had chelsea man they would have nothing

Chelsea had to as they can rely on their billions to buy players any more.

Not that it matters. They've spent billions as it is, you can't retroactively apply FFP to them.

>>67660200
They still have Barcelona, they'll probably pay through the nose to keep them.

60m per year is insane. I mean, it's less that what United get and Real will get but still

>>67660223
rumored to be around 100m€ per season, for 10 seasons

>>67660200
>>67660223
They have City but that's worse than nothing really

>>67660272
Chelsea are one of the biggest football "brands" in the world

Also as for getting their money back, they don't just get it back through kit sales. It's a halo effect isn't it. People watch the best teams wearing Nike stuff and they want to go out and buy Nike stuff.

Great now I dont have to deal with those stupid white lines.

aww.. nike a shit

at least it's not new balance or under armour

idk what the hate is. I understand adidas has been around sawker far longer than nike, but nike had some of the cleanest looking kits for a good minute up until the last 2 seasons I think.

I hope nike brings back their A game for the 17/18 season...

>>67660575

The problem is that the Nike kits have been shit, not 'clean.'