Which is better Nike or Under Armor

This is behind the boss twilight at Nike and Under Armor

The situation is completely different Under Armor: Here it is important for the new boss Patrik Frisk to get the brand back on track. Predecessor Plank, who vacated the chair in January, had turned nothing into a brand that had grown rapidly for a long time. With his idea of ​​offering compression underwear for athletes and then developing into a complete equipment brand, Plank has certainly made industry history. But Plank also made a lot of mistakes. Starting with exuberantly reviling competitors - he scoffed at Adidas, which was just slacking in the US, saying that the Germans were his “stupidest competitor”.

This had a very stimulating effect on the then Adidas boss Herbert Hainer and his troops: the Dax group from then on concentrated on the US market and is now clearly dependent on the upstart. Even puma has become dangerous to Plank's creature. Because Under Armor has relied on being successful with its focus on competitive sports for far too long. Plank overlooked the fact that the trend had long since turned.
Instead of jerseys and trainers for the sports field, consumers mainly buy branded parts that make them look sporty at best. Under Armor completely overslept the athleisure theme. And it has another shortcoming: the brand is very young in comparison, just 23 years old - Adidas and Puma just celebrated their 70th birthday. Even Nike's history goes back to 1964. This long, changeable history fills the archives of these brands - from which designers and marketing people regularly pull out shoes laden with stories and patina that are also popular with lifestyle audiences. Under Armor doesn't have any of that. The new boss Frisk has to come up with something how he will compensate for this deficit.