CNBC had an interesting video discussion of Under Armour vs Nike, with some additional remarks about Spieth/Rory/Woods. I found these two comments the most telling:
[Nike] having Rory McIlroy, as well as Tiger Woods, who I believe is still relevant.
We are at the point in Woods’s career when Wall Street analysts feel the need to describe Woods as “still relevant.” Talk about damning with faint praise.
Neither one of them [Rory and Jordan] will ever have the social or cultural significance of Tiger.
Wall Street, caring only about dollars and cents, can be blunt. Much of the hullabaloo about Woods over the years has been due to “social” and “cultural” reasons. The golf media has always avoided that topic, preferring instead to create the mythos of a sui generis golfer. No one else could hit that shot…
“…estimated 34 million dollars in media exposure for UA during the tournament [Spieth’s camera time at the Masters] …”
I only learned about this a year or two ago. The airtime for the various logos is tracked very closely. There are daily/weekly reports. So when Golf Channel and NBC and CBS show Woods when he is not in the running, they are taking money out of the pockets of other sponsors to give it to Nike.
It’s nice to hear Wall Street outsiders comment on this stuff; they speak honestly because their only agenda is to analyze the world (in this case, the world of golf) rationally so they can make money.