Nike vs Adidas: A Comparative Report

This report provides a comparative analysis of Nike and Adidas, two leading multinational companies in the sports and apparel industry. It examines their financial performance using their respective financial statements, focusing on key metrics such as revenue, operating margin, cash flow, and asset base. The report highlights Nike's superior profitability and asset base compared to Adidas, despite Adidas' strong market presence in Europe. The analysis also delves into the marketing and advertising strategies employed by both companies, including sponsorship deals and digital marketing initiatives, to understand their impact on brand perception and consumer behavior. The report concludes by summarizing the key differences and similarities between the two companies and their overall competitive landscape.

1
Entreprenuership
Name:
Course
Professor’s name
University name
City, State
Date of submission

2
Introduction
The companies that will be on focus are Nike and Adidas. These are two of the biggest
multinationals in sports and apparel industry which also include sports management. They
produce sports equipment, accessories and apparel all over the world. Due to the fact that their
operations are almost similar, they are great rivals and compete on all fronts. From manufacture,
to sales and endorsements of brands to market their products and increase their market brands is
very important aspect in both companies.
These two companies compete in the world to make in roads in sports gear and clothing. Adidas
And Nike are similar in many respects - but in other respects they are miles away(Dunning,
2013). The German sportswear manufacturer, which reported its good results in the first quarter,
is left behind its US rival in profitability. Adidas is getting better, but part of a base low. In this
paper, we shall make comparison of the two multinational companies in terms of strategies and
their financial performance using their respective financial statements (Lorange and Contractor,
2002).Nike is expected to produce a 13.9% operating margin in 2018, compared to the poorer
6.6% for Adidas, according to Thomson Reuters data. Tightening that gap will be the latest
challenge from CEO Kasper Roasted, who replaced Herbert Hainer .Adidas has just
significantly increased its sales and revenue forecasts for the year as a whole.
Imagine that Adidas could catch up with Nike in efficiency. Its operating profit for 2017, if it had
to share Nike's margins, would be more than double-from 1,200 to 2,700 million
euros (Borowski, 2011). If the current multiple of Adidas reached 20.2 times the operating profit
this year, the group's market capitalization would increase from 24,000 million euros to 54,000

3
million(Garcia, 2015). In other words, it would go from being the equivalent of a quarter of the
American sports titan to being half as big.
That will not happen in a year, not even two. However, there are few obvious reasons why the
world's second largest sportswear manufacturer should be significantly less profitable in the
medium term than the number one - even with competition from rivals such as Under Armor and
the poor results of its brand. In 2016, Adidas had a target of 11%. The company has an
additional potential value of 30,000 million euros(Corbett, 2004).
In Australia the brand Nike and Adidas have marked a transcendence unequaled in assessing the
impact of both brands on the perception and the behavior of Australian users. In support of this
facts, the two brands continues to perform very well, however this paper will seek to compare the
performance of the two companies that are world leaders in sportswear and other
clothing(Gibson, 2012). The financial statements can describe the evolution of these brands
through time as the financial statements for previous years show (Lorange & Contractor, 2002).
The two companies have standardized a prototype of comfortable and practical garments in our
society. It also explains the success and positioning that Nike and Adidas have worldwide.
These brands through the offering of quality, innovation and continuous improvement in their
products have managed to increase their financial performance as well as asset base. According
to the above, we see the importance of growing more and the importance of implementing
continuous improvement for the company’s products(Kerin, Hartley and Rudelius, 2009).
It is also important to highlight the degree of incidence of Nike and Adidas for the world market
since these companies use unique strategies in the implementation of new technologies in their

4
garments and sports shoes, as well as innovating and researching designs that appeal to the
market and are adequate and practical for them. On the other hand, it can be noted that the
improvement of Nike and Adidas in terms of financial performance can be directly related to
sports that direct their products to different areas and specialize in each of them, that is in each of
the sports disciplines(McLeish, 2011).
It is also essential to analyze the great publicity momentum of Nike and Adidas as expressed by
various media, since their sponsorship deals in large sporting events over time has allowed
Consumers identify with their teams and sports characters who they admire (Peng, Chen and
Narain, 2007). For this reason, this company both Nike and Adidas are not only a few brands,
but a lifestyle, which makes them a badge of the sports marketing. Thus, both brands have
implemented digital marketing through resources and online tools which are the most popular
platforms of their products and are accessible to their consumers (Stearns, 2014). The social
marketing videos allows both brands and their users share the content based on the emotions that
the audiovisual form.
As another way of selling and accessing more information about their consumers they use a lot
of money in advertising(Rothacher, 2005). Therefore, these sports companies are not only selling
directly sneakers or sports elements, but a lifestyle. Great shows are the different commercial
launches with performances of recognized sports stars, but in turn these same ones have become
in brands for the sport.
A study conducted in 2015 showed that for both the Nike brand and for Adidas users feel
familiar with the products moderately by 54% (for Adidas) and 46% (for Nike); This means

5
that people have managed to have a good rapprochement or contact with the products of sporting
brands, allowing them to have a good knowledge about these(Rothacher, 2005). In second
measure, the following variable reflects the knowledge they had the different people surveyed
about the brand, giving us a percentage comparison between one brand and the other, thus being
the variable of measure "Sufficient" as the main host within the sample(Offner, 2007). The
research finds that 66% of people identify with one of the multinational in which Adidas leads in
the mind of consumer and with 50% Nike with which they are comfortable with.
In a certain way how one brand impacts on the other, in its competitiveness for means of
advertising, commercials, campaigns, among others (Stearns, 2014). According to the research
and the people surveyed, both Nike and Adidas, reflect an equivalent percentage of the use of
garments of the said mark, reflecting in both a 30% in the index of tennis, which means that this
type of product is the most sought after and acquired by consumers(Gibson, 2012). This
translates to how the two multinationals translate in terms of profits from various segments of the
sporting world such as tennis and golf.
From this way we can see the attributes customers perceive when buying each of the brands and
how they relate their identity with them. This variable determines the percentage range of
purchases by consumers in each of the brands, how often they do so and therefore the reasons for
purchase. In Adidas 30% is equivalent to half-yearly purchases and in Nike they have 45% of
purchases of items, this reflects a very important rise in sales of the two multinationals(Shishoo,
2005).
Market positioning

6
Positioning of the Nike and Adidas brands makes the two multinationals have an edge in the
market. According to what they perceive from the competitive market of these two
multinationals. This shows that Adidas brand is better positioned in the market translating into
better profits for the company. In the last year, Nike had a profit of $32 Billion while Adidas had
a profit of $21 billion.
.A second reason is the diversity of Adidas brand in terms of market penetration, mainly by The
price and promotion factors (both in point of sale and in advertising in the media), in other words
Nike offers product lines similar to those of Adidas but differ mainly in prices and
design(Subramanyam, n.d.). In the results of each of the questions, there is coherence with what
has been said, since there are more people familiar with the brand Adidas and have a greater
knowledge about it compared to the Nike brand(Sports Industry, 2010). On the other hand, the
Nike brand is perceived as a brand Very competitive, just like Adidas. From the sample we can
assume that Australians prefer to buy in Nike for their designs and why they perceive the same
as a quality brand, just as it happens with Adidas(Subramanyam, n.d.). A data found in the
research seems quite strange, because although so many consumers of Nike and Adidas are
satisfied with the same, willing to replace them with other brands. Finally, it was found that
Australian consumers associate Nike and Adidas with high performance. Most consumers of
Nike and Adidas are between the ages of 19 and 43 who fully support the two brands.
CASHFLOWS
The two companies differ also in terms of cash flows. Nike has a net operating cash flow of
$3.64 billion in 2017 up from $3.1 billion in 2016. This shows a significant improvement in the
cash flow of the company from 2016 to 2017 which indicates growth(Strauss and Woods, 2007).

7
The companies cash flow shows that the company has been registering an upward trend for the
last 5 years. On the other hand, Adidas registered a net operating cash flow in 2016 of $1.34
billion up from $1.02 billion in 2015. This shows that as a multinational, Nike is significantly
bigger than its counterpart Adidas as shown by its financial statements(Sutherland, 2012).
Asset base
In terms of Assets, Nikes assets are much higher than those of Adidas, the balance sheet of Nike
in 2017 stood at $23.2 billion up from $21.3 billion in 2016. On the other hand , Adidas has an
asset base of $ 8.88 billion in 2016 up from $7.49billion in 2015. This shows that Adidas is still
trying to catch up with run away Nike. The superiority of Nike is clearly shown by the value of
its assets.
Adidas has headquarters in Germany while Nike has its headquarters in United States.The
financial statements for Nike and Adidas are elaborated below.

8
Source:https://s1.q4cdn.com/806093406/files/doc_financials/2016/ar/index.html
In 2015, the revenue for NIKE, Inc. stood at $ 30.6 billion dollars a rise of more than $3 billion
dollars from the previous year 2014. Consequently, the group revenue performance rose to $
32.37 billion dollars and extra increase by $ 1.8 billion dollars. On the other hand, Adidas has
revenue of $ 18.78 billion down from $ 19.32 billion in 2014. It registered a negative revenue
report owing to a competitive market with its rival Nike, Inc. In 2016, the revenue was $ 21.35
billion up from the previous year of $ 19.32 billion(Sutherland, 2012).Both companies have been
growing their revenue bases with different levels of advertisements and endorsements to boost
their merchandise. The revenue for the years were growing rapidly for both companies and
although great competitors, they performed better than the industry projection (Lorange and
Contractor, 2002).

9
Source:https://s1.q4cdn.com/806093406/files/doc_financials/2016/ar/index.html
The return on capital invested increases in Nike albeit marginally on percentage(Torok and
Cordon, 2002). In 2012, return on capital was at 22.2% while in last years perfomance the return
on capital was at 29.7%. the diagram above shows nike investment in different years. This shows
that the companies return on investment is very high and is improving due to increased
revenues(Sutherland, 2012).
In Adidas, earning per share is $2.76 dollars in 2016. The dividend yield for Adidas is 0.7%. On
the other hand, the investment in Nikeis higher than its rival competitors Adidas although the
two multinational have the highets return on investment in comparison with many
multinationals.

10
The net cash flows from investment activities in 2016 was a negative $ 675 million. The net cash
flows fron financing activities in adidas was negative $ 617 million while the net cashflow from
operating activities was a whooping $1.49 billion(Dunning, 2013). . the cash and cash
equivalent at the beginning and at the end of the year are $1.51 B and $ 1.67 B dolars
respectively.
In Nike the net operating cash flow growth is 17.57%. the net operating cash flow sales is
10.63%.

11
Source:https://s1.q4cdn.com/806093406/files/doc_financials/2016/ar/index.html
In 2016 the earnings per share is $2.16, while in 2015 the compound annual growth rate is
$1.85.The companies perfomance rate is $ 14%.
The stock performance of both companies is extremely good.
Conclusion
Nike and Adidas are great competitors and rivals in sports and apparel industry. However, they
all have great strategies in marketing and advertising of their products in order to increase their
revenues and subsequent profits.The financial performance of both companies depends largely
on the sales from their merchandise(Dunning, 2013).. Although Nike is leading in terms of profit

12
levels, Adidas has cemented its position across Europe in every sports industry and only time
will tell before it becomes the market leader.

13
References
Borowski, A. (2011). Adidas marketing strategy. Norderstedt: Grin Verlag.
Corbett, A. (2004). Strategy. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Dunning, J. (2013). Multinationals.New York: Routledge.
Garcia, B. (2015). Out of the box. The rise of sneaker culture. New York: Rizzoli International.
Gibson, C. (2012). Financial statement analysis. Mason, Ohio: South-Western.
Kerin, R., Hartley, S. and Rudelius, W. (2009). Marketing. Boston, Mass. [u.a.]: McGraw-Hill
Irwin.
Lorange, P. and Contractor, F. (2002). Cooperative strategies and alliances in international
business. [U.S.]: Pergamon.
McLeish, E. (2011). Sports industry. New York: Rosen Central.
Offner, A. (2007). Real world globalization. Cambridge, MA: Dollars & Sense.
Peng, Y., Chen, J. and Narain, S. (2007). Adidas. Singapore: Page One.
Rothacher, A. (2005). Corporate cultures and global brands. Hackensack, N.J.: World
Scientific.
Shishoo, R. (2005). Textiles in sport. Boca Raton [u.a.]: CRC Press [u.a.].
Stearns, T. (2014). Introduction to entreprenuership. [Place of publication not identified]:
Kendall Hunt.

14
Strauss, R. and Woods, R. (2007). One well. Toronto: Kids Can Press.
Sutherland, A. (2012). Nike. London: Wayland.
Torok, R. and Cordon, P. (2002). Operational profitability. New York: Wiley.