While some analysts view Under Armour as facing reputational risk from its decision to end its partnership with four-time NBA champion Steph Curry, most believe the move will favorably reduce its exposure to the flagging footwear category and help the brand refocus on its core apparel business.
As reported, Under Armour announced late last Thursday, November 13, that it is ending its 13-year partnership with Curry, the star guard of the Golden State Warriors and a two-time league MVP. As part of the split, Curry will maintain sole ownership of the Curry Brand and is free to find another brand partner.
Under Armour will release the Curry 13, the final Curry-branded shoe with Under Armour, in February 2026, followed by related colorways and apparel expected to drop through October 2026.
UAA’s global basketball business, including the Curry Brand, is expected to reach $100 million to $120 million in revenue for the company’s fiscal year ending March 2026. The company’s separation from Curry is not expected to have a “significant effect” on its financial results or profitability.
Under Armour announced the split from Curry with an expansion of its restructuring plan. The company now expects the cost to be $255 million, $95 million more than previously stated, which includes the separation of the Curry brand, additional contract terminations, impairment charges and severance costs.
Kevin Plank, the founder and CEO of Under Armour, said the move was “about discipline and focus on the core UAA brand during a critical stage of our turnaround.”
Citi Research‘s Paul Lejuez, who has a “neutral” rating on UAA at a $5 target, said UAA management, in discussions with his team, indicated that it was the right time to exit the Curry business given its renewed focus on reviving the Under Armour brand. He said management indicated that the overall basketball category has been “very weak” over the last couple of years, and the Curry business was a “small and expensive business to operate.”
Lejuez estimates the Curry business generated sales in the range of $60 million to $75 million, or 1 percent of UAA’s total sales. He also said UAA’s management inferred that other competitors have faced challenges scaling their signature athletic footwear lines, with the exception of Jordan.
The analyst noted that Under Armour officials remain committed to footwear and still expect the North American region, as well as the footwear category, to stabilize in its fiscal year ended March 2027. Said Lejuez, “We view this as the right move for UAA given their recent underperformance and lack of profitability in footwear.”
At Telsey Advisory Group, Cristina Fernández, who has a “Market Perform” rating at a $5 target, views the Curry separation as “more of a headline and reputational risk for Under Armour than a financial one,” but was mixed on the move.
Fernández said while Curry helped establish the footwear business for Under Armour, the partnership “never materialized to its full potential” with sales decelerating, along with the broader basketball category, in recent years. The separation also comes as Under Armour is working to better align its cost structure with lower revenues and is looking for ways to offset the impact of tariffs, she noted.
On the negative side, Fernández said UAA could face challenges signing other star athletes, particularly in basketball, as well as securing more shelf space at specialty footwear retailers like Foot Locker.
Fernández wrote, “Overall, Under Armour is making progress on rationalizing SKUs, reducing promotions and cutting costs, and has attracted new talent to help execute the turnaround strategy. However, these changes are not yet being reflected in the financial results and despite the increase in guidance, earnings will take a large cut in FY26 due to tariffs.”
Randy Konik, at Jefferies, who has a “Hold” rating on Under Armour with a $5 target, viewed the move positively as a sign that Under Armour was returning to its apparel roots, where it first found success.
“Founder Kevin Plank is getting back to basics here, and we like it,” wrote Konik. “Parting ways with Curry makes so much sense. He’s a great athlete, but we always questioned his marketability and believed the Curry shoes and apparel products never resonated w/a wide audience. With Curry gone and a new CFO on the way, we think UAA is positioning itself for an eventual turn. Shares are poised for significant upside if changes continue, but will also take time, so we stay at Hold.”
The analysts listed several other steps he hopes Under Armour will pursue as it repositions the brand, including reducing factory outlet stores, continuing to exit off-price channels and exiting from Kohl’s, as well as reducing SKUs in footwear and ending other less-relevant sponsorships. He urged the company to refocus on performance apparel, with an emphasis on innovative fabrics, to “win back the gym-goer before the casual wearer of the product,” and to revive the bold marketing campaigns the brand was known for.
Konik stated, “Remember this brand is special and worth more than the market cap today, BUT the market won’t ascribe a higher valuation until it believes EBITDA$ and market share losses have bottomed. We believe recent moves by the founder are welcome.”
Needham‘s Tom Nikic, who has a “hold” rating on Under Armour, said while the separation of the Curry business would likely offer some cost-saving benefits, the Under Armour brand could face some reputational damage. He wrote in a note, “Mr. Curry is viewed by consumers as one of the key faces of the brand. Thus, even with Mr. Curry likely being towards the end of his playing career (currently 37 years old), UAA will have to replace the intangible benefits he’s brought to the brand since first partnering with UAA 13 years ago.”
On the other hand, Nikic estimated that revenues are down for the Curry brand, “at least 50 percent from peak, if not more” after seeing a strong run at the beginning of the partnership. Nikic estimates the size of the Curry business to be between $75 million and $100 million. He further questioned the Curry brand’s profit contribution. The analyst added, “Between the lower gross margin for footwear relative to apparel, the operating overhead required to run a sub-brand, advertising for the brand, and the royalties owed to Mr. Curry, the sub-brand is probably minimally profitable at best (and potentially unprofitable).”
Nikic did not adjust his estimates at this time, as Under Armour will continue to sell Curry product in the near term, and management indicated that the closure will have a negligible impact on earnings.
Peter McGoldrick at Stifel, who has a “buy” rating on UAA at a $9.00 target, said the separation of the Curry Brand and expanded restructuring program enable Under Armour to better focus on its largest opportunities: North America and the Under Armour apparel brand.
He noted that while Curry has been a “solid asset” for Under Armour, the partnership “never met its full potential.” He added that while another cost-cutting program from Under Armour is “disappointing,” the move to separate the Curry business demonstrates the “seriousness of focus on driving profitable growth in the core Under Armour brand.”
Regarding his “buy” rating, McGoldrick noted, “Visibility remains challenging for the turnaround, but at 0.4x EV/S, we believe the stock price already reflects the bad news, and a range of outcomes over a 12-month period are skewed positively from here.”
Stifel adjusted its estimates to reflect lower revenue from the Curry exit, modestly higher adjusted operating income, lower GAAP operating income, and the corresponding flow-through to net income and free cash flow.
Image courtesy Under Armour x Stephen Curry
