One of the worst cases of miscommunication over a brand has been occurring in Florida over the past few weeks of basketball season.  The University of Central Florida, Adidas and Marcus Jordan (son of Michael) have been embroiled in a series of “he said, he said” that has ultimately cost the school a $3,000,000 endorsement contract.

On October 21st, the Chicago Tribune announced that UCF promised Marcus Jordan during recruitment that he could wear Nike Air Jordan shoes and that Adidas had agreed to the exception.

As the Orlando Sentinel reports, Marcus Jordan wore an all white pair of his father’s iconic Nike Air Jordan shoes during the first pre-season exhibition game.  He had a pair of Adidas ankle bracelets on which actually gave the appearance that he was wearing Adidas high tops.  Immediately following the game, Adidas released a statement terminating their sponsorship of UCF.

Although UCF contends that they had permission from someone at Adidas, the shoe maker is claiming that those discussions were ongoing and nothing had been settled.

A number of media outlets have reported including, ESPN, CNBC, USA Today and their stance seems to be firmly on the side of the school and blaming Adidas for making a promise they couldn’t keep.  The bloggers have weighed in such as Smoking Section, Chicagoist,  Stone Cold Lock, About.com, Sports Biz Blog, Just a Bit Outside Sports, and many more with the opinion that Marcus is in the wrong and should just wear what the team does or have his dad cut a check to replace the Adidas money.

Nike won’t step in because they are already well represented in Florida by sponsoring the big three schools in that state.

So what would you do?

Depending on where you stand during this discussion, Marcus looks like a loyal son who is carrying on a family tradition and was given permission to wear the shoes or a whiny kid who doesn’t want to be a team player and his diva demands cost the school money.

UCF looks like a school that is following through with its commitments to its players and got permission from the shoe maker or a bunch of liars that should have more control over their athletic department.

Adidas looks like a company that made an exception for a player with a strong family history and then backed down when it got too hot or one executive made an agreement that he didn’t have permission to do and has had to back pedal.

In the end, all three have lost.  This public relations debacle all centers on miscommunication, as they so often do.  Where do you go from here?  How do they fix their public images?  Unfortunately, every day that they wait correcting these perceptions it only gets worst.

They have to change the conversation, and quick.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to this blog via email or RSS 2.0 feed to have future articles delivered to you. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.