Bryant-UA Situation Showcases Athlete Endorsement Pitfalls

Dez Bryant is a physical specimen.

He has the prototypical rippling muscles, long gait and huge hands of a modern-day NFL receiver. He also looks great on the cover of a merchandise catalog, as he did when he graced the cover of Eastbay's in April (right).

Unfortunately, physcial tools are just one requirement of a successful brand endorser.

Like many of us, I was scratching my head when I heard that Under Armour had determined that Bryant was going to be a centerpiece of their NFL player endorsement portfolio in 2010.

After all, Bryant only played in three games for Okahoma State in 2010 after being ruled ineligible by the NCAA for lying to investigators about his involvement and contact with Deion Sanders. There were other questions as well, which ultimately contibuted to Bryant slipping to 24th in the draft.

The news (as reported by CNBC's Darren Rovell today) that Bryant is no longer an Under Armour endorser, before he ever played in a NFL game, did not come as a shock to many of us in the industry.

Unless UA was simply looking at Bryant as a short term plug-in to help activate their sponsorship of the NFL's combine in March, the decision didn't make much sense at the time. Why make a long term commitment to a player who wasn't even able to complete his junior season on the field?

Now it looks even worse.

UA's heartburn over the Bryant break-up showcases that even in this day and age of increased scrutiny over marketing investments by public companies, many athlete endorsement decisions (particularly for brands endemic to sport such as UA) are not undertaken with a great deal of thought and foresight.

If that was not the case, it's unlikely that UA would have concluded that Dez Bryant was an ideal choice to be the face of UA football.