Under Armour Stock Drops Following Rejection of Hunters

Under Armour got caught in a lie, and now they’re reaping the consequences.

The company claimed to support hunters and the hunting lifestyle, but at the first sign of trouble they abandoned their new clientele and stopped sponsoring the spokeswoman for their new women’s hunting line.

Now the company is tanking, and some financial experts have even called for the company’s owners to sell to another buyer.

“If Under Armour wants to put itself into play, given the company’s share price situation and his stake, Kevin Plank would have to want to throw in the towel,” Growth Seeker co-manager Chris Versace told TheStreet.

It all started last year when a video went viral of well-known hunter Josh Bowmar killing a bear with a spear. The kill was clean, humane, and legal, but over 4,000 people signed a petition asking Under Armour to end its relationship with Josh’s wife Sarah, who had recently inked a deal with Under Armour to be the face of their new women’s hunting line.

Under Armour caved, prompting a swift and immediate reaction from hunters nationwide. Over 9,000 people signed a petition calling for Under Armour to bring Sarah back to the team (which it didn’t). Bowhunting.com posted several videos of high-profile hunters condemning Under Armour’s move, and one video even depicts a hunter burning his Under Armour gear.

Since then, the sports apparel company has struggled to maintain sales.

ZeroHedge.com reported this week that Under Armour has failed in three main indicators of company success. The company missed on both its top and bottom lines, its sales projections are nearly $1 billion lower than analysts predicted, and its CFO Chip Molloy has left the company “for personal reasons.”

Each of these factors has contributed to a near 30 percent drop in shares and the smallest annual gain since the company went public in 2005.

Under Armour’s betrayal of hunters isn’t the only cause of the company’s collapse. But it can’t be a coincidence that the company has struggled more than ever after it chose to appease extreme animal rights groups rather than its clientele.

There are nearly 14 million hunters in the United States. According to its website, PETA can only boast 5 million members. It’s a rough estimate, but maybe next time Under Armour should consider more carefully which team will be better for business.

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over two years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Waco.

{ 56 comments… add one }
  • Sarah B. March 28, 2017, 2:13 am

    Mathews Bow Co. did almost the same as UA, IMO.

  • Erin March 1, 2017, 5:39 pm

    Under Armour didn’t reject hunting, it rejected one reckless, irresponsible hunter who gave all the rest of us bad PR with the Antis. Sure, part of it was a business decision, and we can hardly blame them for that–they’re a business! But this is more than just dollars, it’s about representing responsible, humane hunters as the norm, and not allowing those who just want to make a name for themselves at any cost to wreck it for the rest of us.

  • OCCD February 7, 2017, 7:54 pm

    I have quite a few UA items. 99.9% of them I bought at thrift stores. I love the material, but personally I think Champion makes a better product.

  • Don Bodiker February 7, 2017, 6:50 pm

    Haven’t went hunting in years but I have plenty of weapons, retired military and I go to the range every month. I also purchase plenty of ammo and sports attire from the sporting goods department stores. Under Armor and Nike were my favorite brands. Looks like I’m gonna have a lot of extra money for ammo if these and other big companies can’t stay out of politics. There has to be millions of people like myself who don’t hunt no more but actively support the hunters and the 2A. We used to buy those UA sport shirts with their logos. No more!!

  • Fred Ziffle February 7, 2017, 8:44 am

    Proving, yet again, that the country is NOT populated in the majority with loud-mouthed liberals. If you cater to the clear thinking, level-headed and intelligent segment of the market, yet become spineless when a minuscule group of nitwits squawk, DO NOT be surprised when your business implodes.

  • Mark M Carey February 7, 2017, 1:31 am

    Under Armour Dixie Chicked themselves. Serves them right. Don’t care what their reasons were, an idiot could have told them who their base market was. Turn your back on the people who brought you to the dance you deserve to get mugged on the way home.

  • elgavilansegoviano February 6, 2017, 2:01 pm

    ………I say, let the SOBs go “Under”,……

  • DRAINO February 6, 2017, 8:03 am

    During my time deployed to the sand box back when UA first came out, they actually made a good product. I still have some of those shorts(underwear)…..yes, they are several years old, but they were made better back then. They made it through several military deployments, a completion of a 20 year career and now 7 years of retirement. Their newer products don’t last near as long…..made with much cheaper materials…by cheap overseas labor. And now this garbage?!?! I will NOT be buying their stuff anymore. Will have to investigate other companies to see who is made in the US.

    AMERICANISM!!! NOT Globalism!!!!!!

    • Glock27 February 18, 2017, 7:08 pm

      Well, when you change your manufacturer to China that is exactly what we get. Cheap, gaudy products. UA I hope collapses under their own idiocy. Thanks for your remark. It was great. Beautifully stated.

    • Dlh0 December 22, 2017, 4:59 am

      Yep! I bought 6 pair of the original UA men’s shorts/boxers. Things wore like iron. I was disappointed when I went to buy more and discovered the new versions were garabage. Told me all I needed to know about where the company was going. Have not bough an UA product since.

  • Jon February 5, 2017, 11:52 pm

    Ok not cool with the decision Under Armor made but at the same time I find it funny to read this article about how UA is tanking and somehow it’s because of this. First off they are a $5billion company so $14,000,000 Hunter (all though is a big number) would not impact them to the level of “tanking” . Just listen to the stock video attached they are still having big growth and is a good look term stock to invest in. Again I don’t think they should have caved but let’s not write articles that make it sound like we have this huge amount of power. Let’s just get out and enjoy it!

    • wtsane February 6, 2017, 11:30 am

      Respectfully, the total worth of a company has only a very tangential relationship with the bottom line, and $14,000,000.00 (cash sales) can have a HUGE impact on a quarterly bottom line, which can cause earnings reports to be off, and stockholders to sell, which in turn causes share prices to drop. This in turn cuts in the valuation of the company (that $5 Billion you were talking about) which in turn dries up capital for development of production lines and marketing. This can become a cycle once started, and the copyright offices of America are full of logos of companies which went out of their way to alienate their customer base.
      In the present politically charged environment, I consider the current struggle to be a war for the future of the country. UA would have been well served to stay out of it all together, as soldiers and hunters buy a lot more of their products than other demographics. Winging in the face of snowflakes alienates the dominant market, simple as that.

    • Shane February 7, 2017, 7:21 pm

      14 million $$ was not a number given. 14 million hunters is what the article said. Say only half the hunters bought one shirt at a price of $20 that alone would be 140 million $$ itself. Im sure it was more like an average of 3-5 times that. No proof but most buy more than one article of clothing

      • Draven February 8, 2017, 9:03 am

        Exactly. Every Christmas I would go to the UA outlet store and buy my kids, nephews, and nieces gear. Probably around $200-300 worth. Last year was the first year that I did not support UA.

  • Max February 5, 2017, 4:48 pm

    This is a good lesson for other companies supplying sporting goods. If more sportsmen, especially women, would organize, we would be more effective. Archers are patient, persistent, thoughtful, and know when and how to take a precise shot. No more Under Armour for me!

  • Scott February 5, 2017, 9:05 am

    Who needs em screw em, as a daddy for 4 boys, never another under armor item purchased in my house hypocrite ass holes! !!!!!

  • Girl Huntress February 4, 2017, 6:11 pm

    I really liked the speed freak hunting boots. Guess this is just another example of businesses caving in for the minority safety pin, teddy bear hugging, quite room snow flakes.

  • James ashford February 4, 2017, 6:33 am

    No more UNDER ARMOR for me.
    Lost my support.

  • Johnny VanZandt February 4, 2017, 12:29 am

    Geez…. Hollyweird, Starbucks ,Under Armour. The list keeps getting bigger every day.

  • Angie Kokes February 3, 2017, 11:53 pm

    As a spear hunter, yes I know that’s shocking to some because I’m a woman. But, yes as a spear hunter I loved my under armour gear. Will I continue to support you, no! If you want to claim a spot in the hunting industry, then grow some balls and actually support who real hunters are and we actually do.

  • Grappplingwolf February 3, 2017, 9:13 pm

    I will still buy your gear

  • Terri February 3, 2017, 7:15 pm

    I guess when you’re under armour, you don’t have to know your customer. Hahahahahahahah!!!

  • John Neal February 3, 2017, 6:45 pm

    I like Under Armour\’s products, but I also happen to be one of those annoyed hunters. Moreover, I think Under Armour is just another company, like Whole Foods and Yeti that thinks we should be happy to spend ridiculous amounts of money on grossly over priced products. We outdoorsmen are a whole lot smarter than they think we are. We can buy better goods from Cabelas at lower prices, and we do.

    • Pilotearl February 3, 2017, 10:13 pm

      Very well stated. Hunters and NRA members are very loyal. But when betrayed they have a tendency to vote with their pocketbook. Doubt that Under Armour will be around a whole lot longer.

  • Just1Spark February 3, 2017, 3:52 pm

    LOL! Oh I love it. All those ‘highly educated’ top of the payroll movers and shakers at Underarmor. And they side with ‘anti hunters’ who dont even buy their fucking products! lol

    On a different note, never seen why anyone would buy UA anyways. Over priced spandex, made in china sweat shops.

    Never touched the stuff. Buy quality or save your money and buy quality. Thats it.
    Duluth Trading just to name one place with great stuff.

  • Awesome Bill from Dawsonville February 3, 2017, 2:29 pm

    Bought a pair of overpriced Under Armor rubber boots for deer and goose hunting. Since I hunt out of stands and blinds, I really can’t say put a ton of mileage on them. They fell apart after one season. I should have stuck with an American made pair of boots. Lesson learned. Under Armor seems to put form ahead of function.

  • dennis owens February 3, 2017, 1:51 pm

    Under Armour is owned by Gildan who has all there products made in shops which are basically sweatshops! they use the cheapest materials give it a fancy name and rip off the uninformed!

  • Michael Keim February 3, 2017, 1:35 pm

    Screw Under Armour. There are other companies that make comparable products. They’re overpriced and they don’t make tall sizes. Maybe the 4000 petition signers will buy enough from them to make up for their losses. They can wear it this year while they’re outside protesting against President Trump

    • RAY MCQUISTON February 4, 2017, 9:19 am


  • richard sharpe February 3, 2017, 1:34 pm

    ” It’s a rough estimate, but maybe next time Under Armour should consider more carefully which team will be better for business.” there should be no next time. they should fail.

  • skipNclair February 3, 2017, 12:39 pm

    This is what happens when you make decisions on what you think might be popular instead of right or wrong. The best thing this company could have done was ignored the issue and made no decision based on a handful of negative feedback, as again it was made without doing what was right or wrong. They made a business decision based on facts and hopeful results, they changed when they felt pressure and brought on a major problem. I have never been in one of their stores, I have never killed a bear, nor have I hunted with a spear or bow, so my opinion is strictly on the right and wrong side or a business decision.

  • Ryan February 3, 2017, 11:09 am

    So here’s the deal. Not only are there far few animal rights activists than hunters and sportsmen in this country, but how much UA gear do you think they are buying? How many protesters, of any kind, have you seen wearing UA clothing? This is something to thing about. And it applies to all protesters, Why should a company give in to a small group of protesters when there are possibly 10 times as many people that support their cause? If your business model is working, don’t screw with it and F it up.

  • Jake Z February 3, 2017, 8:53 am

    Yeah bear is delicious, and to be lucky enough to actually be drawn in the lottery to hunt a bear is outragously lucky, to then do the animal the ultimate justice of taking it humanely in the MOST PRIMITIVE way possible is not only a hunters dream, but a WHOLE LOT of meat and the honor and distoction that comes with such an amazing feat.

    • Jonny5 February 10, 2017, 5:39 am

      Yeah, definitely. Killing a bear with a spear is by far the best way. I think though that to prove you’re a real hunter, you should stalk it and kill it with a fighting knife. Get in close. Close enough to smell his fear as you push a dagger up into his cerebral cortex.

  • Mike February 3, 2017, 8:02 am

    Glad I read this. Agree with an earlier post. Overpriced undies!

  • Roy February 3, 2017, 8:02 am

    Maybe I am the one missing the point but the article only proves to me that we can and should let corporate america know how we feel about their political ideologies through capitalism. This is a perfect example of how gun owners can espouse our opinions in a calm and very effective manner that the corporate top echelon will understand, If a store brand says licensed carriers are not welcome, we should all avoid that store brand and encourage our friends and family to do likewise. Under Armour wants to make a political statement (or it looks more like they want to cower in fear of the animal rights groups) then let them, but we should boycott the company. The “vocal minority” goes for the one-two punch and they are done and they do not have the staying power for the long game which is what we should be playing. Take our money and spend it with companies that have pro-gun policies and support ethical hunting practices. It may take a while, it is the long game, but over time corporate america will take notice. Maybe not when the first company fails, maybe not when the second fails, but as soon as a clear pattern starts to emerge, really smart and big investors will notice and the fall of the 4th or 5th company will be sudden and massive and newsworthy. That is a TKO and when we get that win . . . .

  • Jack C February 3, 2017, 7:24 am

    OMG! I had no idea you could face a MURDER charge for killing an animal – even if you have a hunting license. When is Mr. Bowmar’s sentencing? Was the bear MURDERED in a state that has the death penalty? If Mr. Bowmar is acquitted will the bear’s family pursue a trial in civil court? Did Mr. Bear have children?

    I like animals better than most humans, and I’m not a hunter. But when someone posts on a gun site that legally killing a game animal is MURDER, I’m a little suspicious. And if a licensed hunter can humanely kill an animal with a spear, I don’t see the problem!

    I also don’t have a problem with “punishing” a company that allows PETA moonbats to manipulate it. It sends a message to businesses that we “vote” with our wallets and have the right to choose where we shop!

  • Rob February 3, 2017, 7:08 am

    Mr. Day,
    You Sir, used the term “Murder” to describe the harvesting of an animal. This is erroneous, and could be the basis of your misguided analysis of this situation. Normally, I’m not one to correct others, however, I feel compelled to do so as you may lead others down the same fallacious path. I won’t quote Webster’s dictionary, I’ll go one step further, I’ll quote Black’s Law Dictionary for the legal definition that is not only recognized in the U.S., Europe but all of the FREE world. Emphasis on “free”.

    Murder; The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. with malice aforethought, express or implied, that is, with a deliberate purpose or a design or determination distinctly formed in the mind before the commission of the act, provided that death results from the injury Inflicted within one year and a day after its infliction.
    You Sir, are entitled to your own beliefs regarding “animal rights”, however, I am always amazed that folks of your persuasion usually willfully misuse terminology such as this to draw on the emotions and sense of “justice” to further your cause.
    Humans are murdered
    Animals are harvested
    It was a legal kill, in accordance with the law.

    • Roger February 3, 2017, 1:01 pm

      I agree with your comment. The use of “You, sir” is kink of hokey though and not needed. It’s old and contrived.

  • Rick Hammill February 3, 2017, 6:31 am

    First the libtards wanted your guns, now you can’t even hunt with a spear! No pleasing the antigunners. Forks are next… Under Armour will pay the price for revealing their true beliefs – that of placating libtards and abandoning their true customers. Libtards don’t buy UA to protest in the streets of NY.

  • Ty cobb February 3, 2017, 6:20 am

    Who cares!!

    • bison1913 February 3, 2017, 12:06 pm

      Apparently we do… That’s why we are posting and you are reading it!

  • gerald imbriale February 3, 2017, 5:34 am

    You simply can’t believe a 3 dollar drop in stock price is due to an eight month old bear video. The stock price drop is recent. The hunting line is a tiny percent of their overall business which is athletic shoes and apparel.

    • James February 3, 2017, 12:07 pm

      I don’t know what all may have caused a stock value drop, but your comment is shortsighted. A lot of law enforcement and military use Under Armour. Many of them are pro gun and hunt. So, even if the UA line does not cater to hunters in general, it does have a large market with those who would be sympathetic to the gun/ hunting issue.

    • bison1913 February 3, 2017, 12:10 pm

      The hunting line is not a tiny percent… you may call it a smaller percent but definitely not tiny. A hunters line is based on more expensive equipment and merchandise not just caps and shorts. Then you add the rest of the shooting industry and you have an entire merchandise category. Tiny… I think not.

  • David hamilton February 3, 2017, 5:27 am

    I used to buy lots of underarmor clothing and sporting items, for myself and as gifts. I know where some of that money they are not getting didn’t come from.

  • WillieNAz February 3, 2017, 3:19 am

    LOL, overpriced undies should go out of business.

    • jim February 3, 2017, 11:14 am

      Have to agree. Why anyone would buy designer underwear that no one would/should see being worn… everyone knows the price of everything and the value of nothing (or something like that) *citation needed.

      • Roger February 3, 2017, 1:06 pm

        You are correct. Somehow people got suckered in to wearing a brand and they are just advertising for that brand. But they think they are cool to have that UnderArmor logo on their shirt(s). I do not own a single piece of clothing from Under Armor, and never will. I just have no desire for it personally.. And really, why spend $30 for a shirt or more than $69 for a sweat shirt when they are no better than the ones I pay $5 and $10 respectively?

      • Greg February 3, 2017, 10:05 pm

        “A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.” Taken from Oscar Wilde’s novel, “The Picture of Dorian Gray.”

  • Steve Day February 3, 2017, 1:53 am

    What was the point of killing the bear? To skin it and make a rug? To cut off it’s head and mount it on a wall? Or just for the sake of killing a large mammal?

    There are hunters who kill to eat and others who kill for thrills. Under Armor should’ve made that distinction in their protest, but perhaps also those hunters who kill to feed their families should not be so sensitive to Under Armor’s protest against an archaic murder of a bear with a spear.

    • Mark Flores February 3, 2017, 6:03 am

      Idiot people eat bear

    • TJ February 3, 2017, 7:58 am

      If processed and prepared properly, Bear is delicious. Also if hunters don’t maintain #’s, they become a real problem to those who live near habitat.

    • Sam Meyer February 3, 2017, 9:11 am

      Please stop showing off your ignorance – there is no such thing as “murder” of an animal. While you may be one of those who just have to take your pets to the store for playdates, animals are NOT the same as humans, have no inherent rights, do not belong in business establishments of any kind, and cannot by definition be “murdered”.

    • Jimbo February 3, 2017, 11:11 am

      dude – probably the most retarded comment ever.

    • Just1Spark February 3, 2017, 3:54 pm

      Steven, The bear was actually a convicted felon, and was in violation of its parole. It was caught several times collecting rain water, and had to be dealt with.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend