See you later, Under Armour

Money seems to be the topic of the day at Clark and Addison, so who am I to fight the trend?

Under Armour (and for the record, I blame the superfluous "u" for all of this) came up a bit short when it came to yearly revenue and essentially told the Cubs that they can stop waiting for payment from them because it's not coming.

You'll remember that the Under Armour ads on the walls were the source of debate when they went up on the outfield doors last year. After bricks and ivy for years, the Cubs sold the rights to paint the metal doors and the howls about the tradition of the game being in peril began.

Well, it shouldn't be an issue any more. From the Sun-Times:

Under Armour, in exchange for marketing benefits, agreed to give the Cubs $10.8 million to be the “Official Performance Brand” of the team from the 2009-13 seasons, according to the suit.

However, Under Armour's year-end earnings were “lower than expected and did not meet industry expectations,” the suit said. The company’s stock fell 15 percent and according to the suit, Under Armour expects its 2008 income to be $10 million less than 2007's.

When executives realized their financial situation in December, the Cubs claim they breached the contract and told the team the $10.8 million would not be coming.

Ummm... Can they do that? Because I can't do that.

More surprising is the line, "The suit asks a federal court to prohibit Under Armour from disregarding its agreement with the Cubs." I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like Under Armour has opted for the, "Uh, yeah, dude. I'm not paying you back for that," defense.

Under Armour! The deadbeat college roommate of the sports apparel world!

(Image from MouthPieceSports.com)