Corporate sponsorship: The shame is undeniable

These days it's hard to differentiate scandal from business as usual, but last week, the university missed a big one. In the Sept. 12 issue, The Diamondback published a letter signed by men's basketball coach Gary Williams, women's basketball coach Brenda Frese, football coach Ralph Friedgen and Athletics Director Debbie Yow, titled, "Defending Under Armour."

The letter does exactly that. It was written in response to an inane and uninspired letter on Sept. 9 from an alumnus who said he despises Under Armour, the athletic wear company with which the university recently inked a $17.5 million endorsement deal. The coaches' letter was a full-throated defense of the corporation, as the four co-authors cited many "benefits" of the new deal, which include "the undeniable advantage Under Armour will be providing the Terp teams for years to come."

This language seemed a little strange to me, as did the idea that these four busy people would come together to write an impassioned 334-word defense of an apparel company in response to a short quip from a former student. It all seemed a little unbelievable.

But it turns out the language the authors used wasn't exactly a coincidence. "The Advantage Is Undeniable" happens to be a trademarked slogan of the Under Armour corporation. Niels de Vos, chief executive of the Sale Sharks (a British rugby team) used eerily similar language when his team signed with Under Armour. "Our players fully appreciate the undeniable advantage that Under Armour apparel brings to their individual and collective performance," he said in a press release. Under Armour products - from football uniforms to sunglasses - are hailed by the company as presenting an "undeniable advantage." It's clear there's more here than a few coaches defending a product they like.

Although college athletes can't legally get endorsement deals, coaches are under no similar restriction. Naomi Klein writes in her 2000 book No Logo, "Nike pays individual coaches as much as $1.5 million in sponsorship fees at top sports universities … sums that make the coaches' salaries look like tokens of appreciation."

Our university, as a top sports school, is no exception. In 2004, The (Baltimore) Sun had to sue the university to obtain coaches' full pay packages. The university, after losing the suit, released the full figures. Friedgen's salary was $173,753, but including endorsements, bonuses, a car allowance and radio and TV fees (in 2004 he appeared in an Under Armour commercial), his total package was $762,000. Williams' salary was $202,991 and his total package was $743,391.

Yow said it best when the university signed its first Under Armour deal covering the football team. "There's nothing written in the contract that says any of the money goes to coach Friedgen," she said. "But, in our industry, it is the norm that money finds its way to the coaches." she said.

Considering the overwhelming personal interest coaches have in the Under Armour brand, asking them for athletic apparel advice is a lot like asking Aunt Jemima for pancake-topping suggestions.

What's clear is four influential and trusted university employees prostituted themselves out to a clothing company and had to defend the brand they're part of to the university community without disclosing their own fiscal interests.

This is shameful and contrary to the values of openness and full disclosure our university ought to promote. The coaches and Yow owe the university a sincere apology and a full disclosure of their ulterior interests when they make public statements. The advantage to the university would be undeniable.

Malcolm Harris is a sophomore English and government and politics major. He can be reached at harrisdbk@gmail.com.