Last night's resignation of UA's SVP footwear is a near-term casualty of a meaningful growth offensive started six months ago. If the market shoots before it thinks (which it is very good at doing), UA is a great oppty. Heck, it's a great oppty anyway. Here's Q&A on the topic...
Was I surprised that Raphael Peck, SVP of Footwear at UnderArmour resigned? No. Kevin Plank (CEO) sent a clear message earlier this year that the footwear org needed more firepower to go from 'good to great.' This was clear in my mind for the past year, was reaffirmed with org comments in 1Q, and confirmed during my visit to UA's HQ 2 weeks back.
Is this a signal that footwear is underperforming at Under Armour? No.
C'mon McGough...are you sure? Yes, I am sure.
Does this mean that there will be transitional pains? Yes - but they did not start last night. They started early this year when the company told him that more firepower was needed up top. That's when the management transition REALLY began.
What do I think about the bench at UA? When I had Plank and new President David McCreight in the room at the same time, I put them on the spot and asked what David would be judged on at the end of the year. Without hesitation, David said "That's easy... " and then like two of the Hanson Brothers from Slapshot "Building The Best Team Possible."
What does this mean for the P&L? Near term - no impact. Long term, to the extent that a higher-end footwear-geared mgmt team is running the show in that product area it should make it easier to model UA becoming a real player in the space. Remember, share today is >1%. If it can get to an Asics, Reebok, or Puma level, we're talking an incremental $500mm in revs (40% north of where it is today). I have a very high degree of confidence we'll see that.