The business of sports aesthetics and apparel is one of the biggest moneymakers in the modern American sports landscape. Lines have been drawn and leagues have been divided in what appears to be an attempt to keep companies from fighting with each other for outfitting rights. Adidas has the NBA, Majestic has MLB and Reebok has the NFL and NHL. For the most part, all is quiet on the professional sports front.

In the college world, though, the NCAA has not mandated one specific outfitter the rights to its teams, but rather let the companies war over the schools with open bidding and mega-contracts.

The allure of college sports to major apparel companies is that they are closely associated with younger athletes. By signing a deal with schools all over the country, they aren’t just selling merchandise. They are trying to sell a new look for the youth of sports and create brand loyalty for the future of their products.

This competition over apparel in the college world – more specifically in college football – is creating a new sport culture where athletes are being individualized, and they care as much about their appearance as they care about how they play.

“Everyone has their own unique quirks,” said Trent Chesnut, head equipment manager for Illinois football. “There is a lot of time spent in the mirror on game day.”

Chesnut and his staff work from early in the morning until late at night cleaning, organizing and preparing all the different gear supplied to the football team by Nike.

“The only thing we have that isn’t Nike is the pads and the helmets,” Chesnut said, standing in front of a huge wall of Illinois game uniforms, pants and socks assorted by player. “It’s a great product. The kids love it … It’s all about the looks with the kids.”

Since 1997, the University of Illinois’ varsity sports have been outfitted by Nike, a company that puts so much of its stock in appealing to college and high school athletes.

Recently, the school renewed its contract with Nike to run through 2017. Although specific numbers weren’t available, the way the process works is that Nike gives the football team a dollar figure. The team then chooses a number of products it wants that fit within the price of the dollar figure, and Nike gives them to the team for free. If the team goes over in its order, then the University pays the difference.

So why would Nike give away millions of dollars of its products away for free?

Marketing.

As I stood in the football equipment room at Memorial Stadium, everything I looked at was covered in the Nike “swoosh” logo. On the Nike Speed TD – the basic cleat supplied by the company – the logo appears in six different places, including the bottom of the cleat. Who needs a logo on the bottom of a cleat?

In a picture of Juice Williams that appeared on ESPN.com, I could identify at least 15 clearly visible “swoosh” logos on Juice. Talk about effective advertising.

“How it works with Nike is that they want you to see our players and coaches wearing it, and then they sell it at a ridiculous price at the bookstore and sporting goods store,” Chesnut said.

Go into Follett’s Bookstore or Dick’s Sporting Goods, and you’ll see every kind of Illini gear imaginable with the “swoosh.”

Of course, all of this would mean little if Nike did not have a marketing campaign or theme behind it all. What is it trying to tell athletes? What is it trying to promote for the future?

Chesnut showed me an advanced catalog of the 2008 Nike football Illinois gear line that features its new marketing campaign. Nike calls it the Invincible Warrior. It is a collection of tribal-like symbols that highlight the different aspects of a player’s game, like strength or speed that make them different.

It’s clear that Nike is transforming football into an individual’s game. Over the years, it has put more and more emphasis on branding sweatbands, headbands, cleats and visors – all of which are pieces of equipment that can vary from player to player. The fact that its marketing campaign focuses on the Invincible Warrior concept instead of the idea of an Invincible Army says it all.

Nike is trying to individualize the athlete, and it is trying to tell athletes that if they want to stand out, then they should buy Nike.

Nike is not the only company taking this path, though. Other major college outfitters like adidas and Under Armor have similar campaigns that are targeting and marketing the importance of the individual athlete.

While this pales in comparison to other issues in sports, like steroids, it’s important to realize that there is a disturbing trend happening around us: Sports are becoming much more about appearance, style and the individual, and less about the team. Which begs the question, are athletes changing the sport culture, or is the sport culture changing the athletes?

Kyle Betts is a senior in Communications. He can be reached at [email protected]