{"id":413648,"date":"2025-11-16T03:06:18","date_gmt":"2025-11-16T03:06:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nba\/413648\/"},"modified":"2025-11-16T03:06:18","modified_gmt":"2025-11-16T03:06:18","slug":"under-armours-steph-curry-disaster-just-hit-the-ultimate-low","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nba\/413648\/","title":{"rendered":"Under Armour\u2019s Steph Curry disaster just hit the ultimate low."},"content":{"rendered":"

This is article is reprinted with permission from Sneaker History<\/a>, Nick Engvall\u2019s Substack about sneakers, culture, and the stories that connect what we wear to who we are.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s been 103 years since the Converse Chuck Taylor All-Stars were first released, and 103 years of brands getting it right and getting it wrong. They weren\u2019t the first pair of basketball shoes, but they are widely considered the starting point. It\u2019s been decades since sneakers were just shoes. They\u2019re symbols of power, taste, and belonging. And when a brand gets it wrong, the whole world feels it. This week, we witnessed one of the biggest failures in that entire history.<\/p>\n

Sneaker culture felt the tremor: Stephen Curry and Under Armour are done<\/a>. Thirteen years of hype and hope dissolve into disappointment, showing how brilliance can be wasted when culture is misunderstood. Under Armour\u2019s basketball business, including the Curry brand, generates a mere $100 million to $120 million annually. To put that in perspective, Nike\u2019s Jordan brand pulls in over $5 billion. Curry and Jordan were the faces of the game during their respective times. But that\u2019s not a gap\u2014that\u2019s the Grand Canyon.<\/p>\n

But what kills me is that this should have worked. This could have worked.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m saying this as someone who has a unique perspective on Under Armour\u2019s sneaker journey. My initials are literally on a pair of their shoes<\/a>, the Sole Collector Micro G Bloodline. Thanks to UA, I was at the ESPY Awards with Jacques Slade<\/a> in 2013 when Robin Roberts gave that epic speech<\/a>. I\u2019ve collected dozens of rare Under Armour player exclusives since it launched its basketball line. I watched them from the beginning, and I believed in what it was trying to build.<\/p>\n

Not to mention, when I was with Finish Line, we partnered with UA<\/a> to build a basketball court in the mall and had Stephen Curry participate in a 3-point contest with fans. This was before he had a signature Under Armour shoe and years before the Curry brand came to be. I was invested from the get-go.<\/p>\n

Its early design philosophy was reminiscent of those wild early 2000s AND1 shoes. I believe the company actually had designers from AND1 on the team. Those chunky, strap-heavy designs that seemed outlandish then? They\u2019d be absolutely perfect for today\u2019s Y2K-obsessed sneaker culture. The irony is painful. Under Armour was accidentally ahead of its time, then lost its nerve and tried to play it safe.<\/p>\n

When Curry signed with Under Armour in 2013, leaving Nike\u2019s $4 million annual deal for roughly the same money from UA, it was about opportunity, not cash. Curry saw himself as the face of something new, not just another athlete in Nike\u2019s stable. It was the right choice. And initially, it worked. Under Armour\u2019s footwear sales nearly doubled in some quarters. The Curry 1 launched in February 2015 with Jamie Foxx commercials. By 2016, analysts were projecting Curry would overtake LeBron James as the active player with the bestselling signature sneaker in America.<\/p>\n

Looking at it now, I don\u2019t think Under Armour ever understood what it had.<\/p>\n

\"Steph<\/p>\n

\u00a0Toshifumi Kitamura\/AFP via Getty Images<\/p>\n

Curry revolutionized basketball. He changed how the game is played, made the 3-pointer the most important shot in basketball, and led the Warriors to one of the greatest dynasties in NBA history. Four championships. Two MVPs. The greatest shooter who ever lived. His cultural impact transcended sports\u2014everyone from your nephew to your grandmother knows who Steph Curry is. I got an up-close look at how big he was when I was at StockX, working directly with the Cavaliers as they somehow stole one of Curry\u2019s championships from him. Even in Detroit and Cleveland, there were Curry fans.<\/p>\n

Yet somehow, Under Armour managed to make him uncool.<\/p>\n

Nothing exemplifies Under Armour\u2019s failure more than the infamous Curry 2 Low \u201cChef\u201d shoes from 2016, aka the Chef Curry Disaster. Released during the NBA Finals, these all-white atrocities became the most mocked sneaker in internet history. Twitter had a field day. They called them \u201cnurse shoes,\u201d \u201cdad shoes,\u201d \u201cthe official shoe of the Cheesecake Factory.\u201d One comedian said they looked like \u201cplain unflavored yogurt.\u201d The memes were ruthless. People photoshopped them onto retirement home residents, added crying Jordan faces, set them to the Seinfeld theme song. Why lean into Curry\u2019s \u201cnice guy\u201d off-court image when the man is a stone-cold killer on the court?<\/p>\n

The worst part? Curry himself was ready to wear them in Game 4 of the Finals, but according to <\/a>CBS Sports<\/a>, Warriors GM Bob Myers and his agent talked him out of it, citing ankle concerns. Even his own team knew they were a disaster.<\/p>\n

\"Steph<\/p>\n

Ezra Shaw\/Getty Images<\/p>\n

This wasn\u2019t a bad colorway. It was a fundamental misunderstanding of sneaker culture. Basketball shoes aren\u2019t just performance products; they\u2019re status symbols, fashion statements, cultural artifacts. Nike understands this. Adidas understands this. Under Armour thought it was making athletic equipment when it should have been making art.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s address the elephant in the room: the Kevin Plank problem. When Under Armour CEO Plank came out in support of Donald Trump, it didn\u2019t just hurt the brand politically. It revealed a deeper cultural disconnect. Sneaker culture is intrinsically tied to hip-hop, to Black culture, to progressive youth movements. Under Armour was trying to sell to a culture it fundamentally didn\u2019t understand or respect.<\/p>\n

The company kept talking about \u201cperformance DNA\u201d and \u201cproduct innovation\u201d while completely missing that young people don\u2019t buy basketball shoes to play basketball. They buy them to look good, to flex, to participate in culture. Under Armour was stuck in its apparel roots, having a conversation about moisture-wicking technology while everyone else was talking about hoops culture and identifying with the lifestyle.<\/p>\n

Curry\u2019s rise coincided with the explosion of social media, the Warriors becoming must-see TV, the cultural shift toward 3-point shooting that every kid in every driveway in America was trying to emulate. Curry should have owned the youth basketball culture. Every kid shooting 3\u2019s should have been doing it in Curry shoes, not Kobes or LeBrons.<\/p>\n

Instead, on the secondary market where sneaker culture\u2019s thermometer really lives, Curry shoes barely register. I\u2019m not saying the resale game is everything, but when StockX is selling 40,000 pairs<\/a> of Ja Morant\u2019s Nikes, and Curry\u2019s UA shoes don\u2019t even make a blip on the radar, clearly something is off track.<\/p>\n

Instead of trying to connect with basketball culture where it is, the company tried taking Curry away from the game to make lifestyle shoes. It says everything when Bloomberg<\/a> is writing about how misguided the direction of the Curry brand has been.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n Alex Kirshner
\n Baseball Is Compromised. What to Do Now Is Obvious.
\n Read More\n <\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Under Armour had all the pieces. It had the right athlete at the right time. It had initial momentum. Those first few Curry models actually sold well. They had a founder in Plank who was willing to spend money and take risks (or so it seemed). They even had decent technology\u2014the shoes performed well on court.<\/p>\n

What UA didn\u2019t have was taste. It didn\u2019t have cultural literacy. It didn\u2019t have the confidence to let Curry be Curry.<\/p>\n

So now Curry brand goes independent, though Under Armour will release the Curry 13 in February as a farewell. Curry owns the brand outright and can seek new partners. At 37 years old, with probably just a couple more prime seasons left, this could be his last chance to build something that outlasts his playing career.<\/p>\n

Kevin Plank, in the breakup announcement, said this separation lets \u201ctwo strong teams do what they do best.\u201d That\u2019s corporate speak for \u201cwe have no idea how to make cool shoes and we\u2019re tired of trying.\u201d<\/p>\n

The tragedy here is that Under Armour\u2019s failure with Curry might have set back the entire landscape of athlete endorsement deals. It proved that even transcendent talent can\u2019t overcome bad product, worse marketing, and disconnected leadership. It showed that the basketball sneaker establishment might be impossible to challenge.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I Need to Talk About the Weirdest Part of Epstein\u2019s Emails\u2014Besides, Uh, the Obvious
\n <\/a><\/p>\n


\n This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a Reason This Time Feels Different With Epstein and Trump. It\u2019s Right There in the Letters.
\n <\/a><\/p>\n


\n This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only<\/p>\n

The New Epstein Emails Humiliate One Trump Official More Than Most
\n <\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Sneaker Industry Has Been Around for 103 Years. It\u2019s Never Seen a Disaster Quite Like This.
\n <\/a><\/p>\n

As someone who believed in Under Armour\u2019s vision from the start, who wore its gear, who collected its shoes when nobody else cared, I\u2019m hurt to watch this. Those early Micro G and Anatomix models were wild, innovative, and different. They took risks. They had personality. Somewhere along the way, Under Armour got scared. It tried to be Nike instead of being itself.<\/p>\n

And the saddest part? Those chunky, strap-heavy early designs they abandoned? They\u2019d be fire in today\u2019s market. Every design trend they walked away from has come back around.<\/p>\n

Stephen Curry deserved better. Basketball culture deserved better. Hell, Under Armour deserved better from itself. This partnership should have changed the game. Instead, it\u2019ll go down as arguably the biggest missed opportunity in sneaker history, a cautionary tale about what happens when you sign a generational talent but lack the vision (or more likely, listening ability) to build something worthy of their greatness.<\/p>\n

Now Curry\u2019s free to build his own house. Let\u2019s hope whoever partners with him next understands that they\u2019re not just selling shoes\u2014they\u2019re selling culture, identity, and the legacy of one of basketball\u2019s greatest players. Because Stephen Curry changed basketball forever. It\u2019s a shame Under Armour couldn\u2019t change with him.<\/p>\n

Subscribe to Sneaker History<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Sign up for Slate’s evening newsletter.<\/p>\n