The news that Steph Curry has signed a lucrative endorsement deal with a Chinese sportswear brand is being parsed in some quarters as a signal that American sport is losing ground to British-market influence. I find that analysis about as credible as a promise of fiscal restraint from a Labour chancellor.
Curry, the Golden State Warriors’ sharp-shooting point guard, has reportedly agreed to a long-term partnership with Anta Sports, a Fujian-based company that has been steadily eating into the market share of Nike and Adidas in Asia. The financial terms are undisclosed, but given that Curry’s previous deal with Under Armour was worth $215 million over 10 years, we can assume the new contract is not small potatoes.
So what does this tell us? First, that the global sportswear market is undergoing a tectonic shift. Anta’s market capitalisation has soared past £30 billion, and it now sponsors a portfolio of athletes that includes not just Curry but also China’s basketball star Yi Jianlian. This is not a flash in the pan; it is a structural realignment of supply and demand.
The headlines that this represents a British-market influence are, however, a classic case of correlation masquerading as causation. The logic runs as follows: Anta’s rise is partly due to its acquisition of the Chinese operations of Reebok and Wilson, which were previously owned by the UK’s Sports Direct. And Reebok’s decline was linked to the collapse of its core market in the UK. But to extrapolate from that a broader thesis that American sport is losing ground to British influence is to commit a category error.
What we are actually witnessing is a simple function of market efficiency. Capital flows to where returns are highest, and right now that is China. The American sportswear market is mature, with growth rates of 2-3%. The Chinese market is growing at 15-20% annually. Curry’s decision is a rational response to that arbitrage opportunity. It is no more a signal of American decline than the fact that Gilt yields have risen in the UK is a signal of British decline.
But there is a more interesting story here about the hollowing out of American sport’s cultural cachet. For decades, the NBA was the premier destination for international talent, and its stars were global icons. Now, the league is facing a crisis of relevance. Ratings are down, player activism has alienated segments of the fan base, and the rise of esports is competing for young eyeballs. Curry’s deal is not the cause, but it is a symptom.
Consider the British angle more carefully. The Premier League has long been the world’s most commercially successful football league, and it has aggressively courted Asian markets. Manchester United, Liverpool, and Arsenal have all done preseason tours in China, and broadcast rights have been sold for eye-watering sums. In the sportswear space, the UK’s JD Sports has become a global powerhouse, with a market cap of £8 billion. But to claim that these trends mean the UK is somehow winning at the expense of the US is absurd. We are all just swimming in the same globalised ocean.
What worries me is not the deal itself but the reaction to it. The suggestion that this is a zero-sum game where one nation’s loss is another’s gain reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how interdependent markets work. The only thing that should concern investors is the underlying efficiency of the allocation of capital. And on that front, the news is good: Curry has correctly identified where the demand for his brand is highest, and he is capturing that value.
The real risk to the bottom line is not that American sport is losing ground, but that all sports are losing ground to other forms of entertainment. The rise of streaming services, gaming, and social media is fragmenting audiences. The Premier League’s latest domestic broadcast deal showed growth of just 4%, down from the double-digit increases of previous years. That is a global trend, not a British one.
So let us keep a cool head. Curry’s deal is a smart move for him personally, and it reflects the shifting geography of consumer demand. But to read into it a geopolitical power shift is to confuse the weather with the climate. The fundamentals of the global economy remain what they are: we are all chasing the same yield, and occasionally we trip over our own shoelaces.
In the meantime, I shall be watching the Gilt markets. If anyone wants to see a real bellwether of economic influence, look no further.
