Apparel spending in college sports keeps climbing, led by Penn State and Tennessee’s Adidas push

College athletics’ biggest apparel partnerships are getting more expensive, and the latest leaguewide snapshot shows why. CBS Sports’ look at the most lucrative apparel deals in college sports places Penn State near the top and points to Tennessee’s Adidas relationship as a standout example of brand money moving decisively toward football-first programs.

The report frames the market as a competitive bidding environment in which athletic departments are no longer treating apparel rights as a routine sideline arrangement. Instead, the partnerships have become part of the financial architecture for modern programs, tied to exposure, recruiting visibility, and national media reach. In that context, CBS notes that the overall cost to secure top college teams is rising as brands try to align themselves with the biggest names in the sport.

CBS also identifies a clear pattern in the power dynamic between major apparel makers. Adidas is singled out through its connection with Tennessee, described as an “anchor” example of the brand’s momentum, while Nike is described as the second major force in the apparel-deal hierarchy. Under Armour and Jordan also appear in the larger mix, indicating that the top tier is not only about one company, but about which brand can attach itself to a specific college brand identity at scale.

For Penn State, the practical value of a top-tier apparel contract is broader than simply outfitting uniforms. A leading apparel partnership supports merchandising, brand consistency across football and other sports, and revenue streams that can help a program sustain competitive operations. Penn State’s inclusion among the sport’s most valuable deals underscores how football programs with wide national followings can turn on-field attention into longer-running commercial value.

Tennessee’s Adidas relationship, as CBS portrays it, is a report of what brands are chasing. Tennessee is one of college football’s most visible brands, and an apparel partnership with that kind of national profile offers a platform for marketing around game days, recruiting recruiting cycles, and mainstream sports media. When the report characterizes Adidas’ surge through Tennessee, the implication is that apparel companies are willing to pay more when they believe the partnership can deliver sustained reach rather than short-term activation.

Even with the ranking as a useful guide, readers should treat it as a snapshot of deal value and not a full map of why each program wins its brand relationships. Apparel agreements can vary in structure, including how revenue is shared and what obligations sit behind the brand’s payments. The CBS list reflects money and prominence, but the underlying terms are what determine how much value a deal truly brings year to year.

What to watch next is whether the rising cost of these agreements continues to accelerate across the rest of the sport, especially as more programs seek to enhance their commercial footprints. If Adidas’s Tennessee example represents a successful formula, other high-profile schools could become more attractive targets, intensifying the competition among the major apparel brands. For college football followers, the bottom line is that what gets worn on Saturdays increasingly links to what schools can afford to build, retain, and market off the field.