By analyzing the decrease in gross margin, economists can conclude that Under Armour directly followed the law of supply which is defined by Mateer (Mateer 2016). It states that the quantity supplied of a good rises, when the price of the good rises. When the company was faced with the liquidation of Sports Authority, it had to increase costs in apparel and footwear, which then increased the quantity supplied of the apparel and footwear. The increase in quantity supplied can be seen through the rising sale percentages previously mentioned. The reason Under Armour was able to still increase sales, while increasing costs helps explain and show how rapidly the company is expanding. The company’s footwear market is not as large as Nike or Adidas, …show more content…
A journalist, Sara Germano, from the The Wall Street Journal reported (Germano 2016) that foreign revenue increased by 68% between 2015 and 2016. Moving back to the U.S., Under Armour is always looking for opportunity to grow. Its newest growth development has been launching the new line of clothing named, “Under Armour Sportswear.” This new line of clothing is supposed to be casual and appeal to new, and different consumers. The line of clothing was placed in Kohl’s stores nationwide. More opportunity presented itself to the company when the toy store, FAO Schwartz, closed. The toy store was located in one of the most expensive commercial real estate properties on Fifth Avenue in New York City. In 2019, Under Armour expects to put a store there, which should attract many consumers. All of these opportunities, such as increasing its footwear collection, overseas expansion, spreading the name into more retail stores, and moving to expensive high demand real estate properties, help increase the supply of the company. Under Armour has not been faced with any resource constraints nor does it have any