Shubman Gill, India’s newly appointed Test captain, etched his name into the record books by scoring an unprecedented 430 runs in a single Test match. But even as his batting dominated headlines, it was also his wardrobe choice on the sidelines that sparked a different kind of conversation.
On Day 4 of the second Test match against England, Shubman Gill was seen wearing a black Nike vest when he declared India’s innings, a noticeable break from the official Adidas-sponsored Team India kit. The image quickly went viral on social media, drawing attention for more than just his outfit.
The curiosity stems from Adidas’s ongoing five-year deal with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which began in June 2023 and runs until March 2028. Valued between Rs 250 crore and Rs 300 crore, the agreement makes Adidas the official kit sponsor for all Indian cricket teams during this period. In a high-stakes partnership like this, a player sporting a rival brand during official duties raises serious questions about sponsorship protocols and brand exclusivity, especially since Gill is a Nike brand ambassador.
This isn’t the first instance of a player being associated with a competing brand. When Adidas took over as Team India’s official kit sponsor in June 2023, Virat Kohli, who used to be the brand ambassador for Puma, continued to honour the terms of the team’s official apparel deal. Despite his endorsement, Kohli was never seen wearing Puma in on-field appearances. The internet is now abuzz with what many are calling a marketing masterstroke by Nike, gaining massive visibility simply by being associated with Shubman Gill, without spending a rupee on sponsorship with the BCCI.
(Trivia: Nike had been Team India’s official kit sponsor from 2006 to 2020)
In contrast, the situation places Adidas in a somewhat awkward position. Despite committing a premium sum to be the exclusive kit sponsor of Team India, the optics of a high-profile player publicly seen in a rival brand’s apparel during an official test match may not align with the brand’s expectations from such a high-value partnership.
While Shubman Gill could potentially face legal scrutiny for breaching sponsorship norms, the larger question is how Adidas should respond. Should the brand pursue a legal route to enforce its exclusive rights or take a more creative, brand-led approach that turns the moment into an opportunity?
Anup Sharma, a communications consultant, notes that incidents like these risk diluting Adidas’s brand visibility and undermining the value of its high-stakes sponsorship. He explains that national team sponsorships are not only expensive but are strategically crafted for exclusive brand association. So when a top player like Gill is seen in Nike apparel, it disrupts that alignment and could be viewed as ambush marketing.
He drew a parallel with the Winter Olympics of 2018, where KT Corporation was the official telecom sponsor. But SK Telecom, a rival company, ran a campaign called ‘See You in PyeongChang’, even though they weren’t an official sponsor. It highlights how unauthorised branding can confuse audiences and weaken the legitimacy of official partnerships. Sharma added that whether Adidas should respond publicly depends largely on the incident’s online traction. In today’s fast-moving media landscape, where memes and viral moments can quickly hijack brand narratives, strategic silence or subtle counter-messaging may prove more effective than open confrontation.
Lloyd Mathias, a business strategist and former marketing head at PepsiCo, HP, and Motorola, echoes a similar sentiment, emphasising that situations like these should be handled with sensitivity and discretion. According to him, publicly confronting a celebrity often does more harm than good, as it can amplify the issue and attract unnecessary attention. Unless the incident escalates significantly, a quiet, behind-the-scenes resolution is usually the most effective and strategic approach for the brand.
Advocate Aazmeen Kasad explains that the ability of a sponsoring brand to take legal action against individual team members endorsing competing brands depends entirely on the terms negotiated within the sponsorship agreement. “If the agreement explicitly covers such scenarios, the brand may have legal grounds to treat it as non-compliance,” she notes. “However, in the absence of such provisions, enforcing restrictions on individual endorsements may not be legally tenable,” she adds.
Authenticity or Just Visibility?
This incident also opens up a bigger conversation: Is a celebrity’s role to reflect genuine brand love, or are they just glossy billboards in motion? We often see stars endorsing OPPO or Vivo, only for their tweets to betray the truth: ‘sent from iPhone’.
The story’s no different in the auto world, smiling in mass-market car ads by day, but gliding out of luxury SUVs by night. The gap between what’s sold and what’s lived is widening, leaving us wondering: are we buying into the brand, or just borrowing the spotlight? Rathin Lahiri, Head of Marketing & CSR, SBI General Insurance, believes that a celebrity–brand relationship is fundamentally a two-way street. “The more consistently a celebrity demonstrates loyalty to the brand, especially in public the more valued they become in the brand’s eyes,” he explains.
He adds that such loyalty not only strengthens the association but also enhances the celebrity’s own brand value. In today’s landscape, most partnerships are tactical and time-bound, often tied to specific campaigns or product launches, which allows both parties to manage potential brand conflicts more easily.
However, Lahiri notes that in long-term associations, there’s always a risk of a celebrity being inadvertently seen with a rival brand, a scenario that, if repeated, could potentially weaken the credibility of the partnership.
A senior marketer from a beverage brand, that has a famous Indian cricketer as the face of the brand, tells us off the record that when a cricketer is under an endorsement agreement with them, strict contractual clauses prevent the athlete from engaging with or promoting any competitor’s products. He further explains how personal kit exemptions come into play, “There are several instances where athletes continue using products from their sponsors, regardless of team or tournament affiliations. For example, KL Rahul has been seen using a Red Bull-branded bat even when Kingfisher or Coca-Cola backs the team. Similarly, Virat Kohli continues to use an MRF bat, even during tournaments sponsored by CEAT or BKT. These are permitted under personal endorsement clauses that allow players to maintain longstanding brand associations.”
Samit Sinha, founder of Alchemist Brand Consulting, adds that today’s consumers are well aware that most celebrity endorsements are transactional; they don’t expect stars to promote brands out of genuine personal preference. Yet, these partnerships still work because a celebrity’s aura lends aspirational value to the brand. Mathias shares an example, “During my time at Motorola (2008–2011), we signed Abhishek Bachchan as a brand ambassador and ensured he genuinely used the Moto Razr, which was considered quite stylish then. I met him personally, and our team worked closely with him. He was often seen using the phone at airports and other public places, and people took notice. That kind of natural alignment goes beyond the commercials and brings real credibility to the brand.”
One of the reasons influencer marketing became a key part of brand strategy was the authenticity it once offered; creators genuinely used products before promoting them to their communities. But that space, too, has grown cluttered and transactional. As the lines between visibility and authenticity continue to blur, it will be interesting to see how brands navigate long-term celebrity associations and whether they can still make them feel real or not.
