"No one in the league is like, 'Hey yo, them Steph Currys was hitting'" - Channing Frye feels Under Armour failed Steph Curry
Channing Frye believes Stephen Curry changed basketball, but not the sneaker game. In a recent discussion, the former NBA sharpshooter argued that Under Armour has failed to translate Curry’s on-court revolution into true cultural cachet, bluntly noting that players around the league don’t talk about “those Currys” the way they do about other signature shoes.
At the heart of Frye’s critique is a disconnect between performance and perception. Curry’s line with Under Armour has produced technically sound basketball shoes, frequently praised for traction, support, and stability. Yet in an era where signature sneakers double as lifestyle statements, Frye suggests Curry’s models have rarely crossed over from the hardwood to the street.
That gap matters. Within NBA locker rooms, footwear is both functional gear and status symbol. Nike dominates that conversation, with Jordan Brand and Adidas carving out their own cultural lanes. When players and young fans think of must-have pairs, they tend to gravitate toward shoes that feel embedded in music, fashion, and social media moments. Curry’s sneakers, despite being attached to the greatest shooter ever, have not consistently occupied that space.
From a league perspective, it’s a curious paradox. Curry’s influence on how the game is played is undeniable: deeper threes, more spacing, and a generation of guards modeling their skill sets after him. Logically, his brand should be equally aspirational. Yet Frye’s comments highlight an ongoing perception that Under Armour never fully captured Curry’s charisma or style in a way that resonated broadly with NBA peers and trendsetters.
This is less an indictment of Curry than of branding strategy. Superstars now sit at the intersection of sport and culture, where storytelling, design, and lifestyle appeal are as critical as on-court performance. Frye’s blunt assessment underscores a growing sentiment that while Stephen Curry transformed basketball, his partnership has not transformed sneaker culture to the same degree, leaving unrealized potential for both player and brand.
At the heart of Frye’s critique is a disconnect between performance and perception. Curry’s line with Under Armour has produced technically sound basketball shoes, frequently praised for traction, support, and stability. Yet in an era where signature sneakers double as lifestyle statements, Frye suggests Curry’s models have rarely crossed over from the hardwood to the street.
That gap matters. Within NBA locker rooms, footwear is both functional gear and status symbol. Nike dominates that conversation, with Jordan Brand and Adidas carving out their own cultural lanes. When players and young fans think of must-have pairs, they tend to gravitate toward shoes that feel embedded in music, fashion, and social media moments. Curry’s sneakers, despite being attached to the greatest shooter ever, have not consistently occupied that space.
From a league perspective, it’s a curious paradox. Curry’s influence on how the game is played is undeniable: deeper threes, more spacing, and a generation of guards modeling their skill sets after him. Logically, his brand should be equally aspirational. Yet Frye’s comments highlight an ongoing perception that Under Armour never fully captured Curry’s charisma or style in a way that resonated broadly with NBA peers and trendsetters.
This is less an indictment of Curry than of branding strategy. Superstars now sit at the intersection of sport and culture, where storytelling, design, and lifestyle appeal are as critical as on-court performance. Frye’s blunt assessment underscores a growing sentiment that while Stephen Curry transformed basketball, his partnership has not transformed sneaker culture to the same degree, leaving unrealized potential for both player and brand.
