Shubman Gill’s Nike vest at Edgbaston sparks questions over BCCI-Adidas kit deal

New Delhi: Shubman Gill isn’t making headlines just for his runs, but for the black Nike vest he wore while declaring India’s second innings during the Edgbaston Test. The moment, captured on Day 4, showed Gill stepping out of the dressing room in the Nike-branded vest to call back the batters at 427/6. It quickly circulated online, drawing scrutiny over whether the attire breached the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) sponsorship protocols.

The moment coincided with India’s first-ever Test win at Edgbaston, a match Gill led as captain. Under his leadership, the team set England a daunting target of 608. Gill contributed significantly with the bat, scoring 269 in the first innings and 161 in the second, bringing his match total to 430 runs.

Adidas is currently the official kit sponsor for the Indian cricket team, having signed a five-year deal with the BCCI in 2023. The agreement, which runs through to March 2028, grants the brand exclusive rights to provide match-day kits, training wear, and travel apparel for India’s men’s, women’s, and age-group teams.

Given that Nike is a direct competitor, Gill’s appearance in a vest bearing its logo attracted attention, particularly from fans familiar with the commercial sensitivities of such partnerships. While some online responses were light-hearted, others flagged it as a potential breach of contract.

This is not the first time such an issue has surfaced. During the 2006–07 season, Sourav Ganguly faced penalties for wearing a Puma headband at a time when Nike was the official sponsor. In response, the BCCI issued guidelines advising players against sporting rival brand logos during official duties.

So far, the BCCI has made no statement on whether any action will be taken in Gill’s case. According to reports, the Adidas agreement does not explicitly cover innerwear, which may technically exempt the vest from being in violation.

According to the report, he is reportedly endorsed by Nike, which could explain his choice of attire. If that is the case, the incident may raise broader questions about how apparel protocols are communicated and enforced, potentially placing greater responsibility on the board rather than the player.