At-home fitness startup Tonal raised $250 million in a new round of funding, giving the company a $1.6 billion valuation.

The wall-mounted system, which launched in 2015, uses advanced technology to replicate equipment, exercises, and weights found at brick-and-mortar gyms. 

The funding round was led by VC firms Dragoneer, Cobalt Capital, and Sapphire Ventures and also included former NFL quarterback Drew Brees, Wimbledon champion Maria Sharapova, WNBA champion Sue Bird, and boxing legend Mike Tyson. Amazon’s Alexa Fund and three-time NBA champ Steph Curry are long-time investors as well.

“We’re pouring a lot more capital into marketing and brand awareness, and we’re pouring a lot more capital into scaling our supply chain to get ready for the next phase,” CEO and founder Aly Orady told TechCrunch. 

The San Francisco-based company experienced a drastic increase in demand due to the at-home fitness boom during the pandemic. Tonal system sales increased 800% between Dec. 2019 and Dec. 2020. 

Tonal is now considering when to go public. “We’re going to IPO at a time when it’s best for the business because being a public company can be incredibly distracting,” said Orady. 

Lululemon, which acquired Tonal competitor Mirror for $500 million last summer, said that its connected fitness setup brought in $170 million in 2020. The company expects Mirror revenue to reach up to $275 million in 2021.

“Guests were seeking more convenient at-home options before COVID-19, and they will continue to seek these options post the pandemic,” said Lululemon CEO Calvin McDonald.

Sabrina Ionescu was the first Division I basketball player to record 2,000 points, 1,000 assists, and 1,000 rebounds over the course of her college career, and the former Oregon Duck has added another first to her résumé. 

The No. 1 draft pick will headline Nike’s new Greater Than franchise, a collection of high-performance basketball sneakers. Ionescu signed a multiyear deal with Nike last April.

The first shoe Ionescu will promote is called the GT Cut. Nike crafted the shoe with insights from a range of hoopers, including Ionescu and her Oregon teammates.

When the 23-year-old WNBA star was a senior, the Oregon Duck store and Nike released a unisex replica Ionescu jersey for $75. It sold out in less than 24 hours. She hopes to one day receive her own signature shoe.

“It’d be awesome for me to do it, or for any other player to have that platform, and have little girls showing up to basketball practice wearing a women’s shoe for once,” she said.

A report last year indicated basketball shoe sales are down for the fourth year in a row and represent less than 5% of the athletic shoe market, compared to 13% in 2014. Nike basketball’s revenue hit $1.5 billion in 2020.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the landmark college athlete compensation case, NCAA v. Alston.

If the NCAA wins, it may gain the ability to dismiss all future lawsuits that challenge its principles of amateurism. 

NCAA v. Alston specifically asks whether the Ninth Circuit Court correctly found that the NCAA violated antitrust law by limiting how many “non-cash education-related benefits” FBS football and basketball players could get.

Seth Waxman, arguing for the NCAA, began by trumpeting a decades-old legal argument the NCAA frequently touts: The NCAA’s product is competitive against professional sports because athletes are amateurs.

But to that defense, justices asked several questions, including: 

• What exactly is the NCAA’s definition of amateurism? 
• Do consumers really watch NCAA sports over pro leagues because they’re not paid? 
• Why shouldn’t courts scrutinize the NCAA for not paying their laborers — the athletes?

“Antitrust law should not be a cover for exploitation of the student-athletes,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

Shawne Alston’s lawyer, Jeffrey Kessler, argued that the NCAA faced the correct amount of scrutiny under antitrust law. He said the claim that the NCAA’s product would be unpopular if athletes were paid has been “repeatedly debunked.” The Acting U.S. Solicitor General also argued on the side of the athletes.

Justices pushed both on the question: Will a favorable ruling “open the floodgates” to dismantle the NCAA’s college sports model? The decision will likely be released by the end of June.

For more details, read this week’s edition of FOS College.