Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES From time to time, the Company is involved in litigation and other proceedings, including matters related to commercial and intellectual property disputes, as well as trade, regulatory and other claims related to its business. Other than as described below, the Company believes that all current proceedings are routine in nature and incidental to the conduct of its business. However, the matters described below, if decided adversely to or settled by the Company, could result, individually or in the aggregate, in a liability material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In re Under Armour Securities Litigation On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the "District Court") were consolidated under the caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). On November 6 and December 17, 2019, two additional putative securities class actions were filed in the District Court against the Company and certain of its current and former executives (captioned Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03209-RDB ("Patel"), and Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03581-RDB ("Waronker"), respectively). On September 14, 2020, the District Court issued an order that, among other things, consolidated the Patel and Waronker cases into the Consolidated Securities Action. The operative complaint (the Third Amended Complaint or the "TAC") in the Consolidated Securities Action, was filed on October 14, 2020. The TAC asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), against the Company and Mr. Plank and under Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Mr. Plank. The TAC alleges that the defendants supposedly concealed purportedly declining consumer demand for certain of the Company's products between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter of 2016 by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company's performance and future prospects and by engaging in undisclosed and allegedly improper sales and accounting practices, including shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly to appear healthier. The TAC also alleges that the defendants purportedly failed to disclose that the Company was under investigation by and cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") since July 2017. The class period identified in the TAC is September 16, 2015 through November 1, 2019. Discovery in the Consolidated Securities Action commenced on June 4, 2021 and is currently ongoing. On July 23, 2021, the Company and Mr. Plank filed an answer to the TAC denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses to the claims asserted in the TAC. On December 1, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking, among other things, certification of the class they are seeking to represent in the Consolidated Securities Action. On September 29, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the Consolidated Securities Action are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. State Court Derivative Complaints In June and July 2018, two purported stockholder derivative complaints were filed in Maryland state court (in cases captioned Kenney v. Plank, et al. (filed June 29, 2018) and Luger v. Plank, et al. (filed July 26, 2018), respectively). The cases were consolidated on October 19, 2018 under the caption Kenney v. Plank, et. al. The consolidated complaint in the Kenney matter names Mr. Plank, certain other current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors, certain former Company executives, and Sagamore Development Company, LLC ("Sagamore") as defendants, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The consolidated complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste claims against the individual defendants and asserts a claim against Sagamore for aiding and abetting certain of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The consolidated complaint seeks damages on behalf of the Company and certain corporate governance related actions. The consolidated complaint includes allegations challenging, among other things, the Company's disclosures related to growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products, as well as stock sales by certain individual defendants. The consolidated complaint also makes allegations related to the Company's 2014 purchase from entities controlled by Mr. Plank (through Sagamore) of certain parcels of land to accommodate the Company's growth needs, which was approved by the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors in accordance with the Company's policy on transactions with related persons. On March 29, 2019, the court in the consolidated Kenney action granted the Company's and the defendants' motion to stay that case pending the outcome of both the Consolidated Securities Action and an earlier-filed derivative action asserting similar claims to those asserted in the Kenney action relating to the Company's purchase of parcels in Port Covington (which derivative action has since been dismissed in its entirety). Prior to the filing of the derivative complaints in Kenney v. Plank, et al. and Luger v. Plank, et al., both of the purported stockholders had sent the Company's Board of Directors a letter demanding that the Company pursue claims similar to the claims asserted in the derivative complaints. Following an investigation, a majority of disinterested and independent directors of the Company determined that the claims should not be pursued by the Company and informed both of these purported stockholders of that determination. In 2020, two additional purported shareholder derivative complaints were filed in Maryland state court, in cases captioned Cordell v. Plank, et al. (filed August 11, 2020) and Salo v. Plank, et al. (filed October 21, 2020), respectively. The complaints in the Cordell and Salo cases name Mr. Plank, certain other current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors, and certain current and former Company executives as defendants, and name the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaints in these actions assert allegations similar to those in the TAC filed in the Consolidated Securities Action matter discussed above, including allegations challenging (i) the Company's disclosures related to growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products; (ii) the Company's practice of shifting sales between quarterly periods supposedly to appear healthier and its purported failure to disclose that practice; (iii) the Company's internal controls with respect to revenue recognition and inventory management; (iv) the Company's supposed failure to timely disclose investigations by the SEC and DOJ; (v) the compensation paid to the Company's directors and executives while the alleged wrongdoing was occurring; and/or (vi) stock sales by certain individual defendants. The complaints assert breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste claims against the individual defendants. These complaints seek damages on behalf of the Company and certain corporate governance related actions. Prior to the filing of the derivative complaints in these two actions, neither of the purported stockholders made a demand that the Company's Board of Directors pursue the claims asserted in the complaints. In October 2021, the court issued an order (i) consolidating the Cordell and Salo actions with the consolidated Kenney action into a single consolidated derivative action (the "Consolidated State Derivative Action"); (ii) designating the Kenney action as the lead case; and (iii) specifying that the scheduling order in the Kenney action shall control the Consolidated State Derivative Action. On December 20, 2021, the court issued an order dismissing the Consolidated State Derivative Action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-507 without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to reinstate the action. In September 2022, the Consolidated State Derivative Action was reopened, with a docket entry indicating that it had been closed in error. Also in September 2022, the court issued an order striking the appearance of Kenneth W. Ravenell as counsel for Kenney and warning that if new Maryland counsel has not entered an appearance within fifteen days after Kenney’s receipt of such notice, the case might be dismissed. On October 19, 2022, the court dismissed the Kenney action and ordered that the Kenney action and all consolidated cases be closed. On October 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the order of dismissal. That motion is currently pending. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Consolidated State Derivative Action are without merit and intends to defend this matter vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of the outcome of this matter. Federal Court Derivative Complaints In July 2018, a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the District Court, in a case captioned Andersen v. Plank, et al. The complaint in the Andersen matter names Mr. Plank, certain other current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors and certain former Company executives as defendants, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the individual defendants, and seeks damages on behalf of the Company and certain corporate governance related actions. The complaint includes allegations challenging, among other things, the Company's disclosures related to growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products and stock sales by certain individual defendants. In September 2020, two additional derivative complaints were filed in the District Court (in cases captioned Olin v. Plank, et al., and Smith v. Plank, et al., respectively). On November 20, 2020, another derivative complaint was filed in the District Court, in a case captioned Viskovich v. Plank, et al. The complaints in the Olin, Smith, and Viskovich cases name Mr. Plank, certain other current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors, and certain current and former Company executives as defendants, and name the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaints in these actions assert allegations similar to those in the TAC filed in the Consolidated Securities Action matter discussed above, including allegations challenging (i) the Company's disclosures related to growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products; (ii) the Company's practice of shifting sales between quarterly periods supposedly to appear healthier and its purported failure to disclose that practice; (iii) the Company's internal controls with respect to revenue recognition and inventory management; (iv) the Company's supposed failure to timely disclose investigations by the SEC and DOJ; and/or (v) the compensation paid to the Company's directors and executives while the alleged wrongdoing was occurring. The complaints assert breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, and/or corporate waste claims against the individual defendants. The Viskovich complaint also asserts a contribution claim against certain defendants under the federal securities laws. These complaints seek damages on behalf of the Company and certain corporate governance related actions. On January 27, 2021, the District Court entered an order consolidating for all purposes the Andersen, Olin, Smith and Viskovich actions into a single action under the caption Andersen v. Plank, et al. (the "Federal Court Derivative Action"). In February 2021, counsel for the Smith and Olin plaintiffs, on the one hand, and counsel for the Andersen and Viskovich plaintiffs, on the other hand, filed motions seeking to be appointed as lead counsel in the Federal Court Derivative Action. These motions are currently pending. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Federal Court Derivative Action are without merit and intends to defend this matter vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of the outcome of this matter. Contingencies In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 450 “Contingencies” (“Topic 450”), the Company establishes accruals for contingencies when (i) the Company believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and (ii) the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate is a range, the Company will accrue the best estimate in that range; where no best estimate can be determined, the Company will accrue the minimum. As of September 30, 2022, the Company has estimated its liability and recorded $20 million in respect of certain ongoing legal proceedings summarized above. The timing of the resolution is unknown and the amount of loss ultimately incurred in connection with these matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amount accrued for these matters, and the Company expects a portion of the loss, if any is incurred, to be covered by the Company’s insurance. Legal proceedings for which no accrual has been established are disclosed to the extent required by ASC 450. From time to time, the Company’s view regarding probability of loss with respect to outstanding legal proceedings will change, proceedings for which the Company is able to estimate a loss or range of loss will change, and the estimates themselves will change. In addition, while many matters presented in financial disclosures involve significant judgment and may be subject to significant uncertainties, estimates with respect to legal proceedings are subject to particular uncertainties. Other than as described above, the Company believes that all current proceedings are routine in nature and incidental to the conduct of its business. However, the matters described above, if decided adversely to or settled by the Company, could result, individually or in the aggregate, in a liability material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.