20/ 100
F
OverallF0/100
Under Armour Men's Sport Utility Woven Shorts

Under Armour · Waterproof Sports Gear

Under Armour Men's Sport Utility Woven Shorts

F · High PFAS

Typical woven shorts with water-resistant treatment; PFAS status undisclosed.

Verdict: SkipWater-resistant finish likely contains undisclosed PFAS; nylon/polyester blend carries formaldehyde resin and azo dye risks typical of athletic wear. Requires careful laundering.

Under Armour's Sport Utility shorts likely use water-repellent coating finish on synthetic blend. Brand does not disclose PFAS presence or absence in water-resistant treatment, limiting assessment confidence.

The safe swap

Patagonia Men's 10" Quandary Shorts

Patagonia

Patagonia Men's 10" Quandary Shorts

100/100 safety

A

Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.

Material

woven nylon/polyester blend with water-resistant finish

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment

water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.

Hurts the grade

Category baseline

clothing is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

Hurts the grade

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

Hurts the grade

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

These shorts are a nylon/polyester blend with a durable water-resistant (water-repellent coating) finish applied to the outer surface. The water-resistant treatment is the primary concern: water-repellent coating coatings on textiles are conventionally applied using fluorinated compounds (PFAS-class chemistry), though Under Armour has not publicly disclosed whether this product uses legacy PFAS, newer alternatives, or paraffin-based systems. The nylon and polyester fibers themselves may carry residual formaldehyde from resin cross-linking in dyeing and finishing, and polyester is commonly dyed with azo dyes, which are regulated but present low acute risk at the consumer stage.

The brand's record and disclosure

Under Armour has not published a comprehensive PFAS elimination policy or transparency report comparable to outdoor brands like Patagonia or The North Face. The company maintains no public commitment to phasing out PFAS in water-resistant apparel, and product-level disclosures on water-repellent coating chemistry are absent. Under Armour has faced no major public recall or documented hazard dispute specific to this product line. The brand's silence on PFAS rather than explicit disclosure is the notable gap.

How it compares in its category

Athletic shorts with water-resistant finishes occupy a middle ground: they are less of a concern than heavy outerwear or tents (which require heavier water-repellent coating loads), but more of a concern than untreated cotton shorts. Mainstream athletic brands (Nike, Adidas, Under Armour) have not collectively moved away from fluorinated water-repellent coating, whereas some specialty brands now offer PFAS-free water-resistant alternatives using wax or silicone-based systems. For a performance-focused brand, Under Armour's stance is standard industry practice but not a best-in-class position.

If you buy it

Wash these shorts in cold water on a gentle cycle and air dry to minimize microfiber shedding and reduce wear on the water-repellent coating. Avoid dry cleaning and high heat, which can degrade the finish and potentially release volatile components. Replace when the water-resistant finish noticeably deteriorates (water no longer beads on the surface). If you are concerned about PFAS exposure, contact Under Armour directly to request water-repellent coating composition details before purchase, or consider PFAS-free water-resistant alternatives from brands with explicit phase-out commitments.

Beyond PFAS: other things we checked

Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”

Possible

Formaldehyde residue in synthetic textile finishing

Nylon and polyester require formaldehyde-based resin cross-linking during dyeing and finishing. Residual formaldehyde may be present but is typically low after manufacturing rinses; direct skin contact risk is minimal unless the garment is unusually poorly finished.

Possible

Azo dyes in polyester component

Polyester dyes often include azo-class colorants, which are regulated but permitted in most jurisdictions. Risk is negligible in normal wear; concern is mainly theoretical and applies to strong color lots.

Reported

Microfiber shedding from synthetic blend

Nylon and polyester garments shed microfibers during washing. These shorts, being close-fitting and frequently laundered, contribute to this established but low-individual-dose environmental and ingestion concern.

Likely

water-repellent coating degradation and unknown replacement chemistry

The water-resistant finish will degrade with washing and time. Restoring water-repellent coating via aftermarket treatments often involves PFAS or other unregulated fluorinated compounds; home re-treatment poses an uncontrolled exposure pathway.

Reported

Undisclosed chemical composition of water-resistant finish

Under Armour does not specify water-repellent coating chemistry on this product. While the finish is presumed to be a standard fluorinated system or proprietary alternative, the lack of transparency prevents informed assessment of which PFAS variant or substitute is present.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 35% confidence. It is not a lab result.

No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.

The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.

Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.

Safer alternatives in Waterproof Sports Gear

Patagonia Men's 10" Quandary Shorts

Patagonia

Men's 10" Quandary Shorts

nylon/polyester blend with water-repellent coating treatment

A
A
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS1 flag

Lower concern. Patagonia uses PFC-free water-repellent coating; verify MADE SAFE label on tag.

MADE SAFE (PFAS-free DWR verified on some styles)

Lab test found no PFAS

Reebok Men's Athlete Speed Shorts

Reebok

Men's Athlete Speed Shorts

Polyester mesh and nylon blend, standard athletic construction

D
F
PFASAll
D · Elevated3 flags

Lower concern. Standard athletic shorts without water-resistant coating.

Risky category by default

Patagonia Men's Home Waters Hybrid Shorts

Patagonia

Men's Home Waters Hybrid Shorts

Polyester blend with PFAS-free water-repellent coating finish

D
F
PFASAll
D · Elevated2 flags

Lower concern. Patagonia phased out PFAS-based water-repellent coating; verify current product line batch.

Bluesign

Waterproof or stain-proof treatment

More waterproof sports gear grades

How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.