What if Nike just said, "f*%$ track, we just aren't giving to the sport anymore"...

Then what would change?

Other brands sponsor meets. Adidas is bigger globally and has significantly better shoes. Brooks and Saucony and even Hoka sponsor meets and athletes. New Balance is evolving successfully from the old lady walker shoe. C'mon, Is US track that relevant? How much sponsorship does a sport that the average denizen can afford to do need? Has the increased depth of US distance runners increased the hunt for medals? Can white people ever be talented enough to eclipse the talented juggernauts of the Rift Valley? Who will pay for EPO bill?

Nike makes some stylish woman's bras but other than their products... just so hard to describe how bad they are... the Jersey shore of sports brands???

I think it could inadvertently help. It would give other companies like Brooks, Skechers, Hoka, Newton, etc. more incentive to invest in the sport. There would no longer be a monopoly and every investment $ would go a lot further. It could also foster a healthier rivalry between athletes from these different sponsors/teams. Of course, there is currently no real "team" aspect to shoe sponsorships, but that could change if the monopoly was broken.

They don't give to the sport.

They invest to make money.

What would happen is they would make less money.

The big question is Phil Knight - he has tried to keep running at nike's center for decades - he is 77 now.

When he retires...it's not great for track funding. I suspect that is one reason USATF signed a long term deal with NIke - to try to ensure Nike's contined support after Knight is gone.

I have no idea if other shoe companies would step up if nike reduced sponsorship.

Won't happen. The reason why Nike did the long-term deal with USATF was to make sure the Nike swoosh was on every US Olympic T&F athlete from now until doomsday.

T&F itself is a small-time sport, but the Olympics is a big-time branding opportunity, T&F is still at the heart of the Olympics, and Nike is all about the brand.

Nike could certainly cut back on the number of individual athletes they sponsor, but they need to make sure enough money flows to US T&F athletes that the US ends up fielding competitive teams at the Olympics. [doesn't help the brand if the swoosh is mostly on also rans.]

So when a Brad Walker, a Meb, a Leo Manzano steps out of line, Nike simply cuts them loose - no need to deal with the headaches + they'll be back in the swoosh any time they compete for the national team.

agip wrote:

The big question is Phil Knight - he has tried to keep running at nike's center for decades - he is 77 now.

Not necessarily. The current CEO is actually Mark Parker [bio pasted below]. Track-guy wannabe while at Penn State if malmo is to be believed.

Mr. Mark G. Parker has been Chief Executive Officer and President of Nike, Inc. since January 2006. Mr. Parker is responsible for the growth of Nike Inc.'s global business portfolio, which includes Converse, Cole Haan, Exeter Brands, Hurley International and Nike Bauer Hockey. He served as President of the NIKE Brand at Nike, Inc., from March 2001 to January 2006. He has been employed by Nike Inc., since 1979 with primary responsibilities in product research, design and development. He served as Designer and Development Manager of Exeter, New Hampshire for Nike Inc., from 1979 to 1980. Other positions served at Nike Inc., by him are Manager of Advanced Product Design, Exeter from 1980 to 1981, Director of Design Concepts and Engineering from 1981 to 1982, Director of Footwear Design from 1982 to 1983, Manager of Running & Fitness Footwear Marketing from 1983 to 1985 and Head of Special Design Project Teams from 1985 to 1987. Mr. Parker served as Nike Inc.'s Divisional Vice President of Footwear Research, Design and Development from 1987 to 1988, Corporate Vice President of Research, Design and Development from 1988 to 1993, Vice President of Consumer Product Marketing from 1993 to 1998, Vice President and General Manager of Global Footwear from 1998 to 2001. Mr. Parker also served as President of The Nike Brand for Nike Inc. since March 2001 until January 2006. Mr. Parker has 27 years of extensive Nike experience to the job across a broad range of leadership roles, from product design and development, to marketing and brand management. He has been Executive Director of Nike Inc. since January 2006. He holds B.S in Political Science from Pennsylvania State University in 1977.

RancidCupnooodle wrote:

Adidas is bigger globally

Is is hard to take anything you wrote seriously when you lead with this.

Maybe they'll stop giving drugs to the sport.

Well, probably not.

It would be very similar to the 1980s when they pulled most of their money out of running to focus on basketball and Michael Jordan. Nike got their ass Nike by Reebok and Asics particularly. Nike lost tons of money and their stock plummeted. I personally would say good riddance. The other companies would take up the slack.

I hope they come back to cycling. They are missing out on so much $$$$. You wouldn't believe how big cycling is in the UK right now.

If they were to sponsor a British continental team they would get serious bag for your buck in advertising. Get the sweatshops producing cycling gear and they'll be rolling in money.

factmaniac wrote:

What if Nike just said, "f*%$ track, we just aren't giving to the sport anymore"...

We will make running shoes, of course, we kill it there, but we aren't throwing money at track meets, sponsoring athletes, nothing

West Virginia

That's like saying "what if John Gotti stopped giving money to the Ozone Park Boys and Girls club?" Everyone was much better off without him. Track and Field would be much healthier without Nikes corrupting influence. All pay to play agreements are negatives in the ledger. Nike entire history is about making money off of slave labor factories in Southeast Asia, and then buying gravitas through shady "partnerships" with athletic federations.

Wait a minute. How about everybody back up and contemplate the fact that Nike DOES put money into T&F meets and sponsor T&F athletes. Doesn't that mean it is profitable? When the Gouchers say they were intimidated and afraid to speak out, what are they saying? They were afraid of Salazar? That's absurd. He is just a coach. He's not Stalin. Furthermore both Gouchers could probably kick Salazar's ass if they wanted to.

Any intimidation would be the threat of losing a lot of money from Nike. That intimidation would come from much higher ups on the corporate ladder than Salazar. Salazar has a boss too.

It begs the question -what are the thoughts of Nike corporate execs on this? Has anyone thought to ask? I haven't seen any response.

Obviously you don't know anything about Nike, Ryan Foreman. Everyone I know who has ever worked on the Nike campus has said that people walk on pins and needles around Salazar. Do you really believe if Capriotti butted heads with Alberto, Capriotti would come out ahead? I even told Alberto that being feared by your collegues is not a healthy situation, for everyone involved. Alberto told me that yes he is aware that he's been unkind to a lot of people and was working on it, alluding to his near death experience and God. To me, that was the right thing for him to say.

One word:

Karma

He's now facing an FBI investigation brought on by WADA. I don't think they're going to be intimidated.

As for the people talking about what happens if Nike pulls out of track and field, they should be asking what happens if Nike doesn't pull out...and there continue to be these scandals, and, eventually, there isn't any track and field any more, because nobody wants to cover it, because nobody wants to sponsor it, because all anyone hears about regarding track is drugs.

Nike is a cancer that must be cut out, or the patient is going to die. Before we talk about the Russians, the Kenyans, and others, we need to clean our own house. Track and Field doesn't need Nike. There are very few athletes making a living in track anyway, and it doesn't cost that much to do the selection meets which is USATF's only charter under the Amateur Sports Act. Just get rid of them, under force of decertification, if necessary.

Doesn't Phil Knight also help finance the Nike Oregon Project out of his own pocket in addition to Nike corporate support? Also wondering if maybe Alberto has something over Phil if what malmo says is true--"that people walk on pins and needles around Salazar."

Just asking...

Alberto doesn't have anything on Knight. In the old days he would have been the plaid suit wearing owner of a xar dealership giving cars to SEC football players. Knight is the ultimate sports booster. He is less charismatic than Rupp. And if he wasn't showering people with his money no one would give a flying eff who he is.

Well, again. You are talking about Nike "colleagues". Colleagues are not bosses. Does Mark Parker, the Nike CEO, walk on pins and needles around Salazar? I don't think so. Or if he does, hell, why not just treat Salazar as the ultimate weapon for the U.S. We can insert him into Iraq where he will tell ISIS to drop their weapons. They will be so intimidated of him they will do it.But seriously, I'm well aware that Salazar can rub people the wrong way. He's freakishly obsessive. IMO, I think he is even insane. Nike should know this. It makes me all the more curious that Nike apparently doesn't have anyone overseeing Salazar. Maybe I just don't know how running groups work. But if Salazar is the coach, I would think there would be some equivalent of a GM whom athletes can go and take their gripes too. Or somebody who handles press relations. If Salazar is the coach/gm there is ultimately the owner who is investing the cash in NOP and would be looking after their investment. More to the point, Nike was putting up the money to sponsor the Gouchers. I don't know exactly what Nike should be doing or what their angle in all this is. But they seem weirdly absent. I have a hunch there is an interesting story there.

malmo wrote:

Obviously you don't know anything about Nike, Ryan Foreman. Everyone I know who has ever worked on the Nike campus has said that people walk on pins and needles around Salazar. Do you really believe if Capriotti butted heads with Alberto, Capriotti would come out ahead? I even told Alberto that being feared by your collegues is not a healthy situation, for everyone involved. Alberto told me that yes he is aware that he's been unkind to a lot of people and was working on it, alluding to his near death experience and God. To me, that was the right thing for him to say.

owners who invest won't do a thing because their thing is connected to their wife who works at the thing and the investor would rather avoid an investigation because his thing might come out.