Publicity stunt or is this legit?
http://www.flotrack.org/article/39115-run-gum-files-lawsuit-against-usoc-and-usatf
Publicity stunt or is this legit?
http://www.flotrack.org/article/39115-run-gum-files-lawsuit-against-usoc-and-usatf
Their blog says they filed a case, but the link to the press release and complaint only gets a 404 page not found.
Everything NS does is a very calculated publicity stunt. I don't mean this in a bad way necessarily, this is exactly why he is more marketable to sponsors, but absolutely every move is planned out ahead of time through a thorough cost/benefit analysis. Skipping the world championships because of USATF/Nike? Sure, he missed on a race, but Brooks got tons of positive publicity in all forms of media (FB/twitter, but also major newspapers like the WSJ), and Nike got an equal amount of negative publicity in all of those same places. Very smart, I don't disagree with that, but also the definition of a publicity stunt, and this certainly is too.
Confirmed by Outside magazine:
http://www.outsideonline.com/2049736/nick-symmonds-sues-us-olympic-committee
To answer OP's question: Yes, it is a publicity stunt and yes, it is legit.
I wonder who the unnamed company is???
Trollololol
And now picked up by Sports Business Daily and SI:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/SB-Blogs/On-The-Ground/2016/01/RunGumLawsuit.aspx
SI also has a copy of the complaint, filed in federal court in Oregon, Eugene division-
Any lawyers who want to comment on how strong they think the antitrust claims are?
Never heard of Run Gum before. It worked. I may order some now.
Having read the complaint now, it describes the apparel and equipment manufacturers whose logos can be worn during the trials as "unnamed co-conspirators." Does this include Brooks? That must be a little awkward for Nick.
While I am glad NS made the stance last fall the way he did I feel it was a publicity stunt.
This however is huge and very important for the sport. If this sport is going to grow there needs to be opportunities from all directions for the athletes to gain sponsorship. NS had 20 athletes at the 2015 US Champs in their uniforms and they paid for travel expenses and a small stipend. This may be small, but it was more than anybody else was offering and it allowed those folks to get their and compete.
I hope him all the best and hope someday we can have multiple logos on jerseys and finally get some of that corporate sponsorhips TF is seriously lacking. Why doesn't Ashton Eaton have a Coke, Ford, McDonalds logo on his jersey?!??!?!??! There needs to be big changes but I understand each small step moves us closer to that dream.
Nike is NOT going to be happy about his. Their monopoly on controlling USATF isn't bigger than the court system in American and it's starting to erode thanks to guys like NS.
Steph is goin to sic ex-Marine Lloyd Crowe on Nick's ass.
Andrewww wrote:
Publicity stunt or is this legit?
False dichotomy.
The story has been picked up by USA Today. USATF declines comment, of course.
It will be interesting to see this play out. Get your popcorn now!
I gotta question: who pays for all the famous bucketloads condoms used at the Olympics, and shouldn't there be advertising/product placement there? I know RIo is strapped for budget, maybe they can be the first....
I think a big issue with this is that adidias, Nike, Brooks, New Balance all make/market apparel (i.e. the uniforms).
Run Gum is a gum.
If the suit is upheld, look for Nascar type sweats/uniforms/ etc.
The big Q is whether $BILLION companies who have been dissed by USOC will join in the suit or file seprate lawsuits. Ford, Chevron, Adidas, Wal Mart, Toyota, US Armed Services, Hyundai, are just a few I know who are angry at USOC.
Professional Journalists have verified the story. It's for real.
Any Which Way But Loose wrote:
I think a big issue with this is that adidias, Nike, Brooks, New Balance all make/market apparel (i.e. the uniforms).
Run Gum is a gum.
If the suit is upheld, look for Nascar type sweats/uniforms/ etc.
Reading the lawsuit, they say they are not arguing about the size and location requirements for logos, only that the permitted sponsors are limited to shoe and apparel companies.
However, you are right that once the door is open, the logical next step might be to change the size and location requirements. It would certainly help athletes looking for more sponsors because there's so little room permitted on uniforms for a logo.
They got Michael Hausfield to represent them. His firm did the lawsuits against the NCAA for using players' images/likeness in video games without compensation. He won against the NCAA, but it is on appeal. He got a big settlement with the video game companies. He is a high profile lawsuit guy.
This is interesting stuff. The argument is that USATF's ban on having athletes wear anything identifying a non-apparel sponsor is a group boycott because the title sponsors conspire with USATF to keep out competitors. The lawsuit does not challenge USATF rules on the size, placement and quantity of sponsors on athlete's clothing/gear.
I would assume that USATF enters into sponsorship agreements that obligate it to restrict participants from displaying anything other than sports apparel companies. BMW does not want to have Emma Coburn show up with a Mercedes Benz logo on her top, but does not care if she has a New Balance logo.
USATF will probably argue that the restraint is necessary to be able to raise the funds from sponsors needed to put on its races. The Olympic Trials are a competition to be part of the US Olympic team. Essentially, the athletes at the trials are not competing for individual prizes, but for membership on the US Olympic team. So, they are basically joining the team at the trials and get cut if they are not top three in their event. Thus, they are obligated to follow the USATF/USOC rules. That is just a guess.
Publicity stunt or not, good on Nick Symmonds for continuing to agitate on this subject. Fight the powah, ya bastids!
The complaint does not challenge the size and location requirements because a court would likely find those to be reasonable restrictions with some pro-competitive purpose - i.e. Nike paid a bunch of money for the primary sponsorship rights, and that primary sponsorship money will only make economic sense in exchange for some limitation on the size/number/location of other sponsors, particularly in the context of a televised event.
By contrast, the exclusion of non-apparel companies from the market for secondary sponsorship is pretty clearly anti-competitive. I can't think of a legitimate pro-competitive reason for that kind of restriction. Instead, it seems quite likely that track & field is such a small market that other potential sponsors (e.g. car companies, CPG companies) have been fine sitting on the sidelines without raising a stink about collusion between Nike et al. and the governing bodies. Obviously this has been way too small a market for the antitrust regulators to care about. Good for Run Gum for forcing the issue.