Symmonds won't sign contract requiring him to wear Nike at all team functions, threatens to sue if USATF kicks him off WC team

Lenny Leonard wrote:

..., when you sign on to compete at the World Champs or the Olympics, you are representing:

1. Nick Symmonds

2. The USA

For that time, you are not a Brooks athlete or a Run Gum athlete. You are an individual and a citizen of that country.

So you are saying that he is a citizen of Nike? And so is the entire national team.

As much as Nike might like the idea (no more USADA, just NikADA?), your logic doesn't give anyone an obligation to wear Nike.

The thing is, Nike athletes were pioneers of screwing the official sponsor out of their TV exposure. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-08-09/sports/1992222100_1_reebok-nike-jordan-put

Once again another stupid Symonds PR stunt here. How many USA world teams has he been on and this wasnt an issue before but now it is. This has always been the rule that you must wear the gear. Like Rojo said it so everyone looks the same you are part of a team. Can you picture if everyone wore what ever they wanted, people would look like bums and you wouldnt know what country they are on. He has a choice to go to the team camp, if he doesnt want to wear the gear then dont go to the camp and you can pay for your own camp then nick. No one made you take this team you choose to represent the USA, I am sure many others would be proud to wear the USA gear. So will he do the same stunt next year if he makes the olympics, because as an olympic athlete you must wear the gear they give you everyday over there at the games. He;s just ticked he got dropped by Nike and has to always complain about it, even though for years he got a pay check from them and never had an issue with them. Grow up and act like an adult not a clown.

In sports some items are considered "technical" items and are exempt from the clothing rules. Shoes in track would fall under that category just as bikes do in cycling and swimsuits in swimming.

Some goofy things happen with sponsorships. For instance, Gatorade was once a USA Cycling sponsor. The athletes had to use Gatorade water bottles but could put whatever they want in them. Fluids were considered "technical" items. A warm up suit would not fall into that category.

Shows how far up each others ass Nike and USATF are. There is no way USATF should have agreed to allow any major shoe company let lone Nike as their official apparel outfitter. Talk about conflict of interest. There are plenty of smaller apparel only brands which make great technical kit and could have been contracted with. Sugoi, Pearl Izumi, Tribe Sports, Sport Hill could have been a great choice if it had to be a USA brand.

This should have been seen coming - - once Nike has their financial foot in the door, then they direct everything from uniforms to who is on the team, etc. BS

I didn't see the Dream Team Nike folk getting this kind of crap when they covered the Reebok logo with a towel or whatever and did not wear the Reebok footwear at the medal ceremony. I hope Nick follows through.

yorkie wrote:

Nick has turned into that crazy ex-girlfriend.

Turned into? Come on: Before Nick was the crazy ex, he was the crazy girlfriend.

I love the guy, but he's as mad as a March hare. That's why we love him.

If Symmonds ends up being booted for this, let's have a T&F boycott of Nike products. Customers have power if they work together.

NJ Possible wrote:

Star wrote:

If Adidas invests $200m to sponsor James Harden, you think they would lobby hard to prevent him from wearing only Nike off the court at the Olympics or something.

It really is insane that Adidas offered to pay one athlete nearly as much as Nike bought USATF for for 23 years. TWENTY THREE YEARS! Honestly Nike bought an entire sport for a song.

These people need to shut up. If Nike was getting such a 'song' of a deal, the other major companies would've stepped in and driven the bid upwards.

No more Dream Team comparisons. The least famous member on that team is still more well-known than all but a couple track athletes ever. But, you'll notice Jordan didn't make a scene about having to wear Reebok, he just shut up and competed. Which is what Symmonds needs to do.

I don't really have anything to say about the uniforms, but I will say that when we signed my 4-year-old son up for soccer this summer, he got a Gatorade bottle, three 32-oz refill packs and a towel.

Hahahahaha.

I am not kidding. But I'd be crazy to let him drink that red dye, HFCS crap and he isn't using the BPA bottle, either. I don't want him growing man boobs or turning into Caitlin Jenner.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/tritan-certichem-eastman-bpa-free-plastic-safe

I will let him use the towel though.

Nice use of the '. . . mad a March hare' expression.

The letter says "Accordingly, please pack ONLY Team USA, Nike or non-branded apparel and be sure to bring your team USA gear"Rojo they literally uppercase and underline the ONLY in the letter to to the athletes to say if you aren't wearing Nike clothes it better not have a logo on it at all. That isn't him making something up or taking a message out of context. That is literally what the agreement says... If you are told to not pack a single non Nike piece of clothing than that means you are only allowed to wear Nike clothing. I've heard how crazy USATF can get from athletes that have competed for team USA at multiple functions and they tell you to only been seen wearing USATF clothing while on the trip. You aren't supposed to EVER wear non Nike clothing once you board that plane to the event and until you return.

It's funny that so many people are using basketball as an example.

The NBA's official apparel supplier (uniforms, warmups, practice gear, etc.) is adidas. So even if you have an endorsement deal with Nike, in EVERY game and EVERY practice and EVERY locker room interview you're wearing your competitor's logo. And there are no complaints.

hypebeast wrote:

NJ Possible wrote:

It really is insane that Adidas offered to pay one athlete nearly as much as Nike bought USATF for for 23 years. TWENTY THREE YEARS! Honestly Nike bought an entire sport for a song.

These people need to shut up. If Nike was getting such a 'song' of a deal, the other major companies would've stepped in and driven the bid upwards.

No more Dream Team comparisons. The least famous member on that team is still more well-known than all but a couple track athletes ever. But, you'll notice Jordan didn't make a scene about having to wear Reebok, he just shut up and competed. Which is what Symmonds needs to do.

You do realize that USATF didn't go out and ask for a single bid before signing a 24 year deal with Nike right? They signed over a year in advance before the current deal ended to prevent that situation from happening. We will never know if Adidas or other sports company would have been willing to pay more for the USATF sponsorship. You can thank the brilliant leaders at USATF for signing a 24 year contract without asking for competing bids.....

Cant believe everyone takes this so serious. Its obvious this is just a marketing campaign to promote his new Training Log App Sweat ! He will race worlds no doubt

three stripe man wrote:

It's funny that so many people are using basketball as an example.

The NBA's official apparel supplier (uniforms, warmups, practice gear, etc.) is adidas. So even if you have an endorsement deal with Nike, in EVERY game and EVERY practice and EVERY locker room interview you're wearing your competitor's logo. And there are no complaints.

Well, to be fair, the NBA also pays players. The USATF does not. So sponsor money is the sole source of income for most runners. There is a difference.

A couple of thoughts. I'm not a big fan of Nike and much, much less so of USATF. The big difference between the two is Nike is a very competent company on every front (including legal counsel no doubt) and everything I have observed about USATF is quite the opposite. No surprise in any negotiation between the two USATF would end up with its pants around its ankles.

As for what the kind of a deal Nike got, there certainly would have been competitors in the bidding, but even in a competitive bidding environment Nike would still be better suited than other companies in the running/track & field market to outbid without even having to pay top dollar.

As to what type of cause of action any non-Nike athlete would have against USATF or Nike my first thought was that by forcing a non-Nike athlete to sign this onerous WC contract USATF/Nike would be potentially causing a breach of contract by any of those non-Nike athletes of their sponsorship contracts if you can argue that Nike and/or USATF is or should reasonably be aware of the requirements of the non-Nike athltes' respective contracts, which you could argue they should at least generally be aware. But on the flip side, as this is not the first WC, etc. with USATF/Nike at the helm, the non-Nike athletes and other companies should equally be aware of what to expect.

Finally, yes, the non-Nike athletes miss out on some income opportunities for wearing their gear on the track, at team functions etc., but if they are worth being sponsored they will be able to have themselves out there plenty I am sure in situations where they and their sponsors can benefit. And if they didn't make sure their contract rewarded them for making a WC team, as opposed to wearing gear at a WC event, that's their own fault.

Agree (with pro runner, not rojo).

At 2013 world champs, Symmonds was on CNN and other mainstream media outlets. Is that a "team function"? Doubtful. But he and other non-Nike athletes are told (in subtle ALL CAPS) to bring only Team USA, Nike or non-branded apparel. The implication is that he shouldn't have on a Brooks sweatshirt for a similar media appearance this time (which he probably will, now that he's raised a stink).

Nick didn't seem to have issue with this agreement in 2013 at the worlds in Moscow or 2012 at the Olympics.

Why all of a sudden is this an issue?

Would love it of USATF simply replied ok thanks Nick - hey Mr 4th placer pack your bags

Umm because his sponsor at the time was Nike, so there was no conflict of interest. I guess its too much to ask you to use logical reasoning?