Allyson Felix got dropped by Nike

I disagree that just any old company would have made here a millionaire, household name, multiple Gold Medalist, etc. Adidas couldn't have. As pointed out in my previous post, Nike controls (it would not be inaccurate to say 'owns') USATF. This is controversial (remember the lack of bidding?) but not in any way false or misleading. It is simply the case. Those Gold Medals her sponsors are so proud of flaunting? They are relay medals. No placement on the 4x100 above others who have faster times for the year = several fewer medals. No placement above superior 400 runners (this applies back when she ran 100/200 a few years back) = several fewer medals. There would be 1 relay medal each WC/Oly (there is no USATF meet at which she ran the 100/400 double and therefore none where she is in the top 4 in both).

Actually, there would be 1 at most. In 2017, she made no finals at USATF but of course was put on both relay teams. Nike/USATF (their interests are the same) put her on those teams. Adidas couldn't have. They have no power to do so. No one can cite an example of a non-Nike-sponsored athlete being put on a relay team other than by placing top 4 at USATF or having a time that year in the US top 4. In fact, let me narrow it down and point out that in recent years, the only way to get on a US relay team without Nike on your side is by placing top 3 at USATF. Male relay teams are chosen as follows: top 3 at USATF plus a (probably not randomly) selected Nike athlete. If you believe this to be inaccurate, cite a contradictory example.

Female relay teams are chosen as follows: top 3 at USATF plus Felix. This has been the case for a couple Olympic cycles and although will offend some, is actual fact. Running is ASICS would not have had this effect. Felix would not the medal haul or camera time without relay team placement - ie, without Nike. As pointed out earlier, USA won various of those relays, but the question still stands:

How much faster would those relays have been run if a 100m specialist with much faster times that year had run instead of 400m specialist Felix? Or the converse of that, a couple Olympics ago if a 400m specialist with good times that year ran the leg Felix ran which specializing in the shorter sprints?

Nike was actually essential to the AF media and financial juggernaut we know. At least one of you expressed offense at this being pointed out. However, the facts speak for themselves and cowtowing to Nike now (there's a thread about this, it seems) is a ploy to get on 2 relay teams ahead of far more deserving - and currently faster - runners. Showing up tomorrow to show off her new Skechers (or even an established, non-controversial Brooks) gear, parading around in front of cameras and reporters? No relay placement, no medals this year, and adios A Felix for ever.

Those of you who doubt this:

We all know a very very fast, young, photogenic, funny male sprinter. Doesn't shy away from the camera, doesn't give monosyllabic answers to questions. The closest thing US sprinting has to Bolt (the greatest personality in recent track history). This guy, as we all knows, runs in adidas. This guy is also not running the 100 nor 400 at USATF. Winning the 200 easily, and likely doing the same at WC? You'd think that could get you a relay spot, or possibly 2? Think again, let's just watch. Nike/USATF, as pointed out earlier, can choose the relay teams in any manner they see fit. There is no actual rule. The young man in question will be well within the top 4 US times in the 100m. Adidas could actually keep him off teams. It should not be argued or disputed:

Nike made A Felix.

Felix = superior athlete.

But I can’t stand her.

My biggest issue with her complaint is she is complaining about not having coverage that is available on the open market. If it is something so important to her than she should have negotiated for it before the fact not complained about it after the fact. She needs to fire her agent.

Winny got owned in the coaches thread, and this as well. Sheesh.

Gretchen Weiners wrote:

Hannah Cunliffe is another one that Adidas has on their roster that hasn't done jack and doesn't deserve the contract she gets compared to Allyson.

Too busy doing that(T.W) instead of training for medals. Delete if you want it’s true so be it. She likes the dark meat too, delete that also

There's a pattern wrote:

you fool wrote:

Why does this have to turn into a feminist girl power women are superior moment? Nike offered her a good amount of money. Allyson turned it down because she wanted a lot more. It wasn't sexist. It was greed - on Allyson's part.

Maybe the problem isn't Nike cutting athletes, maybe it's the athletes think they are worth more than they really are. All the runners you mentioned had a good year and asked for huge raises. They don't realize they are already collecting more money in salary than they generate revenue for Nike. Nike takes a loss for each athlete they sponsor, yes even Allyson Felix.

Winny got owned in the coaches thread, and this as well. Sheesh.

Haha I never mentioned anything about feminism. I can't speak to that, as I am not a female. I'm just laying out facts. Nike should not have dropped Felix and the timing makes them look bad.

You guys made this the "feminist girl power women are superior" moment. I guess sometimes you only hear the argument that you want to hear.

The coaches thread...did I get owned? When? Some people think I'm the UC Davis coach, so trying to identify a poster on this forum counts as getting owned? Sure.