which is based on Emma saying at the start of her instagram post, "Since my fueling company dropped me after telling them I was pregnant" https://www.instagram.com/p/DW...
UCAN told Front Office Sports, "The partnership decisions for 2026 were made in September 2025 as a part of regular business planning and before any knowledge of her pregnancy. We made an effort to continue working with Emma under a new agreement, but she ultimately chose not to move forward with that option."
LetsRun.com changed the tile from "UCAN drops Emma Bates due to pregnancy"
Speculation is for entertainment purposes only and is not advice from a legal professional...
This will go away quickly, UCAN won't lose many sales, and suing a popular pregnant athlete just drags this out with terrible optics. UCAN will move on.
They are a business and they can do whatever they want.
They likely have an out due to her being a sponsored athlete under a contract with them. As that likely has 1) performance clauses, and/or 2) status as a contractor and not a payroll employee (though this murky), but this is false or at best very misleading given the complexities of employment law.
Businesses broadly speaking cannot "do whatever they want" when it comes to terminating employees and contract who have protected classes (which pregnancy can include).
Contract workers should negotiate maternity leave and associated protections in their contract. I don’t see how it’s meaningful to have the same employee protections that bind employers for the wide variety of contract working relationships out there.
As for discrimination law, I think American protections are weak. Putting the onus on the employee to show discrimination based on the protected pregnancy characteristic puts the burden of proof on the more vulnerable and financially weaker party. Federal law should additionally require paid maternity (and paternity) leave — which it currently does not — so that the expectation of reduced productivity near and around delivery time is built into the system. A corollary is that paternity leave also becomes necessary to prevent discrimination based on sex during hiring based on the anticipation of pregnancy.
I had to scroll through like 30 posts on Emma Bates insta. If I weren't reading this thread I'd have thought Asics and Coros were her only major sponsors. The U-Can posts barely highlight the product, you could easily see them and assume that was just what was at an event or something she likes (most people don't realize that for some athletes all posts are 100% paid promotion). Actually every post on Emma Bates insta looks like an ad. There is like one post where she is living and having fun for every 30 that look like advertisements. I wouldn't want to sponsor her either. For Asics, the sponsorship looks like a good deal, but any other sponsors got the short end of the stick. I'd think promotion of my product would be dwarfed by Asics and move on to where I could get more bang for my buck.
The real story here is the contained example we now have for how reactionary the running community is before understanding key facts, led by those striving to be relevant voices within the running community. Those perpetually online voices seem to insert themselves wherever a dopamine hit looks up for the taking.
After UCAN provided more clarity to one of these influencers, they added the new information to the end of an article they wrote, summarized the piece with a "lesson" learned, but left all of the premature, accusatory language in the top 80% of the post.
The issue of brands abandoning professional women during pregnancy is real and brands should be held to account for that. Going scorched earth with opinions when we don't yet know all the facts hurts the real issue by providing ammo for dismissing real instances of this. And I am not saying this story isn't a real example; I am saying we do not yet know it is. Maybe, as facts are revealed, we find out UCAN really did a bad thing here. Maybe we learn they didn't. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. But the online running culture, specifically those striving to be influencers, continue to be bad for the sport.
Reading between the lines of some of UCAN's comments, it's evident that the paucity of social media posts is part of the issue, and likely what led to the reduced offer earlier in the fall. Sponsorships like these often have clauses stipulating number/frequency of posts. I don't know the exact numbers in Emma's contract, but it's doubtful she hit them. It's totally understandable for a brand to want to put their sponsorship dollars with an athlete who is going to actually give them the desired promotion.
Then her team balked at this lower offer, and whoopsie all of a sudden she's pregnant and without a signed contract for a nutrition sponsor beyond
sounds like someone is lying. sounds like they came back with a reduced new contract, due to her career jumping the shark a few years ago, and she said no thanks. how much can these ucan sponsorships be worth. other then hearing about some other deals with pro runners a few years ago, i'd never heard of them. is like gatoraide or something? never seen it for sale online or running stores.
The amount of damage she has done to the brand is insane. This morning scrolling IG I saw at least 5 posts with dozens of comments about how UCAN is more immoral than IDF