Oiselle Reprimanded by USATF

Seyta wrote:

As it stands now, Nike is the reason Lagat, Solinsky, Tegenkamp, Rupp, Bumbalough, Cain, Flanagan, Hill, Jager, Centro, Hasay, Ritz, Lomong, Heath, Leer, Rowbury, and until recently, Webb can even make a living as runners. Minus a few big names like Symmonds, Solomon, Simpson, Martinez, etc. that's almost every active US distance runner who has successfully DONE anything in recent years.

Actually, your non-Nike list is a lot better than your Nike list...and you don't even have the best active American distance runner in it.

From the front page of deadspin: http://fittish.deadspin.com/remove-the-swoosh-and-usa-track-field-will-sue-your-b-1581472257/+tcraggs22

the real rcs wrote:

Seyta wrote:

As it stands now, Nike is the reason Lagat, Solinsky, Tegenkamp, Rupp, Bumbalough, Cain, Flanagan, Hill, Jager, Centro, Hasay, Ritz, Lomong, Heath, Leer, Rowbury, and until recently, Webb can even make a living as runners. Minus a few big names like Symmonds, Solomon, Simpson, Martinez, etc. that's almost every active US distance runner who has successfully DONE anything in recent years.

Actually, your non-Nike list is a lot better than your Nike list...and you don't even have the best active American distance runner in it.

I beg to differ actually.

Among the Non-Nike list,

Simpson has a World Gold and World Silver and the Steeple US Record

Martinez has a World Bronze

Symmonds has a World Silver

Solomon has nothing on the world stage or any US records

Among the Nike list,

Flanagan has an Olympic Bronze along with a World XC bronze, along with the 10000m US Record

Centro has a World Bronze and World Silver

Webb has the American Mile Record

Rupp has an Olympic Silver and the US 10000m Record

Jager has the US Steeple Record

Bernard Lagat has:

-Olympic Silver and Olympic Bronze (under Kenya)

**I do not know whether or not he was sponsored by Nike at this time. However, I do know that he was sponsored by Nike as of 2006. Since then, he has had:

-World 1500m Gold

-World 5000m Gold

-World 1500m Bronze

-World 5000m Silver x 2

-US 3000m Record

-US 5000m Record

-US 1500m Record

By HIMSELF, he could carry all the Nike athletes over the Non-Nike athletes mentioned.

I'll assume that by "best active American distance runner", you mean Meb

I did not include him because I did not have the Marathon in mind, as USATF is USA Track and Field, which is what this issue is around. Additionally, so long as 5000m is considered "distance" he is not superior to Lagat.

Meb has an Olympic Silver and a victory at NYC and Boston. The problem is that his Olympic Silver and NYC victory were while he ran under Nike. Only his Boston victory was with Sketchers. So really, for the better part of his career accomplishments, he was a Nike athlete.

ghhrfy wrote:

From the front page of deadspin:

http://fittish.deadspin.com/remove-the-swoosh-and-usa-track-field-will-sue-your-b-1581472257/+tcraggs22

Clicked on it and saw it was written (unsurprisingly) by Jon Gugala, which was basically the cue to stop taking it seriously.

It's actually kind of amusing to read the comments section down there.

- Responses exist both in support of Nike and against it

- However, responses in support of Nike appear to be much more well thought out, coherent, and present some sort of evidence or analysis.

- Responses bashing Nike are basically a series of insults and all-caps sequences that can be summarized as "I HATE NIKE"

Seriously people.

1) Gugala is not a credible journalist. He was dropped by the only running magazine that ever bothered to hire him, and every one of his articles is basically an angry rant.

2) If you're going to bash Nike, then at least understand that if Nike leaves, T&F quite literally goes under. I'm not particularly happy with the way Nike throws its weight around (especially at the Indoor Championships), but for the better interest of T&F, I sure as Hell hope they stay. $20 million a year is probably more than ALL of the other companies together. And that's not even including the kind of money they fund their athletes and coaches with.

I have not had the time nor do I have the time to read through all this silliness. Just want to know if the egomaniac politically insane loud-mouth Fleshman has voiced her unwanted opinion on this?

agaas wrote:

oiselle joiselle wrote:

This move by usatf shows that they only care about MONEY MONEY MONEY. Not the athletes. No different than the NCAA.

Also: no different than Oiselle.

Nothing wrong with Nike and Oiselle being about the money.

Usatf should not have money as their main priority.

To summarize, 9 people would have seen or cared about this egregious act. Now that usatf or nike has brought this to the attention of the whole world (at least hundreds that care) Nike will come off as the bad one and it will hurt their image far more than if they just ignored it.

Very stupid pr by nike.

USATF is a joke organization. Can someone please start another governance to hold US championships. I'm sick of their overvaluing Nike Nike Nike while they can't give athletes a fair and equal shot during the championship. Shame on USATF.

#replace_usatf

San Vicente wrote:

USATF is a joke organization. Can someone please start another governance to hold US championships. I'm sick of their overvaluing Nike Nike Nike while they can't give athletes a fair and equal shot during the championship. Shame on USATF.

#replace_usatf

Sure. If they have several million dollars to spare annually (i.e. A Non-Nike Running-Related sponsor steps up to contribute).

whoa!!!! Mr. intelligent. Probably only making $100K a year being a professor.

Dude my 100m time is better than hers

Peace be with the father wrote:

I have not had the time nor do I have the time to read through all this silliness. Just want to know if the egomaniac politically insane loud-mouth Fleshman has voiced her unwanted opinion on this?

Might be the best post I've read in a long time.

Kara G....oh Kara G. What happened to you? I used to like you so much but now you sound and act like a whining baby. Which most likely is the reason Nike didn't want you anymore. You chose family and babies and now you're not any good. Couldn't you have just gone away? Perhaps the right necklace stopped the blood from getting to your brain and we are just now seeing the residuals.

Ps, Jon Gugala lives in his parents basement. I guarantee it.

Peace be with the father wrote:

I have not had the time nor do I have the time to read through all this silliness. Just want to know if the egomaniac politically insane loud-mouth Fleshman has voiced her unwanted opinion on this?

Might be the best post I've read in a long time.

Kara G....oh Kara G. What happened to you? I used to like you so much but now you sound and act like a whining baby. Which most likely is the reason Nike didn't want you anymore. You chose family and babies and now you're not any good. Couldn't you have just gone away? Perhaps the right necklace stopped the blood from getting to your brain and we are just now seeing the residuals.

Ps, Jon Gugala lives in his parents basement. I guarantee it.

You're right there would have to be multiple sponsors of such an organization. What a concept.

Kanye North wrote:

You're overthinking this - USATF is protecting USATF's rights, not Nike's. USATF has a right to license a company to advertise on US jerseys (and granted that license exclusively to Nike); Oiselle infringed on USATF's rights. If USATF had chosen not to license its jerseys to any company (i.e., if there were no company logos on the front), they could still send a cease and desist logo to a commercial company photoshopping a logo onto the jerseys.

Both Nike and USATF were damaged here.

[/quote]

^^^^^

Bingo. It amazes me that people think USATF and/or Nike don't both have the right to stop Oiselle from doing what they did.

Think about it simply. USATF's main source of revenue is their sponsorhip with Nike. Most of the money in track all in some way, shape or form results from the fact that track and field is a HUGE deal at the Olympics. Nike pays a sizeable sum of money each year to USATF mainly for the purpose of insuring that their logo shows up in every photo of every USA track and field athlete at the Olympics/Worlds.

Oiselle doesen't pay anything. They can't put their logos on the team USA uniforms.

Think about it in terms of soccer. Take Manchester United. On their jersey, both AON (insurance) and Nike pay tens of millions to have their logo on the jersey.

Some other company can't doctor the Manchester united jersey so their logos show up in the photos. Do you think there wouldn't be a lawsuit if state farm insurance and adidas put their logos in the photos.

And its' simlar to track in the sense that individual manchester united athletes can have shoe deals with their own companies. But when they compete for Manchester United, they must wear the Manchester United jersey. WHen you compete for Team USA, you must wear USATF's jersey.

Obviously the difference is the soccer teams pay the players a salary but that's not really relevant. UI always wondered what would happen if all of the athletes just refused to compete in USATF's uniforms. If it was a game of chicken, who would win.

So clearly from a legal standpoing what Oiselle did was illegal. No doubt about.

The reason why there is outrage is USATF acts quickly and effectively in this case. When it comes to 'controversies' like the Bumbalough DQ or doping coaches, it's like pulling teeth to get a response from them.

USATF screwed up the Indoor DQ situations.

They are doing the right thing here.

Anyone have the Oiselle photo in question?

Avocado's Number wrote:

Would you be willing to put all of this in a legal opinion letter for Oiselle's CEO, perhaps to assist her in deciding whether to engage in further willful violations of (among other things) the Lanham Act? I sure wouldn't.

Of course not. But I'd certainly give my client an honest assessment of the law and the likely consequences of violating it.

So, while Nike has bought the rights to put its logo on USATF uniforms, Nike and USATF are allowed to publish promotional photographs of individual athletes which "mislead consumers to believe that those individual athletes are sponsored by" Nike and not their actual individual sponsors. Shouldn't Nike and USATF have to cut down the promotional photos to only show the uniforms and not the individual identities of the athletes to avoid misleading consumers?

A Duck wrote:

But don't think this action has anything more to do with legal agreements than "priorities."

The speed it was done shows priority.

It was a Sunday. They got their legal involved on a doctored photo on social media that no one knew about at 8 am on a Sunday.

800 dude wrote:

Again. No. There is no way that Oiselle could vanish. Their liability exposure is tiny. Nike would be entitled only to the profits that Oiselle earned from their infringement. On an instagram photo, that's probably nothing. Especially when they added EACH athlete's sponsor, which really undercuts any implication that the uniforms were made by the respective companies. If Oiselle really wanted to litigate, they would have a shot at escaping liability entirely. Not that I'd recommend that course.

You hit it right on the money. What is Nike going to do? Sue over this. Not worth it. Oiselle gets a lot of free publicity from this.

If Oiselle kept doing it, USATF could not credential their athletes or something.

Sure legally most likely they lose if this went all the way to a trial, but it never will. The fact they put up the other sponsors logos (I didn't know they did that) they could easily argue they were making some sort of social statement on the Nike USATF deal that is protected under 1st ammendment. Likley not going to win, but they are entitled to a day in court which would never happen.

It's better to ask for permission later and Oiselle got a bunch of free publicity. I guarantee no one lost their job over this. They got a pat on the back.

turnabout day wrote:

So, while Nike has bought the rights to put its logo on USATF uniforms, Nike and USATF are allowed to publish promotional photographs of individual athletes which "mislead consumers to believe that those individual athletes are sponsored by" Nike and not their actual individual sponsors. Shouldn't Nike and USATF have to cut down the promotional photos to only show the uniforms and not the individual identities of the athletes to avoid misleading consumers?

I'm almost 100% positive that this scenario is not a realistic one.

Every athlete who is considered will receive an invitation from USATF to represent the USA at each International Championship. They then have the choice to decline (Simpson, Cain, etc.) or accept (Martinez & Co.).

One of the stipulations of accepting the invitation and actually being able to represent the US is very likely an agreement signed by the athlete to wear the official team uniform.

Simply put, while they are running in the IAAF World Relays (or any other IAAF Championship event), they are representing USA Track and Field. The IAAF does not simply permit any athlete who qualifies from any nation to compete in the championships. They MUST be registered under the official T&F governing body of that nation (hence the debacle with Athletics Kenya every year). This mean that while US athletes runs in an IAAF-sanctioned championship, they are, for all intents and purposes, representing USATF, which is sponsored VERY HEAVILY by Nike.

And honestly, this isn't unique to the US at all. Go look up the British Olympic Uniforms. EVERY athlete is wearing Adidas, because Adidas is the official sponsor. Does that mean every athlete is sponsored by Adidas? Most certainly not. But they have to wear the Adidas uniform because it's the official TEAM uniform.

For instance:

Here's Mo Farah, winning Olympic Gold, in an ADIDAS uniform. Incidentally, he's Nike's TOP distance athlete, trains with the Nike Oregon Project, and makes use of Nike facilities day in and day out.

Do you see Nike deploying a team of publicists to edit every picture of Mo Farah at the Olympics to remove the Adidas logo on his uniform and replace it with a Nike logo? Most definitely not. Because the people at Nike understands that at the Olympics, Farah is under jurisdiction of the British governing body of T&F and MUST wear their uniforms, as he is a British citizen, is running for Britain, and Adidas paid for the rights to provide the uniforms!