Also, if they only way you can compete /win is based on wearing Nike shoes you actually kill athletes ability to make a living - as Nike knows they won’t have to pay to keep people.. that is bad for the sport
Also, if they only way you can compete /win is based on wearing Nike shoes you actually kill athletes ability to make a living - as Nike knows they won’t have to pay to keep people.. that is bad for the sport
I din't know, before this it was only about different foams, but now it's a bit like a situation if let's say Trek or Specialized invented the recumbent bicycle or a full aero bike inside a projectile formed shell that would thrash any regular raod- or even time trial bike times into pieces when it comes to riding flat straights and the authorities thought this would be a great idea to make this legal within an established discipline.
It's of course technical progression, but in the end, also more of a beginning of a different discipline if you ask me
Uhhh so question. As an 800 1600 guy in high school, if I don’t get the new spikes they made will I get destroyed by people who do have them?
Probably 1-2 seconds in the 1600 and .5 in the 800.
runharwell wrote:
Am I the only one who feels no sympathy towards non-Nike athletes? I'm in favor of regulating shoes and am pretty anti-Nike, but no one is forcing the other athletes to stay with their sponsors. They voluntarily chose to take money from a shoe company with the understanding that they'd be racing in that company's shoes. That's a conscious, competitive decision they made -- now they're just living with the consequences of that decision, for better of for worse.
Except athletes don’t really get to choose who they’re sponsored by- they are going to sign with whatever company offers them enough money to allow them to train full-time. An aspiring pro can’t just walk up to Nike and demand a sponsorship.
This is why I have always believed there needs to be more companies involved in the sport that don't make gear that can sponsor a team or athletes, so the athletes can choose the best gear to race in. I feel like the right people just haven't been approached. Imagine if there was an Amazon Prime group, a Tmobile group, and/or a Microsoft group. Those orgs would fun the group but not align with a gear maker and they would just buy whatever gear the runners want to wear. It would be more of a brand awareness play for someone like Amazon than the athlete selling what they are wearing as we know it's a niche sport anyway and the sales probably don't go that way anyway.
LoneStarXC wrote:
Except athletes don’t really get to choose who they’re sponsored by
Yes they do. Sorry, but they just do. It's a free market and no one is forced to be sponsored by anybody.
shoecontractman wrote:
This is why I have always believed there needs to be more companies involved in the sport that don't make gear that can sponsor a team or athletes, so the athletes can choose the best gear to race in. I feel like the right people just haven't been approached. Imagine if there was an Amazon Prime group, a Tmobile group, and/or a Microsoft group. Those orgs would fun the group but not align with a gear maker and they would just buy whatever gear the runners want to wear. It would be more of a brand awareness play for someone like Amazon than the athlete selling what they are wearing as we know it's a niche sport anyway and the sales probably don't go that way anyway.
Or corporate teams like in Japan!
Dill Dickleson wrote:
breit leit wrote:
I watch track and field to enjoy seeing who the best runner is on any given day. There is no joy in that being merely who the best Nike runner is on any given day.
But if every runner is a Nike runner, then nothing has changed for you. You can still enjoy watching track and field.
Something has changed in that scenario - one sponsor controls the contracts of all the athletes. Do you think that would be a good thing? Have you ever taken a basic economics course?
JustRunBaby wrote:
LoneStarXC wrote:
Except athletes don’t really get to choose who they’re sponsored by
Yes they do. Sorry, but they just do. It's a free market and no one is forced to be sponsored by anybody.
Technically yes. But, logistically, no. If an athlete is offered a, for example, $40,000/yr contract from company A, $15,000/yr from company B, and nothing from Nike, they are going to go with company A. Any other decision would be very dumb, from a financial point of view. So, yes, in a literal sense they are “choosing” to be sponsored by company A, but, at the same time, but their decision is going to be based off of what makes financial sense, rather than actually preferring to race in company A’s shoes. It’s not like any athlete can be sponsored by Nike just because they want to be.
LoneStarXC wrote:
JustRunBaby wrote:
Yes they do. Sorry, but they just do. It's a free market and no one is forced to be sponsored by anybody.
Technically yes. But, logistically, no. If an athlete is offered a, for example, $40,000/yr contract from company A, $15,000/yr from company B, and nothing from Nike, they are going to go with company A. Any other decision would be very dumb, from a financial point of view. So, yes, in a literal sense they are “choosing” to be sponsored by company A, but, at the same time, but their decision is going to be based off of what makes financial sense, rather than actually preferring to race in company A’s shoes. It’s not like any athlete can be sponsored by Nike just because they want to be.
So what's the issue? I have no sympathy for someone who gets 40K a year to run with inferior shoes. They chose the money over the best shoes, and they got it.
JustRunBaby wrote:
LoneStarXC wrote:
Except athletes don’t really get to choose who they’re sponsored by
Yes they do. Sorry, but they just do. It's a free market and no one is forced to be sponsored by anybody.
I don't think you understand how sponsorship opportunities work.
rojo wrote:
So what's the point of spending a bunch of money to make an "almost as good shoe" that no one will buy .
Nike has already done most of the R&D so it should be nearly as expensive to come up the the "almost as good shoe" by essentially copying it while getting around the patents. Make it more price competitive and/or more durable and there will be plenty of people interested in buying it.
JustRunBaby wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Very disingenuous. You know exactly why non-Nike athletes can't choose to wear Nikes. Maybe they can get a one-time exception from their sponsors, but that doesn't solve the problem. The whole point of having a sponsorship is that it makes those people professionals, such that they can live off the sport. They do it by promoting their sponsor's shoes. If they are Brooks athletes wearing Nike shoes, Brooks would be better off not sponsoring a single athlete, because now you have Nike saying, "Even Brooks/adidas/NB/Hoka athletes wear our shoes." You are basically telling everyone that if you can't get a Nike sponsorship, you might as well quit the sport.
If your sponsor forces you to wear inferior shoes, that's your problem. The rules cannot force Hoka, Asics, etc to make comparable shoes for their own athletes. They can only ensure that the best shoes are available to all, which they are.
Very well stated. Adidas, New Balance, and sunset Armour athletes already wear blacked out Nikes anyway. Let's stop pretending.
Engineer of Plates wrote:
Probably 1-2 seconds in the 1600 and .5 in the 800.
Pfffft. No. Stop pulling silly stats like this out of your aśs.
KraftMacAndCheese wrote:
JustRunBaby wrote:
Yes they do. Sorry, but they just do. It's a free market and no one is forced to be sponsored by anybody.
I don't think you understand how sponsorship opportunities work.
I know exactly how they work. Ever since we passed that 13th amendment thing, you can't be forced to work for somebody.
JustRunBaby wrote:
KraftMacAndCheese wrote:
I don't think you understand how sponsorship opportunities work.
I know exactly how they work. Ever since we passed that 13th amendment thing, you can't be forced to work for somebody.
You’re just moving goalposts. Either you are employed by Nike or are just dense.
KraftMacAndCheese wrote:
JustRunBaby wrote:
I know exactly how they work. Ever since we passed that 13th amendment thing, you can't be forced to work for somebody.
You’re just moving goalposts. Either you are employed by Nike or are just dense.
Haven't moved any goalposts. Any athlete can forgo sponsorship and wear the Vaporflys. Or they can choose to take money and forfeit the Vaporflys. Their choice, no sympathy for the latter. Now please explain where I am wrong.
What is your estimate? Pretty sure the Nike engineers would provide similar numbers.
breit leit wrote:
Dill Dickleson wrote:
But if every runner is a Nike runner, then nothing has changed for you. You can still enjoy watching track and field.
Something has changed in that scenario - one sponsor controls the contracts of all the athletes. Do you think that would be a good thing? Have you ever taken a basic economics course?
+1