Are shoe companies going to sponsor college runners now?

shoe* not show

A problem I can see is that some states have laws that prevent athletes from having endorsements that conflict with university sponsorships.

That might not hold up in court though.

But this would be great for collegiate track and running.

Yeah, it will be interesting if an athlete is now allowed to take money from the same shoe company that has exclusive rights to that school.

This NIL thing could be great for people with rich parents. Say your kid is kinda OK at XC and you are rich, they go to whatever school and you get 4 other really good runners to attend that school and you pay them to advertise for your business, even if it's something like insurance or a car dealership unrelated to running.

Now your kid is on a really good team!

I believe athletes will be able to pursue outside sponsorship from anywhere, shoe companies included.

But, while NCAA can not, I believe schools can forbid specific sponsorships if you join the roster. For example, a university could say no tobacco/alcohol deals, no sports betting deals and no conflicting apparel sponsorships with our sponsor/supplier.

Ultimately I think department wide apparel sponsorships will go away when contracts are up. Universities may still pursue uniform sponsorships, but it will be more like pro leagues where athletes wear matching uniforms but are free to pursue their own deals for shoes, gloves and sun glasses etc.

Big money that use to go to departments is going to increasingly be placed in the hands of a minority of athletes. Not a bad thing, necessarily, but a paradigm shift.

Sliding Scale wrote:

I believe athletes will be able to pursue outside sponsorship from anywhere, shoe companies included.

But, while NCAA can not, I believe schools can forbid specific sponsorships if you join the roster. For example, a university could say no tobacco/alcohol deals, no sports betting deals and no conflicting apparel sponsorships with our sponsor/supplier.

Ultimately I think department wide apparel sponsorships will go away when contracts are up. Universities may still pursue uniform sponsorships, but it will be more like pro leagues where athletes wear matching uniforms but are free to pursue their own deals for shoes, gloves and sun glasses etc.

Big money that use to go to departments is going to increasingly be placed in the hands of a minority of athletes. Not a bad thing, necessarily, but a paradigm shift.

I think the CA law does not allow for an athlete to have a conflicting sponsorship.

I am not sure Nike is going to abandon its deals with universities for individual athletes. I doubt Nike would be okay with a uniform and then each athlete on his own for shoes. Plus how many athletes would be able to get shoe deals?

There is a precedent in that the USOPC allows for each athlete to choose his/her own "technical" gear. Shoes fall under that category but they all wear the Nike competition gear and podium gear.

This, from what I found when I checked. It seems nothing would keep an athlete at an Under Armour school, for example, from doing a deal with, say, adidas. But that athlete would be required, by the school's deal, to compete in UA so there'd be little incentive for adidas to do a deal.

ClubRunnah wrote:

Yeah, it will be interesting if an athlete is now allowed to take money from the same shoe company that has exclusive rights to that school.

This NIL thing could be great for people with rich parents. Say your kid is kinda OK at XC and you are rich, they go to whatever school and you get 4 other really good runners to attend that school and you pay them to advertise for your business, even if it's something like insurance or a car dealership unrelated to running.

Now your kid is on a really good team!

The only set up that won't be allowed are those that are against the law. That is where this is going.

And it will not be good for distance running long term. Because what you describe above is exactly what will happen.