One question I have is say Tuohy had signed with Nike (which doesn't sponsor NC state). Could she wear a Nike singlet at say USAs? I
Or would she be expected to wear NC State? I would argue it's not an NC State meet, but if her team was flying her there, etc that would be a different issue.
I just think it's interesting as everyone assumes the sponsor is going to have to match-up with the sponsor of the school and I can see that not happening but think it will be rarer.
For example Tom Brady is sponsored by Under Armour and I never see him competing in Under Armour apparel. He's got his team jersey on. I guess he has Under Armour cleats on.
Aare shoes mandated to be worn at all NCAA schools by the sponsorship agreement?
The other way this could go is having sponsorship agreements in college not including shoes. say Nike's sponsorship of Duke is just for apparel. Athletes are free to wear the shoes of their choice. That would really make it more like the NFL and I think you'd see more sponsorships for individuals from brands that don't sponsor the team.
But would I think less of Tom Brady and Under Armour if Brady was in adidas cleats? No. I've never thought about his shoes. Now in running shoes might be important but the general principle applies.
Wejo to answer your question at USA should could wear a Nike singlet but the school would not pay for the trip most likely. I’ve seen this happen with transfers and early signed pros. If you don’t rep the school they have no obligation to pay for you
I was surprised to read that athletes were required to race in the spikes provided by the school's sponsor. Back in the day you could wear whatever you wanted. You just had to buy them yourself if they weren't the school's brand.
800, you actually may have been right all along including now. I have asked the question of whether or not it's OK to wear something other than the school's brand a few times on threads over the years and recieved only one meaningful answer. That guy said it is absolutely forbidden to wear something else in a race. Even in practice if there is a camera anywhere nearby. He seemed to think the 'rule', official or not, was almost universally obeyed. Other times, my question was just ignored or the responses involved bizarre 'conspiracy' topics. (ie. 'So you think Oswald actually piloted the Roswell saucer?')
However, I am not convinced, the one serious answer notwithstanding. Nico wore Nike for 2 seasons - 1 XC, 1 T&F - at NAU. There was a thread with a pic posted (orange Dragonflies) discussing the point. Nobody did anything about it. His scholarship was not revoked. He's still at the school now (but has since switched shoe allegiance). All that was done was removing the swoosh and drawing on - comically obviously - the 'drei Streifen' that adidas is known for. Here's the thing:
If you have not signed anything, you are not obligated to do - or, I suppose, NOT do - anything. This would be covered in the 'Offer' and 'Acceptance' elements of contract law. Mutuality - both parties having the same belief as to what is being agreed upon - must occur for any contract such as this to be binding. This is significant in verbal contracts, when every element is not clearly written. For example, the recruiting coach claims to have 'made clear' that you were required to wear Brand X in order to keep a scholarship. One could lump offer, acceptance, and mutuality into 'Agreement' as it is in some situations written.
Moreover, a signed contract that DOES exist (I do not claim any NCAA athlete actually has one with the school's sponsor; just saying even if...) may be difficult to enforce if the athlete has not been paid. Scholarship recipients could be argued to have been paid. That's 'Consideration' in contract jurisprudence. Although some debate could take place as to whether a scholarship, facility use, travel expenses, etc. constitute Consideration, any theoretical agreement would be very easy to dodge if it is not in writing. An unrecorded but alleged conversation (especially when the claim of such is being made by a well-paid coach in a position of authority) is legally weak. By the way, I got an A in Contract Law. That is not saying much: I'm sure some of you reading did too.
An Athletic Director or University President signing something may, of course, create a legally binding situation. For the program or school, that is. Not for the individual athletes. Two parties - neither of which is you - entering a Contract is not your concern. As far as I can tell, if you didn't BOTH: sign something AND get paid, you can wear whatever someone else IS willing to pay you to wear. Or just what you already own. Nico (and NP) wore exclusively Nike in high school. He had them in his gym bag when he got to Flag.
So here's the question I've posted before:
King Ches steps up to the line with the intention of winning his 15th NCAA title. Cameras follow every move. One pans down to his feet, and... he's wearing Mizunos! What would happen? We do know this much would: Phil screaming at AD, AD screaming at coach, coach screaming at Ches. I believe that's it. I'll admit I never participated in the NCAA. Maybe these guys actually DO sign a contract in which shoe brands are very explicitly mentioned, and a scholarship is clearly stated to be Consideration in exchange, but no poster has come forth recalling that was his or her experience.
No legal action is possible unless an Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration can be proven. And unless it's in writing, good luck proving anything. Peer pressure from teammates is, of course another thing entirely.....
But what would 'enforcing' look like? What actual, literal action would they take? I can guarantee Oregon is one that would enforce/want to/try to. They would care - a lot - as would Nike. That's why I used Ches as an example. Very high profile; no possibility his theoretical Mizunos would go unnoticed. They could yank a scholarship, which would be sort of a moot point if it was your last year or semester (which ever term the scholarship runs for).
You see, that's the most likely scenario for this kind of thing: when you're getting ready to jump ship, have an agent and sponsor already lined up, and just want to finish the season and ideally win another title. Not giving you another free year of college would be no punishment at all if you weren't planning on doing another or didn't have any elegibility after the current season. In fact, the latter case (out of elegibility) would be the most likely time we'd see this. It's your last crack at NCAA glory. Nothing they can do to punish you would bother you at all. It won't burn your relationship with potential sponsors. You already have one.
What is the contract paying her? Hard to believe anyone could write an article like this and not at least make an educated guess on what's in it financially for Katelyn. Fine, you don't know the specifics. Got it. But guess, for crying out loud.
if emily cole lists $5,000 and she only has tiktok/ig presence without national titles nor times to back it up then you could imagine katelyn's fee per post or event would be higher given that shes a national champion, been known in the running community for years, ig posts easily gets 30k likes, and her youtube presence is the highest, even higher than the pros with millions of views
im assuming adidas pays more than the less known brands who's giving athletes nil deals out there