To the last 3 posters. I knew many of you are more in touch than me about these things. This is just the info I was hoping to hear.
It looks like my HS observations were accurate given that I'm seeing pics in random places that are possibly a few years old. It sounds like this is only slightly less true now but certainly was true: Completely unsponsored athletes who actually have to pay do, in fact buy Nike. Maybe never was quite 99 but was 75 and now 55 percent. Or whatever. Exact numbers aside, what I thought I'd noticed is confirmed by better observers such as you posters.
As far as pro runners sponsored by shoe company, sponsored by apparel so not obligated to any shoe, or unnattached but 'pro' by most of our definitions (JH) it sounds like there's more Nike sponsorship than anything else (at least Americans) but I knew that. They also have Nike clothes so no mystery that they're in Nike shoes.
It sounds like the others, who are 'allowed' to wear anything, are NOT all or nearly all Nike-shod. I didn't know what Grace was wearing' so good eye on picking out the Saucony's. I also didn't know that Hoka's line has expanded so quickly, so they won't be in Nike here on out, right?
Anyway, thanks for the insight everyone! We call all admit that the Oregon marketing juggernaut has worked by leading the massess to believe that there really is ONE athletic shoe company!!