I don't get what the big deal is here. Nike pays a TON of money for the right to sponsor USATF. None of the other shoe companies are willing to fork over even half of that money. The minute they do, they will get the right to put their logo on every USA uniform and on every commercial. Until then, it's about time they all pipe down. Nike isn't evil, the people complaining are just whiny.
laughed out loud wrote:
A classic moron you are.
If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
Did you even look at the screen shots? It's hilarious. Feels like we're living in an Onion article but alas you can't parody those with no shame.
Did you actually watch the commercial? For once runners actually look relatable and some-what cool instead of a bunch of uncoordinated, skinny white people wearing obnoxious colors and fuel belts. The screen shots were extremely fast and barely noticeable until Fleshman shared them everywhere. The screen shots were not "hilarious" unless you have way too much time on your hands.
I have no hard feelings against Fleshman but it does come off as yet another "No fair!" whiney post. The commercial was good for our sport. It's okay to admit that.
I have a new found respect for Martinez as well.
Flojo, jeter, Merritt?! Are you kidding me?
Nike can fund USATF all it wants and we're all grateful for that, but not if it comes at the cost of impartiality. This is all of a piece with Salazar getting DQ power over other athletes and similar Nike-biased shenanigans.
GoldenSpiked wrote:
In watching the Armory Track Invitational on NBC Sports Network this weekend they showed the new usatf commercial. At first I thought there were several versions but after watching it a few times I realize there is only one.
It's really edgy and features A LOT of great athletes. What shocked me was that it wasn't only Nike athletes. Did USATF hire someone else to do this?
Here is it.
http://www.usatf.tv/gprofile.php?mgroup_id=45365&do=videos&video_id=132416Thoughts?
I flat-out hated it. Maybe it's a generational thing.
oab wrote:
Business not Personal wrote:As soon as Oiselle and the rest of the cropped out companies are willing to pitch in the money to USATF that Nike has, they can have their brands shown on screen.
Freshman wants Track & Field to grow and become profitable for the sake of the athletes but the moment USATF and Nike act business minded she cries foul and asks for a free advertising hand out.
If she wants the Oiselle logo out there, let Oiselle pay the $$ for a nationally screened commercial.
That is her point exactly. Is USATF Nike or is it acting in the best interest of all athletes? If USATF=Nike, then they can't fully represent the interests of non-Nike athletes. That's what is on display with this commercial.
The better move would have been to crop out all logos rather than promote certain athletes and demote others.
Agree.
Does anyone know if Nike paid for placement? Was the same deal offered to other brands? I doubt it, but that would be helpful to know.
I thought the ad was terrible. Some people from ball sports, some clearly doped athletes doing stuff and USATF gloats. Good job. Now, back to Nike.
Did anyone else notice Rupp's high pitched girly voice? I actually laughed at that one.
pop_pop! wrote:
...some clearly doped athletes doing stuff and USATF gloats. Good job. Now, back to Nike.
+1
absolutely that's what stood out to me the most. The dopers.
Nike Lover wrote:
I don\\\'t get what the big deal is here. Nike pays a TON of money for the right to sponsor USATF. None of the other shoe companies are willing to fork over even half of that money. The minute they do, they will get the right to put their logo on every USA uniform and on every commercial. Until then, it\\\'s about time they all pipe down. Nike isn\\\'t evil, the people complaining are just whiny.
That is the problem. USATF should not be for sale to the highest bidder. They are the governing body for track and field and other events, not a marketing arm for whatever shoe company gives them the most money. All athletes that fall under USATF should have equal opportunity to market themselves along with their sponsors. That clearly is not happening here.
I don\\\'t blame this on Nike, They are doing what a business does. I blame USATF.
People, you realize that all successful sports are extremely marketed and full of unabashed sponsorship? Almost every commercial during football season ends "... official/proud sponser of the NFL". Same with MLB, NBA, or in subway's case "athletes everywhere". So what if Nike wants to start ending their commercials with "...proud sponsor of the USATF". If anything, it would be great for our sport.
I don't blame either one.
I've always felt that a sport like ours needs a large sponsor like Nike to front the bill for the events, travel, stipends that USATF provides for our athletes. We're not talking about football or basketball, just compare ticket prices to the different sports at your alma mater. As long as Nike is supporting USATF, our athletes with USA on their chest will be associated with the shoe company.
A USATF commercial that is pro-Nike only makes sense to me.
rcdude wrote:
What an arrogant message.
I re watched it 3 times trying to get what you are talking about, but I don't get it. I liked the commercial, everything about it.
Agreed. What would happen to athletes like Brenda Martinez if Nike started to pull all their funding from our sport? Without their millions, USATF would not be able to afford to help athletes with travel and training expenses. USATF would not be able to afford to promote our sport at the youth level.
People act like Nike is this grand evil empire. Are other companies supporting anyone else besides their own athletes. Doesnt Nike deserve the advertising rights for doing so?
These same Nike defenders were OUTRAGED when Eugene lost the World Championships because some evil country came in and just threw more money at IAAF than anyone else. Just giving it to the highest bidder is not in the best interest of the sport.
Sound familiar?
That is the same arguments for Nike here in the USA.
Which way is right? wrote:
These same Nike defenders were OUTRAGED when Eugene lost the World Championships because some evil country came in and just threw more money at IAAF than anyone else. Just giving it to the highest bidder is not in the best interest of the sport.
Sound familiar?
That is the same arguments for Nike here in the USA.
Outraged? Not me. I have a hard time believing any of the "Nike defenders" on this board were outraged. I have no problem with the highest bidder winning. I have no problem with our sport behaving like a profitable business aiming for promotion. Nice try digging deep there though.
That was awesome the way that New Balance allowed USATF to turn the NEW BALANCE Armory into a Nike commercial. I'm sure that new balance will be given the same courtesy with the next major event at Hayward Field? Yeah right, this game is only played one way.
Agreed wrote:
Which way is right? wrote:These same Nike defenders were OUTRAGED when Eugene lost the World Championships because some evil country came in and just threw more money at IAAF than anyone else. Just giving it to the highest bidder is not in the best interest of the sport.
Sound familiar?
That is the same arguments for Nike here in the USA.
Outraged? Not me. I have a hard time believing any of the "Nike defenders" on this board were outraged. I have no problem with the highest bidder winning. I have no problem with our sport behaving like a profitable business aiming for promotion. Nice try digging deep there though.
Disappointed Eugene wasn't the highest bid? Yeah. Outraged? Not at all.
NB Armory wrote:
That was awesome the way that New Balance allowed USATF to turn the NEW BALANCE Armory into a Nike commercial. I'm sure that new balance will be given the same courtesy with the next major event at Hayward Field? Yeah right, this game is only played one way.
If New Balance had a problem with it then why didn't they step in? Did Nike sneak in the stadium and quickly film that many athletes while New Balance was chatting on the phone to his girlfriend? No.
Again, USATF and Nike made a commercial supporting our sport while using their own money. Why would Laura Fleshman expect a hand out? Because she is a runner too?
Sure USATF can support all athletes and it does as Brenda Martinez (a New Balance athlete) pointed out. Will they start showing other logos when Nike specifically paid millions for that exclusive right? No. It would be a poor and possibly illegal business decision to do so.
runn wrote:
Excellent commercial and I wished it could have been on during the Super Bowl.
I'm sure a lot of those guys playing did track in high school.
I'm not sure commercial is the correct description. You have to go to the USATF site to view it. Internal motivation piece perhaps.
I usually do not go to the General Mills web site and look for the Cheerio ads.
I expect the ads come to me not vice versa.
in regard to Nike having or seeming to have editorial control of the content of USATF motivational messages until 2040 all I can say is vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.
Saying "you're welcome" implies that we should be thankful for the USATF (aka Stephanie and her ilk). We are not. It's that simple. They ignore 80% of their constituency and prey on funds provided by youth organizations.
I just wonder why the athletes allowed themselves to be used as Stephanie's tools. Maybe she threatened to not bring them to RIO with her entourage??