I think the main problem is that this fits in with the long history of Nike and non-Nike athletes not being treated equally by the USATF - with special exceptions being made to let Nike athletes into USAs, public airspace in Eugene apparently being reserved by USATF for Nike, Gabe Grunewald being disqualified at Salazar's insistence, etc.
I think the athletes who are members of the USATF would like to think that they all get equal treatment from the USATF regardless of who their sponsor is.
nike is da devil wrote:
I hate nike. Having dealt with them I see them as nothing more than arrogant "behind closed door racists" but having said that, it is the footwear side that pays the bills. EVERYONE owns a pair of running shoes, few own basketball (unless you are one of the thug blacks they brag about "owning") and only football players own those shoes. nike footwear revenue is 54% mostly running.
Apparel is roughly 27% a majority being running related. Gear is roughly 5%.
Conclusion, running pays the bill and your friend is an idiot.
Mundus Vult wrote:I have a number of friends in the NFL. I told one of them about this commercial after it was debuted at the convention. His response was "You're welcome that my sports actually makes revenue for Nike so that they can pay for your ass."
Just for the record I have 3 pair's of running sneakers in rotation now and probably 5 pair's of retired knock arounds and not 1 pair has a Nike logo. Just never liked the fit.
Man these two look so tough I can't get over it:
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes
ad urinae denem wrote:
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes
"If you can read this sign, you can get a good job in the fast-paced, high-paying world of Latin."
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.
I guess you missed the IAAF World Juniors at Hayward Field. Yeah, adidas all over the place.
Nor can I do better, in conclusion, than impress upon you the study of Greek literature, which not only elevates above the vulgar herd, but leads not infrequently to positions of considerable emolument.
Good publicity wrote:
I have a new found respect for Martinez as well.
Interesting. I lost even more respect for her.
It really annoyed me when she offered her unsolicited and, frankly, rude judgement of Alysia Montano's decision to run the 800 at US Champs last summer, and this latest move on her Instagram is another strike--it just reeks of Stockholm Syndrome.
B-Mart clearly works her @ss off and I admire her racing chops, but I just can't stand her character (or lack thereof).
USATF here wrote:
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.
+1, well stated
LetsRun.com wrote:
Yes, there are non-Nike athletes but Lauren Fleshman isn't happy that all of the athletes who aren't Nike are cropped so you can't see any of their logos. Her colun on the matter is here:
http://asklaurenfleshman.com/2015/02/usatf-yourwelcome-commercial-the-problem/
Actually, early on in the video, there's a quick clip of Jeremy Warnier with his adidas logo clearly visible on his singlet.
lefse girl wrote:
Good publicity wrote:I have a new found respect for Martinez as well.
Interesting. I lost even more respect for her.
It really annoyed me when she offered her unsolicited and, frankly, rude judgement of Alysia Montano's decision to run the 800 at US Champs last summer, and this latest move on her Instagram is another strike--it just reeks of Stockholm Syndrome.
B-Mart clearly works her @ss off and I admire her racing chops, but I just can't stand her character (or lack thereof).
It wasn't actually unsolicited. The reporter asked her opinion and Martinez said "Well that's Alysia." and did not go into the subject any deeper even though it was obvious she knows of Alysias personality.
Clearly the girl who already wears a huge flower in her hair and runs the 800 meters with a huge pregnant belly likes to garner attention. That's not Martinezs style. So if you ask Martinez her opinion, good for Martinez for being honest. She wasn't rude at all.
Dis-Agreed wrote:
lefse girl wrote:Interesting. I lost even more respect for her.
It really annoyed me when she offered her unsolicited and, frankly, rude judgement of Alysia Montano's decision to run the 800 at US Champs last summer, and this latest move on her Instagram is another strike--it just reeks of Stockholm Syndrome.
B-Mart clearly works her @ss off and I admire her racing chops, but I just can't stand her character (or lack thereof).
It wasn't actually unsolicited. The reporter asked her opinion and Martinez said "Well that's Alysia." and did not go into the subject any deeper even though it was obvious she knows of Alysias personality.
That's true--go ahead and strike "unsolicited" from my previous statement. The rest of it stands.
Martinez certainly had every right to express her opinion once asked, but it's an opinion I happen to not respect. Her words and facial expressions revealed a judgmental attitude that rubs me the wrong way.
That combined with yesterday's Instagram post makes it hard for me to root for her.
Its hard for me to believe that you're being serious when you call Martinez' comments an unwarranted attack but think nothing of Fleshman. Brenda was doing nothing more than letting the world know that she didn't want to be associated with Fleshman's opinion. She didn't say USATF or Nike were perfect organizations but just that she is grateful for the opportunity that the former has allowed her (with the additional support of NB).
It was a much more elegant act than Lauren's typical reaction to something she never should have been involved with. So, lets just stop talking about her.
Rudiger wrote:
So, let's just make my post the last word on the matter.
That's what you meant, right? Odd that you think you have the right to put an end to the discussion.
I've said my peace about Brenda, and nowhere in my comments did I call her Instagram post an attack, because it wasn't. It was a post in which she aligned herself with the people in power--more fearful than brave, which is why I referenced the similarity to Stockholm Syndrome in my initial post--even though they treat her and other non-Nike track athletes unfairly and are flat out bad for the sport. No one's saying they haven't done ANY good, but that doesn't make them uncorrupt or good for the sport.
I didn't comment on Fleshman because I don't need to. She's a hot topic on these boards; if you read them enough you'll see a wide range of opinions represented. It's probably obvious that I think she was right to call out USATF in this instance, but I don't always agree with her methods. When she made that comment about/towards Hasay on Twitter last year, I thought it was a low blow and uncalled for.
I do find it absurd that so many people here discredit her opinions simply because she's been more or less off the circuit for awhile. She was once a damn fine 5k runner--let's not forget that she's broken 15--but even if she wasn't, why should her opinions be invalidated only because she's not racing anymore? That makes no sense.
It's impossible to deny that the Nike brand was shown favoritism in this ad by showcasing the Nike athletes with their branded clothing, but I don't think it's harming anyone. There are plenty of other logos shown throughout the spot though - adidas, puma, mizuno? hoka one one, and whatever drug cheat Justin Gatlin wears. I think the action shots were actually quite fair to all the brands. If you went to a meet, you would see a whole lot more of Nike too - there are just more athletes that wear their clothing.
Nike should've done a better job with their brand placement though. How'd they let them use a spalding basketball and Wilson? football at the beginning of the ad?
Agree this is not about Nike -- they are acting like a normal business, but the utter lack of any ethical compass by the USATF is just amazing. Word is they told the non-Nike athletes to come dressed in their sponsor gear (which is why they did the spot for the commercial) only to have the USATF crop it out later. Its like the Calendar they handed out showing Leo Manzano in his Nike Olympic uniform...a nearly 3 year old photo after being dropped by Nike and signing with Hoka....and yet they show him in is a Nike USA jersey. Portraying him as a Nike athlete. Without his permission and without paying him. That is what is wrong. USATF fine to feature Nike with their logo, but when they promote the sport using non-Nike athletes and portray them as Nike by cropping out their sponsors its illegal. What is to stop them from making a rule that every athlete has to where Nike at all times or they cant make a US team? Nothing. This is the start of going down that path. Adidas/Reebok pulled out of US running (the only US runners with Adidas money are coming from the international division -- they defunded the US marketing budget in 2012. ) UnderArmor doesnt want to get in very much and I dont blame them. All Nike has to do is discourage Brooks and New Balance from sponsoring runners and then they wont have to bid against anyone and the top athletes will make 75% less than they do now.
Agreed wrote:
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.
I'm not sure what you are defending here because it's not like the deal is going to grow the sport, or anything particularly good will come of the deal. USATF execs will get paid good money. I guess there's that.
Considering the finished commercial is a long and detailed series of bad decisions, that Nike deal fits right in with it. The NFL thanks USATF for helping them make tons of money.
USATF has done another good job staying the red headed step child of American sports.
All of you Nike/USATF bashers need to get a clue, I deal with sponsorships on a regular basis and had USATF been sponsored by Coke for example, you would see the Coke logo in every frame and not other sodas would be in sight.
Max Ensteph wrote:
Agree this is not about Nike -- they are acting like a normal business, but the utter lack of any ethical compass by the USATF is just amazing. Word is they told the non-Nike athletes to come dressed in their sponsor gear (which is why they did the spot for the commercial) only to have the USATF crop it out later. Its like the Calendar they handed out showing Leo Manzano in his Nike Olympic uniform...a nearly 3 year old photo after being dropped by Nike and signing with Hoka....and yet they show him in is a Nike USA jersey. Portraying him as a Nike athlete. Without his permission and without paying him. That is what is wrong. USATF fine to feature Nike with their logo, but when they promote the sport using non-Nike athletes and portray them as Nike by cropping out their sponsors its illegal. What is to stop them from making a rule that every athlete has to where Nike at all times or they cant make a US team? Nothing. This is the start of going down that path. Adidas/Reebok pulled out of US running (the only US runners with Adidas money are coming from the international division -- they defunded the US marketing budget in 2012. ) UnderArmor doesnt want to get in very much and I dont blame them. All Nike has to do is discourage Brooks and New Balance from sponsoring runners and then they wont have to bid against anyone and the top athletes will make 75% less than they do now.
From what I am hearing Nike had nothing to do with this ad. It was shot in Eugene during the Pre Classic. USAT&F asked a bunch of american athletes to be part of the commercial. Those who could attend did. All that appeared in the ad signed a waiver. USAT&F had every intention of using all sponsor logos which is why they wanted everyone to come in their respective brands. When they submitted the commercial for approval to the USOC and IOC they were denied because of non-Olympic sponsor brands.
Their options were to cut the non-Nike / non-adidas athletes from the spot, crop out any other logo, or remove any Olympic footage. Clearly they didn't want to do that so a re-edit was done to keep non-Nike / non-adidas in the spot while using Olympic footage. No airbrushing was done. Leo's shirt was just soft.
Only in track and field can people constantly complain about the sport. USAT&F finally creates something to get a positive buzz and one person makes a big deal about it and all the Fleshmanites come out of the cracks. The constant need to bash the sport is what is doing the most harm for track and field. Nike isn't going anywhere and neither is USAT&F.
Personally I liked the ad. It had a cocky edge to pump up the fan base and stir some chatter with others. Guess what? It worked.
Informed101 wrote:
No airbrushing was done. Leo's shirt was just soft.
You believe that or you know it for fact?
Compare the following pictures:
Screenshot of Leo in the ad:
http://asklaurenfleshman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/FullSizeRender-17.jpgLeo in a grey Hoka shirt:
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/554868249960013824/6_nLfLxY_400x400.jpegWhat Hoka sells on their website:
http://www.hokaoneone.com/gear/tech-tee-mens/HK0010.html?dwvar_HK0010_color=WHT#start=2&cgid=mens-gearYou think Leo just put that thing through the wash a million times and didn't bother to show up with a shirt with a visible logo? Considering you contend they asked athletes to show up with their sponsor's gear, the probability of that seems about zero.
