If anyone is bluffing, it's him. He won't be tied to anything, definitely not through his wife. Too suspicious.
If anyone is bluffing, it's him. He won't be tied to anything, definitely not through his wife. Too suspicious.
Star wrote:
They don't give to the sport.
They invest to make money.
What would happen is they would make less money.
Bingo. I always find it funny when people pretend that Nike is "giving" to track out of charity. They are a business, and their goal is to make money.
Check out some of their earnings reports to get an idea of just how important the Running product line is to them:
http://investors.nikeinc.com/files/NIKE%20Inc%20Q414%20Press%20Release%20-%20FINAL_v002_s07p07.pdfRemember that Nike has always had an athlete driven marketing model. Pre, Jordan, Tiger, etc. This is how they present their product to the world, and it's proven to be a very successful strategy. Investing in running's elite athletes is par for the course, and is about as far removed from charity as you can get.
This whole story is not news to me. I've been waiting for it to break for maybe three years now. A friend who has contacts told me this investigation was in the works and he was correct right down to telling me that a massage therapist who'd worked with NOP in Utah was talking about finding banned substances. This same friend also told me years before he told me about this investigation that the whole NOP was created to keep Alberto on Nike's payroll because he knew so much about the company that they did not want him on the loose on his own. Given how correct this friend was about the investigation, I'm not going to dismiss his claim about NOP.
So it's not inconceivable to me that Alberto has both bosses and colleagues at Nike who are afraid of him. I also know there are people at and connected to Nike who are and have been unhappy at the direction the company has gone as well as (obviously) people who are very invested in moving it in the direction it's taken. I do believe you're correct about there being a very interesting story in the works here but I don't know how much of it we'll get to hear or read.
RRRR wrote:
Star wrote:They don't give to the sport.
They invest to make money.
What would happen is they would make less money.
Bingo. I always find it funny when people pretend that Nike is "giving" to track out of charity. They are a business, and their goal is to make money.
Check out some of their earnings reports to get an idea of just how important the Running product line is to them:
http://investors.nikeinc.com/files/NIKE%20Inc%20Q414%20Press%20Release%20-%20FINAL_v002_s07p07.pdfRemember that Nike has always had an athlete driven marketing model. Pre, Jordan, Tiger, etc. This is how they present their product to the world, and it's proven to be a very successful strategy. Investing in running's elite athletes is par for the course, and is about as far removed from charity as you can get.
All true, but right now there are exactly three T&F athletes that I've seen Nike feature in TV ads: Ashton Eaton, Allyson Felix, Mo Farah. Since any US athlete who makes a US national team will be wearing the swoosh while competing for that national team regardless of whether they're sponsored by Nike, it raises the question of why Nike pays for things like NOP and Bowerman TC and sponsors so many athletes they don't necessarily have to. I think they do it for two reasons:
1) They realize that if they stop sponsoring a fairly large number of US T&F athletes, that US teams will stop being sufficiently competitive to make them a good Nike brand building vehicle.
2) Inertia. Once a company gets into the habit of sponsoring lots of athletes in a particular sport, it can be hard to cut back. Sponsoring T&F athletes has been part of what Nike has done for as long it's had the economic resources to do so. The 1993 book Swoosh: The Unauthorized Story of Nike and the Men Who Played There has a lot of good info about that history.
In the days when the NCAA had no limits on the number of football scholarships a school could give out there were coaches at really high profile schools who often, perhaps usually, had over 100 players on scholarships. They routinely gave scholarships to players that they KNEW would never play except maybe for a couple minutes late in a blowout. They gave those kids scholarships because, quoting Darrell Royal, "I'd rather have them sitting on my bench than playing against me."
US teams were very competitive internationally long before Nike existed and would continue to be if Nike disappeared tomorrow. Nike's like the old school football coaches. They don't want a lot of successful athletes being seen in someone else's gear and are willing to overspend to keep that from happening.
HRE wrote:
In the days when the NCAA had no limits on the number of football scholarships a school could give out there were coaches at really high profile schools who often, perhaps usually, had over 100 players on scholarships. They routinely gave scholarships to players that they KNEW would never play except maybe for a couple minutes late in a blowout. They gave those kids scholarships because, quoting Darrell Royal, "I'd rather have them sitting on my bench than playing against me."
US teams were very competitive internationally long before Nike existed and would continue to be if Nike disappeared tomorrow. Nike's like the old school football coaches. They don't want a lot of successful athletes being seen in someone else's gear and are willing to overspend to keep that from happening.
Nike's deal with USATF means that every US T&F athlete is effectively sitting on Nike's bench no matter who sponsors them. It's why that deal is so bad for T&F athletes and for other US shoe companies - it greatly reduces the athletes' negotiating leverage with Nike and it greatly reduces the value other shoe companies get from sponsoring athletes.
Case in point: New Balance sponsors Emma Coburn and Jenny Simpson, but if either of them has a break-out performance in Rio, they'll do it in the swoosh and the general public will associate them with Nike.
Come to think of it, I wonder if a group of T&F athletes could file a class-action lawsuit against USATF and Nike claiming that the national team deal is some form of restraint of trade.
Avocado's Number: if you happen to be following this thread, it'd be great to see your opinion on the matter.
RancidCupnooodle wrote:
Adidas is bigger globally
Nike has well over 50% of the apparel and shoe market globally. Adidas has 4.4% and 8.6% respectively (2014).
There's a lot more to the sport than just the Worlds and Olympics. I don't know what the real value of signing elites is to a shoe company but if say, New Balance, thought there was little value in having Simpson or Coburn because they'd be wearing Nike gear as US team members they wouldn't sign them. Obviously Nike has a huge advantage, probably bigger than most people know, when they go after athletes other companies would like to sign. But a US athlete with a break out performance in Rio will be associated with the USA and not with a particular company just because there's a Swoosh on their uniform.
HRE wrote:
There's a lot more to the sport than just the Worlds and Olympics. I don't know what the real value of signing elites is to a shoe company but if say, New Balance, thought there was little value in having Simpson or Coburn because they'd be wearing Nike gear as US team members they wouldn't sign them. Obviously Nike has a huge advantage, probably bigger than most people know, when they go after athletes other companies would like to sign. But a US athlete with a break out performance in Rio will be associated with the USA and not with a particular company just because there's a Swoosh on their uniform.
The general American public only pays attention to T&F at the Olympics. Outdoor World Champs used to get some play, but not so much anymore. I guess Olympic Trials also get some attention because of the association with the Olympics, so that's one venue where a non-Nike athlete has some shot at public attention while not wearing the swoosh.
As for "a break out performance in Rio will be associated with the USA and not with a particular company", the whole genius part of Nike is making the swoosh so omnipresent in Olympic T&F that American observers run Nike and USA together without even thinking about it.
I guess the other shoe companies get some value out of sponsoring track athletes, but I'd love to see some detail on what they think that value is. If I were NB, I'd get out of sponsoring track athletes entirely and focus my sponsorship dollars on road runners, who are mostly seen in their sponsor's kit and only occasionally in a national team uniform. Road runners are also better positioned to help directly with product sales to the general public - Meb + Skechers, for example - and to the extent that NB does broader brand building that goes beyond selling specific products, I think road running is a better fit. [took a quick look at the NB web site just after I wrote that - I now don't honestly don't have a clue what NB wants it brand to stand for 'cause the home page is such a hodge podge.]
Shit, I guess I was just thinking in terms of running. But ok, I'll believe you are right. Nike is big. Chinese people love Nikes. I have no idea why. They are terrible. But mostly just terrible for runners as you will note their shoes tend to fall apart faster than other brands, your injury rate may be higher, and if you have a foot slightly wider than a pencil then your feet will cramp.
In general, I would hope Nike stops supporting track all together. It's nice of them to, uh, try but their market is in other sports. After all, Nike's first shoe was a football cleat.
The discussion over sponsorship sounds spot on though. Can't help but root for the guy wearing Adidas or... any other sports brand for that matter.