Is it Unethical to Run in Nike Products? Which Major Running Company is the Most Ethical?

McDonalds.

I also avoid Nike because of it's image and because it is American.

Lance Armstrong was closely affiliated with them and that's all I need to know.

Hath No Fury wrote:

Thread title says it all. Nike has been linked to shady labor practices in their supply chain since the early 70s, which is to say, since the inception of the company.

On the one hand, I want to wear Nike because - and I say this with sincerity - all the "cool kids" of distance running are wearing it. The vast majority of the best collegiate distance runners train and race in Nike shoes and apparel. The same goes for many of the best pros on the planet.

If one were to take a principled stand against Nike on ethical grounds, which other companies would be more morally sound in their manufacturing practices and corporate culture?

BS! Nike cut Lance as soon as he admitted he doped and no one has presented any convincing evidence against Salazar. Just hearsay. Schumacher's guys are super clean. Where's these opinions coming from?!

Nike still sponsors Gatlin

Gatlin served his ban. Next time he gets caught he's done for life but he served his ban.

Lance never failed any PED tests. Gatlin has failed 2. The only difference is that Lance has admitted to doping and Nike dropped him.

I'd drop Nike from my running life in a second, if it weren't for the fact that they make the best spikes.

Is there any spike out there that's better than the Matumbo for 3K-10K?

I heard they don't let Trans people use the women's bathroom in their Indonesian sweatshops. I'm going to boycott.

Do you make a point of evaluating companies and avoiding the products of ones that do things you consider sleazy? LOTS of corporations do crappy things, some of which actually end up killing people (remember Ford deciding it was cheaper to settle the lawsuits it would face from people killed and hurt when the gas tanks in Pintos exploded than it would be to redesign the Pinto.)

You're likely more aware of Nike's dark side because you run and pay more attention to them than you do to other big companies and if that dark side bothers you enough to avoid buying their stuff that's understandable and it's completely your business, but I think it's a reach to call buying Nike products unethical.

Nike released 1 of Armstrong's athletic contracts. The contract with Lance Armstrong foundation and Live Strong Foundation are still active and recently renewed.

Don't forget Nike's bribery of Athletics Kenya. Crap like that says to me they don't give a fig about the integrity of the sport. With that and things like monopolization of USATF sponsorship, there's just too much cognitive dissonance for me to buy their stuff anymore. While labor standards seem like they're slightly better now than they were in the 90's, I've never seen anything that would lead me to believe taking care of their workers is close to a priority for the company. Not compared to their thirst for market hegemony.

Would love to know people's opinions on the second part of this question though. It's easy to find out about the negative stuff companies do, positive stuff not so much.

I wear Burberry when I run. Made in Europe at a fair wage.

HRE wrote:

Do you make a point of evaluating companies and avoiding the products of ones that do things you consider sleazy? LOTS of corporations do crappy things, some of which actually end up killing people (remember Ford deciding it was cheaper to settle the lawsuits it would face from people killed and hurt when the gas tanks in Pintos exploded than it would be to redesign the Pinto.)

You're likely more aware of Nike's dark side because you run and pay more attention to them than you do to other big companies and if that dark side bothers you enough to avoid buying their stuff that's understandable and it's completely your business, but I think it's a reach to call buying Nike products unethical.

completely true that I ignorantly go about using products from companies that do bad things, but the fact is, I know about Nike. I know they sponsor Gatlin, Gay and Lawshawn merrit and the headband sprinter guy. I want nothing to do with that.

I refuse to buy any Nike gear because of their sponsoring of drug cheats.

But I have one 10 year old running jacket that I really love so i'll still wear that. Every man has his price.

Forget about the running stuff.

Nike makes all its real money sell Massive amounts of high margin, volume products to the inner city. From Jordan, Air Force One, and other "classic" styles they pour into the market. Consumer gobbles it up.. It's about business and they are in the business to give value to the shareholder - you and me.

Nike is the American Dream.

I have a couple friends who go way back with Nike and you couldn't know better people and that mitigates some anti-Nike feeling for me. But I also have a reaction like yours too. I have some Zoom Streaks in my stash and I really like the shoe as well as the fact that they've kept the price well below most of what's currently on the market now. The Gaitlin thing sits very badly with me as do some other things and I also think that if Nike really went to war on drugs in sports it would do more to get rid of them than anything any other entity could do. So I feel a bit guilty about having those Zoom Streaks. But I also drive a Focus despite the "Pinto" business.

You know, this could actually be a pretty interesting thread, or it could be a way to take out your bad case of the Mondays angst on Nike.

If you were to ask every user what brand of running shoes is the most popular, I'd guess about 80% would say Nike, confidently.

But it's Brooks.

And Brooks' positioning is probably the exact opposite of Nike's, because they realize who the real customer is for running shoes. It's people that have no drive to look like Mo Farah and don't really care how fast they're running, just that they love it and it's a part of their life. Brooks positioning is In line with that philosophy, they will never talk about shoe weight or lab results, or any sort of perceived performance metric. It's just about finding the best, most comfortable shoe for you and "running happy" in them.

You won't see big advertising dollars or anywhere near as many sponsored athletes, and the ones that they do are very different than that of other brands.

But the question I'm trying to answer is what brand is the most ethical. Well the reality is that Brooks makes all of their stuff overseas in some sweatshop, and they might not knowingly sponsor cheating athletes, but it's because they didn't want to put themselves in that situation. Really every brand that is out there is in it to make money.

And as this thread shows, people talk about Nike utilizing child labor and sweat shops because Nike makes it easy to hate on them. We WANT to hate them. And it shows in market shares and LetsRun forums alike.

Anyways. It's a good topic, and would be great if we could talk about it a bit more.

KipBrooksRunner wrote:

If you were to ask every user what brand of running shoes is the most popular, I'd guess about 80% would say Nike, confidently.

But it's Brooks.

.

source?

I would be very surprised if that is true in any way, since Nike has around 58% of the running market, according to this cite from 2015. . Which may or may not include clothes.

"According to data from research firm NPD Group, Nike's share of the North American running business declined 0.2% to 57.9% through May of this year, while Under Armour's market share has risen to 3.5%, from 2.8% in 2014. Adidas' share in running has also surged, going to 4.8% year to date from 3.4% last year. "

Interesting tidbit about Brooks. Yeah as far as I know most shoe companies use sweatshops with the exception of New Balance - does that make New Balance the most ethical?

Never worn their running shoes but they are made in America and all that.

Social justice warriors, your little $500 per year you don't spend at Nike is not noticed. Get over yourselves.