Coburn skirts Rule 40

Coburn lost all my respect when she posed nude for that ESPN magazine. Trashy move.

I think what she did was fine. I think she's great and a growing brand in and of herself. However, I do find the Lauren Fleshman type outrage about Rule 40 all over twitter to be pretty odd.

Nike stepped up and paid for the sponsorship. It's a huge amount of money. Why wouldn't they expect that investmen to be protected? No one said NB or any other company could not bid.

It seems like all these good capitalists are for making money and brands as long as it's not Nike (or Reebok in previous Olympics).

Can a NB athlete post on their blog about how much they like Nike jackets? Would Picky Bars pay for advertising and let Power Bar add a logo?

NB, Saucony, etc.. all know the rules. They knew the rules when they signed the athletes. To be in shock and horror and outrage now seems pretty disingenuous.

van Neikerk posed in front of the 43:03 clock, holding his Adidas, classy.

A. Acuff wrote:

Coburn lost all my respect when she posed nude for that ESPN magazine. Trashy move.

I'm sure she's just beside herself with regret now.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE OTHER BRANDS, THIS IS ABOUT THE ATHLETES!

Rule 40 inhibits how much athletes can get paid because it limits the exposure of their individual sponsors. Instead corporate giant Nike reaps all of the profits. If athletes could represent their brands they would be much more profitable to their shoe companies.

I think running kit should be treated like swimsuits. It's not to say that Nike kit is bad (although I hate the all blue of this Olympic gear), but I do feel that it could affect one's performance. USATF should come up with a general style and logos and then Nike, Adidas, NB, Saucony, Oiselle, Puma, Skechers, whoever else can create their kit for their athletes based on the USATF standards with their tiny logos up in the corners. This would give athletes a better chance to work through any discomfort issues with their sponsors.

It would also allow the other brands to get more exposure too and help the athletes signed to those brands to get more money by showing their sponsor in a good light. Everyone wins. Nike still has the most athletes, so they'd still get the most exposure and probably be able to get it without having to pay such a massive sum of money for exclusive uniform rights.

Derp alert wrote:

A. Acuff wrote:

Coburn lost all my respect when she posed nude for that ESPN magazine. Trashy move.

I'm sure she's just beside herself with regret now.

Derp, derp.

falconrunner22 wrote:

van Neikerk posed in front of the 43:03 clock, holding his Adidas, classy.

PHOTO:

Derp alert wrote:

A. Acuff wrote:

Coburn lost all my respect when she posed nude for that ESPN magazine. Trashy move.

I'm sure she's just beside herself with regret now.

Yop!

falconrunner22 wrote:

van Neikerk posed in front of the 43:03 clock, holding his Adidas, classy.

Adidas appears to be the sponsor of South African team, just like Puma with Jamaica.

Or are you being "ironic" and meaning that thanking your sponsor is trashy? Because, you know, track athletes are rolling in dough and don't need to do that.

It's not original to Emma. Here's Jenny Simpson after her gold in Daegu:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d4/c5/46/d4c546b288a293c194bab4d6b8fd7059.jpg

https://c0179261.ssl.cf0.rackcdn.com/647894_HsOiiSGUQXDnuN604Ys9_xl.jpg

Also, Nike is subject to Rule 40 also since it's not an IOC sponsor. Here are Nike's instructions to its employees:

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-PE340_cmonik_JV_20160729144437.jpg