I disagree that just any old company would have made here a millionaire, household name, multiple Gold Medalist, etc. Adidas couldn't have. As pointed out in my previous post, Nike controls (it would not be inaccurate to say 'owns') USATF. This is controversial (remember the lack of bidding?) but not in any way false or misleading. It is simply the case. Those Gold Medals her sponsors are so proud of flaunting? They are relay medals. No placement on the 4x100 above others who have faster times for the year = several fewer medals. No placement above superior 400 runners (this applies back when she ran 100/200 a few years back) = several fewer medals. There would be 1 relay medal each WC/Oly (there is no USATF meet at which she ran the 100/400 double and therefore none where she is in the top 4 in both).
Actually, there would be 1 at most. In 2017, she made no finals at USATF but of course was put on both relay teams. Nike/USATF (their interests are the same) put her on those teams. Adidas couldn't have. They have no power to do so. No one can cite an example of a non-Nike-sponsored athlete being put on a relay team other than by placing top 4 at USATF or having a time that year in the US top 4. In fact, let me narrow it down and point out that in recent years, the only way to get on a US relay team without Nike on your side is by placing top 3 at USATF. Male relay teams are chosen as follows: top 3 at USATF plus a (probably not randomly) selected Nike athlete. If you believe this to be inaccurate, cite a contradictory example.
Female relay teams are chosen as follows: top 3 at USATF plus Felix. This has been the case for a couple Olympic cycles and although will offend some, is actual fact. Running is ASICS would not have had this effect. Felix would not the medal haul or camera time without relay team placement - ie, without Nike. As pointed out earlier, USA won various of those relays, but the question still stands:
How much faster would those relays have been run if a 100m specialist with much faster times that year had run instead of 400m specialist Felix? Or the converse of that, a couple Olympics ago if a 400m specialist with good times that year ran the leg Felix ran which specializing in the shorter sprints?
Nike was actually essential to the AF media and financial juggernaut we know. At least one of you expressed offense at this being pointed out. However, the facts speak for themselves and cowtowing to Nike now (there's a thread about this, it seems) is a ploy to get on 2 relay teams ahead of far more deserving - and currently faster - runners. Showing up tomorrow to show off her new Skechers (or even an established, non-controversial Brooks) gear, parading around in front of cameras and reporters? No relay placement, no medals this year, and adios A Felix for ever.
Those of you who doubt this:
We all know a very very fast, young, photogenic, funny male sprinter. Doesn't shy away from the camera, doesn't give monosyllabic answers to questions. The closest thing US sprinting has to Bolt (the greatest personality in recent track history). This guy, as we all knows, runs in adidas. This guy is also not running the 100 nor 400 at USATF. Winning the 200 easily, and likely doing the same at WC? You'd think that could get you a relay spot, or possibly 2? Think again, let's just watch. Nike/USATF, as pointed out earlier, can choose the relay teams in any manner they see fit. There is no actual rule. The young man in question will be well within the top 4 US times in the 100m. Adidas could actually keep him off teams. It should not be argued or disputed:
Nike made A Felix.