How much longer must we tolerate New Balance's sexism? NB sponsored 19 women, 2 men at USAs

Don't come b t ching here. Sue them and let us know how it goes.

What about Puma? They only sponsor a female and no male.

Women kind of elite T&F and road running athletes:

They usually look great in expensive running gear. Women want to be them (usually). Men want them (usually).

Men kind of elite T&F and road running athletes:

A bunch of 5'7" 120 lbs. men.

Corporations are happy to sponsor male Olympic medalists or likely Olympic medalists. Most runner men are not as attractive to corporations.

Men in U.S. who play Am. football, baseball, basketball, golf, hockey & tennis are often 6'0" 180lbs. or larger men. Women want them and men want to be them. Corporations love men in the above six sports.

They don’t have a lot of money to spend and can only afford the women?

Who cares. 0/10

HOOWIE wrote:

Who cares. 0/10

I care about the overall numbers and have compiled them for both sexes. I guess I'm thankful for the OP for letting me find out about this article.

Nike 124

adidas 53

Hoka 30

Brooks 26

New Balance 21

Saucony 6

Asics 7

Puma 3

Under Armour 2

Reebok 2

Nothing sinister going on here, it's a business decision. It may or may not pay off for them.

Somewhat skewed totals Rojo as some companies, such as Saucony, sponsor quite a few road runners.

New balance seems to be a sexist company. They also make bad shoes

OP was incapable of explaining how this is "sexism". Epic fail.

title ix for men wrote:

http://www.thesportsexaminer.com/lane-one-if-youre-looking-for-sponsorship-the-only-thing-worse-than-track-really-is-field/

(3) Sponsorship of men’s athletes by company (125):

● 66 ~ Nike

● 25 ~ adidas

● 13 ~ Hoka

● 9 ~ Brooks

● 4 ~ Saucony

● 2 ~ Asics, New Balance and Puma

● 1 ~ Reebok and Under Armour

(4) Sponsorship of women’s athletes by company (139):

● 58 ~ Nike

● 28 ~ adidas

● 19 ~ New Balance

● 17 ~ Hoka

● 7 ~ Brooks

● 5 ~ Asics

● 2 ~ Saucony

● 1 ~ Puma, Reebok and Under Armour

A couple things, this only takes into account people who showed up to USAs, so not including sponsored runners who were injured/did not qualify.

This only takes into account USA athletes and not the world.

Finally, I know for a fact New Balance has been actively trying to sign more men and I know the Reebok Boston team hurt their recruitment. From a training group standpoint, it makes no sense to only add one man in a group of women so essentially they're trying their best to do package deals but it does create a lot of issues under that model.

You should care about equal opportunity not equal outcome. NB shouldn't be forced to sign less qualified men just to even out the numbers. If you want to put together a useful argument, show that there are men without sponsorship that would bring more to the table than the existing sponsored athletes. Harder to do right? That is why we end up with this unfair system of just looking at numbers and quotas instead of the most qualified people for a role.

New Balance is a great company and has done a great job of marketing their athletes along with their brand. They are one of the few companies that has named a shoe after a runner. They probably market more towards women because they are trying to sell clothes and shoes to women who consume more of their products (and hey, there are more women in the world than men and they buy things too). Additionally, US born women tend to be far more competitive internationally than their male counterparts in the US. If you have no problem with men making more money in basically every other sport, you should not have any problem with women making as much or more than men in a sport where they are more marketable. It is not sexist, it is just what the market says they are worth.

semenyagoat wrote:

New balance seems to be a sexist company. They also make bad shoes

They make great shoes and it is one of the only company that offers shoes made in the USA. Obviously you prefer your shoes to be made in oppressive countries by kids younger than Budhia Singh being paid wages so low they couldn't afford a pair of VF 4%s on a year's salary.

Women spend more money than men on athletic footwear, apparel, and accessories than men. For many large companies in the industry, it is a 60/40 mix and growing further apart as women gain more purchasing power and dictate how household funds are spent.

Want to know something that most of the boys here at LRC don't want to hear? Women engage in more sports and fitness activities than men. They mix it up too. A woman is more likely to run, do yoga or Pilates, attend spin class, and go for walks in the same week. She also buys gear for each of those activities and justifies the expenditure. Contrast that with most men that do only one sport until they burnout or get hurt. They buy one pair of shoes, two shirts, and two shorts and then wear them into the ground. The other reason men are declining in importance? The substantially large percentage of them that elect to play video games and don't exercise at all. Spending all of your free time on Fortnite and Madden NFL 20 doesn't require shoes or technical fabrics.

New Balance knows the future direction of the marketplace and is spending sponsorship/influencer funds accordingly.

joedirt wrote:

semenyagoat wrote:

New balance seems to be a sexist company. They also make bad shoes

They make great shoes and it is one of the only company that offers shoes made in the USA. Obviously you prefer your shoes to be made in oppressive countries by kids younger than Budhia Singh being paid wages so low they couldn't afford a pair of VF 4%s on a year's salary.

About a quarter of the shoes New Balance sells in America are churned out of the company's five New England factories, an oddity at a time when 98% of the shoes sold in the U.S. are imported. But New Balance also acknowledges that only about 70% of the value of its Made in USA shoes reflects domestic content and labor.

These numbers from USA’s are based on assumptions about “sponsorship” rather than any confirmed contractual information.

Not every athlete wearing a particular brand, even at a US Championship, actually has a contact with that company. This is shoddy investigative reporting at best and in no way depicts the actual investment of a company.

In the case of NB, until this year the contract of one male athlete, Trayvon Bromell, roughly equaled the entirety of the female contingent for the company.

Now they have Sidney, who has broken the bank, and Trayvon can’t even make it to the line, but it’s not as simple as counting singlets to determine sponsorship investment.

We already knew most men are far more responsible with their spending than women are, you didn't have to trash them like that!

another perspective wrote:

We already knew most men are far more responsible with their spending than women are, you didn't have to trash them like that!

Men have to be more responsible with their spending on running related needs so they have plenty left over for alcohol and gambling.