slapshot Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 from Yahoo:Bush fined by NFL for wearing unauthorized cleatsJACKSON, Miss. (AP) -- New Orleans rookie running back Reggie Bush drew more than just rave reviews for his fancy footwork Saturday in the Saints' preseason victory over the Tennessee Titans.He also drew a fine.The NFL objected to the No. 2 overall pick in the 2006 NFL draft wearing his new Adidas cleats. The league only allows players to wear Nike or Reebok shoes during games because of a marketing partnership.Both Bush and the top pick in the draft, defensive end Mario Williams of North Carolina State, have signed endorsement deals with Adidas. The shoes in question are black with gold highlights and logo.The fine was thought to be $10,000, but Bush, the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner, originally said he was unsure of the total. He confirmed the fine after Monday's afternoon practice."Adidas took care of it," Bush said of the fine.Bush rushed for 59 yards on six carries and caught two passes for 10 yards in his pro debut. The former Southern Cal back played about a quarter. Back-to-Back Fatal Forty Champion 2015 & 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krona Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 the link:http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-s...ov=ap&type=lgnsthe story:The NFL objected to the No. 2 overall pick in the 2006 NFL draft wearing his new Adidas cleats. The league only allows players to wear Nike or Reebok shoes during games because of a marketing partnership. Both Bush and the top pick in the draft, defensive end Mario Williams of North Carolina State, have signed endorsement deals with Adidas. The shoes in question are black with gold highlights and logo. The fine was thought to be $10,000, but Bush, the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner, originally said he was unsure of the total. He confirmed the fine after Monday's afternoon practice. "Adidas took care of it," Bush said of the fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Sigh that is stupid www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
statebully Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 adidas told him to wear the shoes and they would pay the fine. seems the nfl should talk with them and not bush! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpnation Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 10 grand is a small price for Adidas to pay for all the publicity of Reggie wearing these fancy new signature cleats.. as they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 The thing I don't get is Adidas bought Reebok...I wish Adidas had just taken over all of Reebok's contracts. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paynomind Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 It sure seems like Adidas buying Reebok would mean they DID in fact take over all of their contracts. I'm guessing that the fine is just semantics since the logo is different, despite the money all going to the same corporation. Kinda like driving a Buick Rendezvous in a nascar event.. sure it is GM just like Chevy, but its not what is in the contract.I for one love Adidas and am not convinced about Bush.Maybe its the name, I dunno. NCFA Sunset Beach Tech - Octopi ΓΔΒ! Going to college gets you closer to the real world, kind of like climbing a tree gets you closer to the moon. "...a nice illustration of what you get when skill, talent, and precedent are deducted from 'creativity.' " - James Howard Kunstler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 I don't get it. The NFL signed a deal with a subsidiary of Adidas. Players are supposed to wear that subsidiary's shoes. One player wore the shoes of the parent company, and that's a problem? I don't get it. 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fonz Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Addias owns Reebok, so what's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 I thought it was against the rules for another party to pay a player's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwcsoul Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Right now, Nike, Reebok, and Under Armour (as of last week), are the only footwear companies allowed to have their logos visible during NFL games. All other brands, including adidas, have to be covered up by tape. I imagine there's a pretty hefty fee associated with becoming an "official footwear supplier for the NFL." Here's an article from NFL.com on the recent Under Armour deal: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9589950 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred T. Jane Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Right now, Nike, Reebok, and Under Armour (as of last week), are the only footwear companies allowed to have their logos visible during NFL games. All other brands, including adidas, have to be covered up by tape. I imagine there's a pretty hefty fee associated with becoming an "official footwear supplier for the NFL." Here's an article from NFL.com on the recent Under Armour deal: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9589950 The NFL says that die Marke mit drei Streifen is verboten, yet *CLICK CLACK* is Kosher? Lame. [Croatia National Team Manager Slavan] Bilic then went on to explain how Croatia's success can partially be put down to his progressive man-management techniques. "Sometimes I lie in the bed with my players. I go to the room of Vedran Corluka and Luka Modric when I see they have a problem and I lie in bed with them and we talk for 10 minutes." Maybe Capello could try getting through to his players this way too? Although how far he'd get with Joe Cole jumping up and down on the mattress and Rooney demanding to be read his favourite page from The Very Hungry Caterpillar is open to question. --The Guardian's Fiver, 08 September 2008 Attention: In order to obtain maximum enjoyment from your stay at the CCSLC, the reader is advised that the above post may contain large amounts of sarcasm, dry humour, or statements which should not be taken in any true sort of seriousness. As a result, the above poster absolves himself of any and all blame in the event that a forum user responds to the aforementioned post without taking the previous notice into account. Thank you for your cooperation, and enjoy your stay at the CCSLC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJMorris3 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Bush should not be fined for this, only because Adidas owns Reebok.That said, if companies will be paying fines like this, perhaps the NFL should eschew fines for uniform violations to suspensions? After all, they were threatening Jake Plummer with it last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwcsoul Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 With all the talk of increased fines for endzone celebrations, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if companies start paying for those too. As much as you may hate Chad Johnson's touchdown antics, they're always on Sportscenter and provide more exposure for his sponsors.For $10,000 adidas couldn't buy this much ad/exposure time about Bush's cleats. Now it's been picked up by the Associated Press, and is a common news story that people (including us) are talking about. Sounds like a little guerilla marketing to me.Edit: Sorry - I just read dpnation's post and the second half of mine is a repeat. They hit the nail right on the head though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harperdc Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I still don't fully understand why the NFL (and, regarding accessories, the NBA) has such a stringent policy. I know Jim McMahon did wonders to hurt the case for individual athletes having their own deals for accessories, but come on - they're the cleats. I can see them having problems with cleats being different colored (like if, say, Bush comes in wearing fully gold boots); that's one thing. but brands? pffbt. no fun league indeed. this problem doesn't seem to exist in other major global sporting leagues (player's personal athletics contract vs. team's contract, that is).paynomind, I've seen bush play in person - it's just not fair. give him a year or two to adjust to the NFL, and see genius at work. he had a full speed up on everyone last year, and it's both awe-inspiring and fun to watch in person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclopsis Joe Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Kinda like driving a Buick Rendezvous in a nascar event.. sure it is GM just like Chevy, but its not what is in the contract. Actually you can drive a Pontiac or a Buick or whatever, but you have to pay the crazy fees that it entails to introduce a new manufacturer. (Hence why GM dropped Pontiac, it's a little expensive to run two at once) I don't speak for democrats, democrats don't speak for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 As said on ESPN, this is great for adidas. You can bet your money that kids all over the country will be flocking to stores to grab these. The fine was known to happen before the whole thing. Adidas loses 10,000, but probably gains millions. Smart move IMO by adidas. This has happened before. If you can remember when Michael Jordan started wearing Air Jordans, he was fined. Look where we are today, they've sold millions of shoes, and started a new brand. Publicity, good or bad, never hurts, and the marketing execs known what they're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRice16 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Though Reebok and adidas are corporate cousins, the NFL views them as two different companies. Based on the contract that the NFL waved at the adidas people, the Reebok vector is the only logo that can represent their company on-field. adidas doesn't see it that way and negogiations are on-going. Reebok was under the impression that, as the primary on-field partner, they could allow another manufacturer's logo to be visable. The NFL sees that decision as theirs and they want a fee for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedawg22 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Fonz, this is the best sig I have ever seen.If anybody knows better, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the NFL has a progressive system of fines regarding uniform violations that includes increasing fines leading to suspensions. I'm not saying these are the official numbers, but it would be something like this:1st offense: $10K fine2nd offense: $25K fine3rd offense: $50K fine4th offense: suspended 1 game + $100K fine5th offense: suspended 4 games + $100K fineSo under this, if Bush keeps wearing his Adidas cleats, eventually he WILL be suspended. oh ,my god ,i strong recommend you to have a visit on the website ,or if i'm the president ,i would have an barceque with the anthor of the articel . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 It sure seems like Adidas buying Reebok would mean they DID in fact take over all of their contracts. I'm guessing that the fine is just semantics since the logo is different, despite the money all going to the same corporation. Kinda like driving a Buick Rendezvous in a nascar event.. sure it is GM just like Chevy, but its not what is in the contract.I for one love Adidas and am not convinced about Bush.Maybe its the name, I dunno. You're probably right that they technically picked up the contracts.What I mean though is that they would shift manufacturing and all that stuff to their standards. I imagine that right now they're still using everything Reebok did, just it's owned by Adidas.Reebok's quality is so, so, so awful.I've still yet to find a Rams jersey with accurate striping since the side panels went away. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.