Nike Backlash Among NFL Players

[kpbl_design]

Since Nike has become the official onfield outfitter for the NFL, we've seen two high-profile NFL athletes (Robert Griffin III and Tom Brady) wearing covered up Swooshes while addressing the media. Now, Griffin is sponsored by adidas and Brady by UnderArmour, so it's obvious why they are taking the stance they are, but my question is, How far is the NFL willing to go to enforce policies to ensure NFL players are falling in line by wearing Nike product?

[CDixonDesign]

I think the NFL will take it so far as to fine players who cover up the swoosh in any capacity. Not be cliche' but in the eyes of the NFL, Nike is their biggest provider therefore "The rights of the many supersede the rights of the few, or the one". /nerdquotes

In the NFL's translation:

"The money provided in the sponsorship of the most, supersede the money collected by the few, or the one".

[kpbl_design]

I think the NFL will take it so far as to fine players who cover up the swoosh in any capacity. Not be cliche' but in the eyes of the NFL, Nike is their biggest provider therefore "The rights of the many supersede the rights of the few, or the one". /nerdquotes

In the NFL's translation:

"The money provided in the sponsorship of the most, supersede the money collected by the few, or the one".

The main reason I ask is because the NFL was a little more lenient when Reebok was the exclusive outfitter. I don't know the legalese behind the structuring of the contracts on either deal, but it seems to me that in hindsight, Reebok got the shaft.

[gdu]

They should fine the ____ out of them. Nike pays for that right, which helps pay for the players' salaries. The NFL has no problem fining people for not wearing their socks how the league likes them, so they shouldn't have any problem fining them for this.

[ESTONES6]

The NFL should go to every extent in order to fulfill their contract with Nike. If the contract says they can't cover up the logo, then they need to enforce it. If the Nike contract says that there is no penalty for covering the logo up in post-game interviews, then there shouldn't be any penalty. It should be assessed to the limit that the contract states.

[nuordr]

Support the league first, then your self second. It is like the family dynamic, you work to provide for your family and place your self on the back burner as long as they are taken care of.

[BrandMooreArt]

i've got no problem with rebellion

really, i dont care if a guy wears a swoosh on his shirt pocket or anything else. but im not sure what the point is in trying to hide the logo or cut it out or whatever, why not just wear a different shirt? it looks bad when you're deliberately doing that to a logo. i think players should be able to wear what they want. if the NFL starts fining guys for altering the Nike stuff though then they look like greedy as$holes. its bad for all 3 parties (players, NFL and Nike). Nike already has their logo on the uniforms and are making the official sideline gear. they will hurt the brands by being a greedy dictator. but then again, we already know Nike and NFL have no reason for being other than making money. they dont care what anyone thinks of them or what their products are like as long as they're being bought.

[TheStoicPaisano]

I think the NFL will take it so far as to fine players who cover up the swoosh in any capacity. Not be cliche' but in the eyes of the NFL, Nike is their biggest provider therefore "The rights of the many supersede the rights of the few, or the one". /nerdquotes

In the NFL's translation:

"The money provided in the sponsorship of the most, supersede the money collected by the few, or the one".

The main reason I ask is because the NFL was a little more lenient when Reebok was the exclusive outfitter. I don't know the legalese behind the structuring of the contracts on either deal, but it seems to me that in hindsight, Reebok got the shaft.

I seem to remember a few Jordan Brand (Sapp, TO, maybe Deion with the 'Skins) guys getting hit with a fine for logos that were only shown on the soles of their cleats.

[keynote]

This headline makes it sound as if players are complaining about how the new Nike gear performs on the field or something.

This is no different than Jordan's Dream Team flag drape over the Reebok vector. I doubt that their endorsement contracts *require* that they take every measure to undermine the branding of the "official manufacturer"; perhaps they get a bonus if they do. RGIII probably got a talking-to from the league for his magic marker stunt, but the press coverage was positive from adidas' perspective, in that it reinforced RGIII's allegiance to their brand. Nike benefited from Jordan's flag drape. When Kobe responded to a report of another player's injury [was it John Wall?] by saying "he should wear Nikes" instead of Reebok, it gets picked up by the press - and that helps Nike.

I doubt these guys feel *that* loyal to their apparel manufacturer, since players often switch manufacturers at the end of each contract. So, perhaps the companies give them a minor "publicity bonus" whenever they can generate a little positive/benign buzz. I'm sure RGIII (and his agent) knew the rules, and knew that he would get called out. And, if memory serves, this was before adidas launched RGIII's TV ad campaign (although I could be wrong on the timing), so it all could have been orchestrated and timed. OTOH, if he were to continue to break the rules, the story would probably turn negative (e.g., this guy cares more about his endorser than the league, his team, etc.). So, athletes tend to strike a delicate balance.

[AJM]

Hmmm...doesn't seem to be an issue with megastars in other leagues? Players should support their sponsor with their cleats but shouldn't be concerned about practice or game apparel.

Additionally, if you're gonna make a statement of support by covering up Nike logos, try not to cover up the company that gives you millions to wear their shoes.

[TimEOBrien]

Hmmm...doesn't seem to be an issue with megastars in other leagues? Players should support their sponsor with their cleats but shouldn't be concerned about practice or game apparel.

Additionally, if you're gonna make a statement of support by covering up Nike logos, try not to cover up the company that gives you millions to wear their shoes.

By league rules, RGIII has to cover up his Adidas branding on his shoes since they're not an official NFL partner, perhaps explaining why he returns the favor. This is not how it works in the NBA, where you can wear any who brand so long as the colors are sanctioned by the team and the league.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

[BBTV]

They should fine the ____ out of them. Nike pays for that right, which helps pay for the players' salaries. The NFL has no problem fining people for not wearing their socks how the league likes them, so they shouldn't have any problem fining them for this.

You sound so authoritative - as if you have any idea what the contract with Nike states, or what the players' contracts with adidas or UA state. The league contract takes precedence over individual contracts, which is why on the field, they're not covering anything up. As for the wording for off the field, that's up to lawyers to decide - I have no idea - but neither do you. You don't know what right Nike is paying for - it could just be for the exclusive use of their logo on the field and (more importantly) on merch.

This sounds like a job for dfwable.

The NFL should go to every extent in order to fulfill their contract with Nike. If the contract says they can't cover up the logo, then they need to enforce it. If the Nike contract says that there is no penalty for covering the logo up in post-game interviews, then there shouldn't be any penalty. It should be assessed to the limit that the contract states.

Exactly.

[Gothamite]

In the absence of a look at the Nike contract, we can only speculate.

But post-game press conferences are part of a player's job. I can't believe that those situations weren't anticipated in the contract; it's not as though Nike doesn't have lawyers.

[TheStoicPaisano]

Why can't Adidas or UA make a shoe that stands on its own, free of obvious logo creep? That way, they wouldn't have to spat half the shoe.

Jordan brand barely uses any branding on the shoe itself, the competitors thus far have failed in making a silhouette that is unique. UA is on the right track with newton's high-tops.

Look at nikepox for another way brands can enter minds without showing a logo. Adidas revolves way too much around the three stripes as a design element.

[BBTV]

MUCH harder to do with shoes than other gear, since all you can really do is have a common "structure" or seam pattern and exploit it with colored stitching or panels. Since each player has their own preferred fit, you wouldn't be able to get them into anything consistent.

If you start doing "pox" type things, they'd become a trademark or a de facto logo and end up needing to get taped over.

The perfect example of this is the Rawlings cool-flo helmet. We all know that it's made by Rawlings, even though there's no logo on it. Just wouldn't work for shoes IMO.

[keynote]

Adidas is definitely the worst in this regard - what with their three stripe motif shoe-horned into ever NBA warm up and All-Star uni template, not to mention their soccer jersey designs.

[andrewharrington]

Hmmm...doesn't seem to be an issue with megastars in other leagues? Players should support their sponsor with their cleats but shouldn't be concerned about practice or game apparel.

Additionally, if you're gonna make a statement of support by covering up Nike logos, try not to cover up the company that gives you millions to wear their shoes.

Adidas does not hold a license that allows its logo to be visible on field. RGIII is wearing this model of shoe:

Based on the location of the tape, it wouldn't even be covering up the stripes, and on the part of the upper that is visible in front of the tape (toward the toe area), I can't make out the tonal three stripes. It appears he may have a custom blackout pair (note that Reggie Bush has been wearing a whiteout pair), so the tape may be just aesthetic or for extra support or something.

Why can't Adidas or UA make a shoe that stands on its own, free of obvious logo creep? That way, they wouldn't have to spat half the shoe.

Jordan brand barely uses any branding on the shoe itself, the competitors thus far have failed in making a silhouette that is unique. UA is on the right track with newton's high-tops.

Look at nikepox for another way brands can enter minds without showing a logo. Adidas revolves way too much around the three stripes as a design element.

Don't know about UA, but adi does. I feel the same way as you about logos. That's precisely the reason I gravitated toward these:

Adidas is definitely the worst in this regard - what with their three stripe motif shoe-horned into ever NBA warm up and All-Star uni template, not to mention their soccer jersey designs.

That's adidas' Swoosh. Like it or not, you can't really blame them for using it. For people who aren't super familiar with sportswear, that's how you distinguish an adidas piece from someone else's.

[AJM]

Hmmm...doesn't seem to be an issue with megastars in other leagues? Players should support their sponsor with their cleats but shouldn't be concerned about practice or game apparel.

Additionally, if you're gonna make a statement of support by covering up Nike logos, try not to cover up the company that gives you millions to wear their shoes.

By league rules, RGIII has to cover up his Adidas branding on his shoes since they're not an official NFL partner, perhaps explaining why he returns the favor. This is not how it works in the NBA, where you can wear any who brand so long as the colors are sanctioned by the team and the league.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

My mistake...guess this is why UA is exempt since they are a partner.

[shaydre1019]

Not so much this yr by the last two versions of the Nike vapor jets IMO had a strong enough design to wear if they isn't have swooshes on them they'd still be easily identifiable as nike.

[oddball]

Support the league first, then your self second. It is like the family dynamic, you work to provide for your family and place your self on the back burner as long as they are taken care of.

Really? We're talking the league who embarrassed itself with the replacement refs and you're talking about supporting the league? The league can't even take care of itself! Screw their mandate. They can't even protect the players and the game and they (you) want to protect the league and a Nike logo? Completely hypocritical if you ask me.