Why don't these companies use a pregnant athlete as a way to expand their market? I know so many fit women who work out through their pregnancy who would spend money on maternity workout wear and/or support a company that featured a pregnant woman training. It would also help deal with all the dolts who question women staying fit while pregnant.
299
@MC Because the struggle is real.
5
@MC heck yes! Currently 39 weeks and didn’t stop working out until a bout of the stomach flu put me out of commission a few days ago. During my pregnancy I transitioned all my workout clothes to Gap because they seem to be the only company marketing and producing for real pregnant athletes. Seems a shame to be a brand like Nike missing an entire market....
27
Did they have so little confidence in her overall appeal to consumers that they thought ONLY her athletic performance influenced people? That nothing could be gained from consumers seeing her as a strong pregnant athlete? How narrow a focus for women - MEN get to do it all and still are seen as strong...even Tiger with his performance "issues".
68
Money, money, money. That’s it.
Whether its Nike treating female athletes like second class citizens, or Hollywood types choosing to continue to work in Georgia despite its new Neanderthalian anti-abortion law because of generous tax breaks, it always comes down to money.
I am pretty sure Nike continued to generously support Tiger Woods despite his dalliances with porn actresses, temper tantrums and multiple back surgeries. Why? They thought he made them money. But Allyson Felix wants to have a baby and she gets cut.
This is but one reason I stopped buying Nike products years ago.
15
I know this is not sexual abuse, but it surely smacks of some form of sexual discrimination .. These women have been treated like chattel, so I say #speakouttoo
10
Why are old white men constantly putting their foot on women’s necks? Glad she stood up to them, come on Phil Knight, you are better than that.
6
Yes we live in a 'family oriented' culture...
.... as long as it does not impinge on rich men's ability to visit massage parlors, priests' ability to rape nuns and altar boys, male legislators to force women to carry their rapists' spawn to term, CEO's to earn lottery-sized bonuses, or shareholders to maximize their earnings.
15
women are penalized or threatened with prison if they choose abortion, now, it appears, they are also penalized for wanting to give birth. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
20
I understand how Nike and others could logically base compensation for their endorsers on performance, and how they could justify reducing dollars during/after pregnancy. But, c’mon. How stupid and short sighted could they be! It’s not only humanely unfair, but also harmful from a PR standpoint. It’s not as if they don’t have the money after ripping off inner city kids with $150 sneakers.
9
Too bad sports is so commodified and monetized, but there’s no going back on that.
Initiatives like Girl Effect are carefully plotted, insincere corporate window dressing.
Nike is stupid not to realize that pregnant athletes are a huge asset to them. Just shows how entrenched male norms are.
6
"In your face!" That has always been Nike's core principle. I never have and never will buy a Nike product. From sweatshops, to rabid amateurs, to outlandish prices, and now to the womb. Just don't do it.
8
Running from responsibility: athletic governing bodies, corporate sponsors, and the failure to support pregnant and postpartum elite female distance runners, Sport in Society, DOI:
Francine E. Darroch, Audrey R. Giles, Heather Hillsburg & Roisin McGettigan-Dumas (2019)
10.1080/17430437.2019.1567495
Link to full article;
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/ZwiviJ4S7V6E3QpC2QG4/full?target=10.1080/17430437.2019.1567495
1
Something to think about : Roger Federer and his Wife have had four children, during his professional tennis career. He sustained a knee injury (slipped in the tub) while caring for his twin daughters ; he required surgery, missed 3 major tournaments, and dropped in the ranks to No. 13, as a result...
To my knowledge - His endorsements have never been adjusted or questioned
20
A huge thank you to Allyson, Alysia and Kara for speaking out about the terrible way Nike treats the female athletes it sponsors during pregnancy. Unfortunately Nike's failure is emblematic of a broader failure in the US to recognize the importance of maternity - and paternity - leave. Women in all professions feel an intensive pressure to maintain high performance levels despite the intense demands of pregnancy and the postpartum care for a baby. Women athletes face that pressure in a unique and extreme way. I am shocked at their treatment by Nike. Why wouldn't Nike give them some down time away from competition and shift the focus of its advertising? What could be more inspiring to all the other new moms who are trying to get back into shape than buying the same runners as Allyson while she gets back into shape with her baby? As a working mother of two athletic daughters and as a recreational runner who regained my sense of self after my first pregnancy by training for my first marathon, I want to see and celebrate women athletes who also stand up for the issues that are important to women and girls, including pregnancy and motherhood. Nike's treatment of these phenomenal athletes is a appalling, but also poor business. No more Nike shoes in our runners' household until the company appropriately supports the women athletes it sponsors throughout pregnancy and early motherhood.
12
Good for you Ms. Felix. Again, it's women who, because of our biological set up, are penalized. I believe that any contract should have a protective maternity clause - if you get pregnant or decide you want to have a child, that's your decision only. Again, as we see, only women are affected by this since men obviously don't have pregnancy to deal with. Again, there is a gender unequality.
6
Nike has "core principles?" Tell that to the sweatshop workers in China. Allyson Felix could have signed with any number of sneaker companies. Heck, she could have created her own, made sure the products were made in America providing decent paying jobs with benefits, and the whole nine yards.
I'm not an expert in women's track and field, but age 32 sounds about where things head south. Always younger talent striving for their chance to shine, nobody stays on top forever. It might not just be pregnancy per se, but declining performance.
As others have pointed out, her job sounds like consultancy, yet she wasn't consulting for almost an entire year. I'd love to get paid 100% being the sole practitioner in my medical office without showing up. I'd do cartwheels to only make "70 percent less than before."
Ask Derrick Rose. Ask any number of male athletes whose performance declined due to injury, or who inked large deals coming out of college and whose professional careers never lived up to the hype. They're not getting paid diddly by Nike.
Core principles? Almost sounds like a Nike marketing slogan. "Just do it . . . "
5
Makes me wonder how Nike treated Tiger Woods when he was not winning tournaments, or male baseball, football or basketball players out for the rest of a season due to injury.
2
Thank you for adding your voice to this discussion. It's very evident there is a woeful lack of general knowledge around the issues of reproduction, pregnancy, and childbirth and that creates bad law and bad endorsement contracts. Didn't Beyonce recently walk out of a Nike meeting when she looked around and saw no women or people of color? Seems the ignorance at that company (and I'm sure it's not the only one) runs deep and wide.
8
Nike will make flashy commercials featuring top female athletes talking about perseverance--using female sweat, blood, and tears to promote their brand--but the company continues to foster a corporate culture that's hostile to women. I haven't bought a stitch of Nike apparel for myself or my daughter, a competitive tennis player, since the NYT broke the story about Nike's misogynistic management. If this is the way they want to treat their athletes, then we should steer our daughters away from being "their" athletes.
5
Dear Nike: radical idea here - what if you MARKET your top athletes through pregnancy and during the return because it is GOOD BUSINESS? Did you know that tons of us amateurs take time off to have babies and still come back to run marathons etc? We would love to see and be inspired by the elites as they do the same.
Nike, guys, I bet if you put your collective brain power on it, you could even get the full value out of your contracts with these phenomenal women even while they are not at top race form, just because their stories are still so amazing (you try being pregnant and doing the kind of training the do - I am in awe). I know it might be more work than simply penalizing women, but what if you rolled up your sleeves and gave it a go? You know, like all your inspirational slogans always talk about working hard when the going gets tough?
Putting this in historical context, Nike, you do know that women were essentially forbidden to run marathons up until about 50 years ago because medical "science" said that our uteruses would fall out at long distances, right? Do you think that maybe penalizing women who have babies is equally stupid and will be looked at with equal astonishment and derision in the near future?
And, finally, to the women at Nike, keep pushing - my bet is that there are not a lot of you in the Nike leadership ranks - and that those who are there really struggle to make your voices heard. Anyone care to take the opposing side of that bet?
9
Thank you Allyson!
Sadly, Nike continues to be an example of the worst kind of corporate culture.
2
Bravo big brave Nike for doing something after being called out as a Yuge corporate hypocrite. Business as usual.
1
You are to be forgiven for being so "focused on one thing" that you mistook "Nike’s core principles," which never were, are not now, and never will be doing the right thing by girls and women.
2
This is why I boycott Nike.
4
Nike values track and field athletes for their performances in National Championships, World Championships and the Olympic Games.
Contracts are written in such a way that if you perform well (make a World Championship team, win a medal), you will receive bonuses. If you "underperform" (don't make it to the finals of a National Championships), your compensation can be reduced.
It is the same for men and women. If you're not competing at a high level, your compensation is reduced. Injury, sickness, pregnancy, it doesn't matter. When your contract is up, if you haven't been performing well, it probably won't be renewed.
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/sports/olympics/runner-boris-berian-goes-from-mcdonalds-employee-to-a-symbol-of-athletes-rights.html
1
As everyone keeps saying, the huge glaring deficit here is men marketers in Nike who are/were too short sighted and male ideal focused (maybe even turned off by the visual of pregnant woman running!) to see the very obvious truth, which is that these athletes continuing their marketing campaign while pregnant would have been wildly successful. As marketers. The first company out ahead of that would have been rewarded.
Women running these companies would not have been so stupid.
5
No more Nike for me. That was easy.
1
Young boys and men may be impressed with other male athletes, and want Nike shoes and clothes based on what these athletes are wearing. But I think Nike is forgetting who actually purchases those shoes and that apparel -- most often, in my experience, it's the moms. And I'm happy to boycott Nike if this is the way they treat the female athletes they sponsor.
3
Ms. Felix is a shining example of a great American and we should all aspire to emulate her. The pursuit of athletic excellence does not exclude a person from participating in political discourse, and it certainly should not exclude someone from raising a family.
Far from "shutting up and playing," Ms Felix and other athletes have an obligation to use their voice to increase justice in the world.
1
I buy a lot of sports equipment for my daughter. She runs cross county, plays soccer, snowboards, hikes and rock climbs. I’m much more likely to buy her equipment made by companies who treat women well, that includes treating them well during pregnancy. I can’t imagine I’m the only father who thinks this way. If Nike wants to repel affluent consumers with disposable income, they’re welcome to do it. They turned us off with all that child labor years ago anyway.
1
This is all very hard stuff and it's frustrating that so many have to come down on one side or the other. We all would like to see our own values applied broadly throughout society. It's easy to feel for Allyson Felix but, while she frames this as a societal issue, it really is her own problem. She wants more money than Nike wants to give her. It's a fact that she has received sums of money from Nike because she won races. She was faster than most other women. In a competitive sport, she was a winner. And in the world of endorsements, she was a winner. The losers were those who were less talented. But also those that were injured. Or sick. Or chose to get pregnant. Or from countries where athletes receive fewer endorsements. Or men who were faster than her but not fast enough to be winners in men's races. There is an entire value system that afforded her the endorsements that she has received and that system includes a lot of ideas that can seem unfair. It feels wrong that she chooses to criticize the system on this one idea when all the others remain unmentioned.
4
Thank you for sharing. This is just another example of the unspoken rules that keep women in a subordinated position. The more these rules come to light, the easier it will be to effect change.
3
I cannot remember the last time I read such delusional, self-serving and self-congratulatory nonsense.
The decision to bear children is private and purely voluntary. The same is true of the decision to earn your living as a world class athlete. Nike and other shoe companies are employers, not charities or social services agencies. The idea that Nike should be OBLIGATED or legally compelled to pay these women when they decide for their own reasons pause their careers for childbirth is preposterous.
It is also preposterous for these women to analogize childbirth to male athletes who sustain injuries. The shoe companies understand that injuries are an inevitable part of competitive sports. Child birth is not. Pregnant female athletes are treated much like male athletes who injure themselves in private pursuits. In other words, you chose to make yourself unavailable or less capable and the company chooses to stop or reduce your compensation. Simple as that.
Finally, there is an unspoken truth here. I'm reasonably certain that Serena Williams is a valuable enough commodity to get whatever pregnancy protections she wants in her endorsement contracts. Without taking anything away from the efforts or achievements of female athletes, the fact is their sports tend to be far less profitable than the male versions and hence less worthy of financial concessions to the athletes. This is purely a business decision, as it should be.
6
@AR Clayboy Nike does not "employ" these athletes. They sponsor them according to the influence they have with the buying public. Period. In a male dominated society women have always been treated as second class citizens. The fact that Nike will stand by athletes that make questionable or controversial life choices, Tiger, Kaepernick, and not women who take advantage of the limited window to have children is disturbing. Its as simple as that.
Be disgraced, injured, adulterous, anti-flag, you're good. Bring a life into the world, good bye. Shameful!
5
Athletes/entertainers are paid according to their influence not necessarily their performance. An athlete's popularity and social media following are as important, if not more, than their ability to perform at any given time. Jordan, Magic, Shaq, Favre, Jack Nicklaus and Beckham are examples of athletes still getting 10 of millions of dollars after their playing days are over. I don't see Nike fleeing from male athletes that have injuries that take months or a year or more to recover from.
Nike has also gone against the popular sentiment at times to support their athletes. See Tiger Woods and Colin Kaepernick. So to abandon women for having a child is disturbing to say the least. Especially Allyson Felix who still has influence among a huge number of women and men. She is universally loved and respected. Woods and Kaepernick were not.
As many have said Nike missed an opportunity to be the company that truly values and respects women and their choice to give birth. As Nike is attempting expand its growth in the women's market, this outdated thinking about maternity has backfired.
1
There are a lot of men on this comment thread siding with Nike. But it's hypocrisy to publicly use these athletes to market themselves as empowering women, then privately punish them. The fact that Nike wanted them to sign nondisclosure agreements demonstrates that they knew it was a bad look. I'm glad these women are speaking out -- that way, the half of the consumers that are supposedly being empowered by Nike can decide for themselves whether to support this company with their purchases.
6
As I state in my own comment, I think Nike is missing a tremendous marketing opportunity. A significant portion of runners is women of childbearing age and they all buy shoes. They easily could have created a timeline campaign following her through her pregnancy and recovery. Remember, only about one percent or less of runners are champion level achievers. The rest of us push on for camaraderie, fun, and health. As an aside, the only shoe company I know of that specifically aims at the “rest of us” is Xero.
2
Nike missed an opportunity to continue with it's recent positive and powerful advertising campaign which has been supportive of minorities and women. I often show their video ads in my American Women in Sports History course, as a contrast to how female athletes (and women in general) have historically been portrayed in the media. This op-ed and the issue it raises will be added for discussion fodder in my class. My stand is that Nike has done a lot of good advertising recently, taking risks and heat for some of their ads (think Colin Kapernick). Allyson Felix has courageously brought public light on her experience...pushing Nike to do the right thing. I will be waiting and watching to see if they follow through.
4
Nike was her sponsor not her employer. She wore Nike gear while she competed. it was a win-win for her and for Nike. Now she is going to stop competing at least for a while. There is no guaranty that she will compete again. If she does, then there is no guaranty that she will still win. hence, there is no guaranty that Nike can benefit.
So, why does Nike have to give her paid maternity leave?
This is like the women ice hockey players forming a union when there is no league and implicitly asking the NHL to fund one so they can make a living playing.
4
Nike is paying her to represent them because she's a winning athlete. She deliberately chose to get pregnant, knowing that this would prevent her from winning. Basically, she changed the rules in the middle of the game, and wants to be allowed to win anyway. If I were a single woman athlete I would be enraged by this. They're not paying her because she's a mommy, they're paying her because she wins races.
3
As I follow the stories of outstanding woman athletes and their battles with sponsors around pregnancy, I wonder when an athletic gear company will realize that half or more of all runners out there are women and the appeal of an advertisement campaign around the success of an athlete who wore their gear during pregnancy and recovery. Just yesterday, a number of women passed me on the run portion of an aquathon. To do so, they overcame the ten minute or so later start due to spacing of the swim portion. My only excuse is that I am 77 and they were almost all of childbearing age.
3
Are they Nike employees or contract with Nike? If I work as a consultant and I am unable to consult, I wouldn't be paid. As a contractual employee, I don't have short or long term disability insurance or paid leave unless I buy that on my own. Isn't that one of the trade off about pursuing your passion and being your own boss versus taking a more traditional, but less fulfilling job?
Perhaps they should try to frame the pregnancy as a benefit to Nike? Tie in new exercise shoes developed for people with the challenges that come with pregnancy? And show how becoming pregnant doesn't have to stand in the way of getting plenty of exercise? I don't think publicly shaming Nike is the way to go.
29
@Tom Since when is pregnancy/childbirth/child-rearing pursuing a passion? And how else do professional athletes get paid except by contract? Of course there’s no stipulation for men... because they’re men without uteruses.
37
@Tom these sponsors write contracts that promise not to reduce pay while an athlete is recovering from an injury. They don't do the same thing for pregnancy and childbirth.
44
@Tom You are not a world class athlete who has worn Nike for more than a decade, and your legalistic parsing of such a relationship is ill founded. Contractors (not "contractual employees") can bargain for their contractual conditions to include health insurance and maternity considerations as Felix is attempting to do. Companies such as Nike are using athletes as brand reps (advertising) and when they do a take it or leave it the brand reps (athletes) can take it public. Employees do it with strikes, contractors with pub. This is hardly "public shaming", look at the shoe companies payments to ballers and their families, that's illegal and yes, a shame which has not had a forceful light shined upon it.
23
I recall Jack Welch telling the world that the green revolution was great for GE, because they could tout the latest and greatest technologies for fuel efficiency. He said that companies who were fighting the regulation were missing the opportunity.
And when American Motors bought Jeep. They were criticized with the argument about how big could be the market for people wanting to drive in the woods. It was about the connection to the woods, not driving in it.
Seems like Nike and the sports apparel industry are like the CEO's Welch harped about and who criticized Jeep. They are missing the opportunity to tell people they can live their lives fully and still be athletes.
3
Nike is in the business of selling shoes. If it determines that a sports celeb is no longer going to help it sell shoes, then I think I can understand why they no longer want to sign deals with that celeb.
28
@Thomas
In this case they sign athletes - people who are at the top of their field for years and cannot easily be replaced because of their unique talent.
But I was thinking that I'd understand if people no longer wish to give Nike that business if they don't treat people as they should be treated: like human beings.
54
Nike is in the biz of selling shoes. If they want female athleyes to sill for them, they need to recognize female needs. Perhaps it will take Nike boycott by women — athlete stars and shoppers — to fix this. I just bought some pricey athletic shoes and they weren’t Nikes. Welcome to the 21st Century.
36
@Thomas Funny how Nike has long sold shoes of male athletes no matter how many criminal actions they are a part of.
24
Boycott Nike. They have men designing women’s clothes as reported in the NYT. They treat women poorly. Until they really change and lead the way, they do not have my dollars.
5
A corporation which counts women among its customers ought to have women in upper management so that they could avoid stupid blunders like this which will cost them market share. I will never buy another Nike product.
76
@Virginia The addition of women to upper management isn't the solution here. Sure, it would be beneficial but ultimately it's a lack of appreciating, acknowledging, and supporting the dignity of the human person.
Many corporations do what they do and generate revenues and profits. Some do it solely on the numbers and others forego some of the numbers to generate long-term success by becoming more than just an entity, they become partners and outfitters to in your life and adventures.
It seems from this piece that Nike stated that it was the latter and acted as if it was the former. This is all too common when value is solely based on performance and aesthetics like athletics and music. Sadly, companies that many perceive to be forward-thinking and inclusive show their stripes when it comes to money. There's an opportunity to promote athletics and motherhood by highlighting how awesome the female body when it comes to sport and motherhood - especially when you through in virtues like perseverance on the field and off. Inspiring for both men and women really.
Anyway, I feel there's a lesson to be learned for Ms. Felix and her colleagues. Perhaps, they can take the opportunity to forge a new organization or partnerships that truly aligns with everything they want to convey - you can be successful at both sports (anything really) and motherhood.
(I dedicate my comments to my mother, sister, wife, daughter, and all the women in my life. Love y'all.)
2
My family will no longer by Nike products.
1
I find it ironic (infuriating) that Nike stuck with Tiger through his "troubles" (and losses!!) for YEARS and it was seen as being loyal to a long term sponsored athlete, but can't stick with female athletes through their PREGNANCIES and recovery time (that ALSO may include losses and regaining their stature in rankings)?
Come ON!
7
@JBP Tiger, whatever his transgressions, is still a far bigger star than any runner, male or female, will likely ever be. While the running market is huge in terms of actual participants, the amount of money a top runner can make and sponsorships they can draw is no where near the level of a professional golfer at Tiger's level. I've been a runner for 20 years - I can't name a single professional runner, except for maybe in passing ever four years when the Summer Olympics comes around. Nike wants the biggest bang for the buck, and Tiger was still it, whatever his faults.
1
These companies are nuts for not embracing their athlete-mother. Motherhood makes these women both superhuman AND human at the same time. A marketer's dream.
1
Nike sponsors athletes who have been caught cheating by taking banned substances on multiple occasions
So this story hardly fall under the category of “surprising”
Nike only care about short term brand image, and move to a new story every three months
“Nike’s core principles” .... good grief does anyone still really believe corporations have values? Other than maximizing revenue?
1
A winner on and off the track!
1
Do top male Basketball players lose their sponsorship money when they are injured? I think not...
78
Did Nike’s sponsorship contracts for all track athletes, male or female, allow the company to drop runners who didn’t compete for six months for whatever reason, or reduce pay for diminished performance for any reason? I think so. https://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/06/court-filings-reveal-nikes-proposed-contract-boris-berian-full-reductions-contract-even-terminated-berian-injured-didnt-compete-180-days/
Did Nike continue to sponsor higher profile women in other sports during and after their pregnancies? The company’s unbroken relationships with Sheryl Swoopes and Serena Williams certainly makes me think so.
4
@Kim Harris Allyson made a deliberate decision to get pregnant knowing it would affect her performance.
Male basketball players don't deliberately get injured.
1
@A. Charles Serena Williams is unique not just to Nike but to sports worldwide. She's the single greatest athlete on the planet. Any sponsor is LUCKY to have her.
3
Was Nike asked to comment on this? Allyson isn't that complementary, and opinion or not, publishing this without asking for Nike's side of the story is pretty average. I also disagree with her thesis - no-one should have to enter an agreement with guaranteed payment irrespective of performance. Allyson's position to me is not the same as a person saying that pregnancy does not effect their job (which is discriminatory): she seems to be saying, my performance may well be effected, but you should pay me the same anyway.
11
@Cato - First, Nike did respond to this issue. Nike admitted that their policy was inconsistent across sports (see what Serena Williams received during her maternity leave) as well as financially penalizing to female athletes. As a woman who has taken time off for childbirth, I have to say that my employer did not reduce my pay when I went out for maternity leave. My performance was effected because I could not perform my job and care for my newborn at the same time. I am not a professional athlete like Allyson, or Kara, or Alysia, but why, as professional athletes, should they be penalized for choosing to have children?
18
@CMB - Thank you for your reply.
I regard marketing and endorsement arrangements as essentially a commercial transaction, and a decrease in performance (however measured) for whatever reason hurts the other party. To categorise reduced payment for reduced effectiveness as a penalty is, to me, wrong, and the corollary of that position seems to be that you expect Nike to enter into a contract on terms it thinks are unreasonable to it.
I admit this doesn't resolve the inconsistencies, but some of this is down to the vagaries of marketability (I think Serena is probably far more widely known than Allyson, and Colin Kaepernik's marketability was probably improved by the stand he took, even if it meant he wasn't playing). Some it may be down to the vagaries of the contract (which is why I think Nike should have been asked to comment specifically on this story. How long is the contract intended to endure? What does "punishment" mean in this context).
6
I really wish our society would move beyond the thought that everyone needs to give birth. One option for her is to adopt a child and keep her athletic form. As a parent of an adopted son and a biological daughter I can honestly say I don't love either one any less. Instead of having this ingrained idea that we must reproduce, why not do something wonderful for someone who's already here and adopt/raise them. She'd still be just as much a mother and her life just as much fulfilled.
12
@David I think you miss the point of the article. This successful athlete WANTS to be able to give birth. There is no reason why she should be prevented or discouraged from doing so by Nike or any other sponsoring company. To suggest that because “there are other ways to be a mother” it is okay to punish her or others for giving birth is backwards and seriously misanthropic.
42
@David This remark shocks me. She should adopt (at great time and expense) rather than have a bio child to accommodate a career? Really? Adoptive parents are angels on Earth but this should not be a decision based on career.
27
@David Our society should NEVER move beyond the thought that everyone has the RIGHT to give birth. Without punishment or sanctions. And discouraging women of ability from having children will, in the long run, be bad for humanity and bad for America.
That applies to Ms. Felix and also to any number of highly competent women I seen discriminated against in industry for daring to start their families.
9
Nike sells sports - not maternity - equipment. They can do what they want.
18
Nike sells much more than sport, they sell an ethos of empowering women and girls. If your going to use this message to sell stuff, then Nike better be prepared to be called out when they fail to support the very women athletes they use in their ad campaigns because they decide to do a very normal and important thing like become a mother. I applaud these brave women for speaking up!
87
@Bjh we all come from women, so I think this should be treated as a human issue instead of a "maternity" one. Especially when Nike uses athletes to sell its sports equipment.
3
@Bjh They sell equipment to women, many of whom choose to have children. They sell sports; they don't get to play with people's lives, and tell them what their reproductive rights are or aren't.
6
I of course haven't read Allyson's contract w/ Nike, but I assume its a performance-based contract: run a certain number of races to showcase the brand. If she continued to place well, presumably there were performance-based incentives. Surely pregnancy, especially in an elite sprinter, would knock her out of competition for 6? 8? months beforehand, and then perhaps longer afterward. A year in the life of an elite athlete is a long time. And Allyson's been around a long time; 32 is pretty old for a sprinter. So I see Nike's point on this front.
Is it fair? Not to harsh, but please. Life's not fair. Men were dealt a certain biological hand that favors us in many ways. Women were similarly dealt a certain biological hand that favors them in some (different) ways. That's not fair. That's life. No one--men or women--get to have it all. Life's about circumstances, some of which you control and others that yo can't. And dealing with those circumstances.
13
I agree. if Nike had paid her her full contract, while she was pregnant and not racing that would have been a waste of money. And guess who pays for that waste? it's passed on to those of us of us buying Nike sneakers
4
No one is forcing you to buy Nike.
Athletes are paid to perform; most athletes would agree that those who perform the best should be paid the most. By guaranteeing the right to have performance lapses during and after pregnancy for all women, this new contract language implicitly lowers the value of all women, whether or not they plan to become pregnant, because the sponsor must now factor into their offer the likelihood that any woman might choose to have a baby. The price for granting these rights to female athletes who choose to be mothers will be paid by female athletes who do not choose to be mothers. That hardly seems fair. It takes the choice of better performance and pay away from all of the women who would have chosen to not have children. I support choice.
.
Does this address the unfairness that women have to make this choice but men don't? No. Does this address the unfairness that some sports are more popular than others, and thus pay more? No. Does this address the unfairness that both men and women generally prefer to watch male athletes? No. That unfairness stems from free people making choices; the world is unfair in many ways.
3
Supporting and promoting pregnant athletes should be an easy sell from a commercial perspective. Nike is trying to sell products for your average, athletic woman. After all, sponsorships are mostly about the advertising value. The majority of average, athletic women will be pregnant at some point in their lives. We would love to see professional athletes, wearing comfortable and stylish clothing, training for their sports while pregnant. Why is that so difficult? I applaud Ms Felix for having the courage to speak publicly.
6
As I read this, I was so disappointed in Nike, but not surprised. I've never liked the disproportionate amount of money from sales that go to athletes, but I most certainly dislike this treatment of women athletes even more.
7
Bravo, Ms. Felix. I applaud your bravery. The truth festers in silence. I wish you and your child all the best. As for Nike and other sports sweat shops, any response?
6
Allyson Felix has a net worth estimated to be around $8.5 million, accumulated over a long career, mostly due to generous commercial sponsorship contracts that are offered to elite athletes competing during their prime years.
Ms. Felix is well past the prime age for a world-class sprinter, male or female, and Nike, which knows more about the bio-mechanics of runners of all ages, shapes, sizes, and genders, isn't going to offer her a new contract equal to that of her heyday. Nike also has all of the pertinent scientific data available to estimate how well Ms. Felix might perform postpartum relative to her peers in the fast lane of professional sprinting.
Ms. Felix should focus on being a good mother and investing her career earnings wisely. She's young enough to start a brand new career...perhaps even at Nike, off of the track.
9
@Stone
This attitude toward pregnancy places obstacles in women's career paths that men do not have to face. We as a society need to reconcile that women bear a burden by being biologically assigned the task of child bearing. We need to support women in that role as a society not punish them by derailing their careers.
21
@Stone your statement, sentiments and attitudes towards Ms Felix’s situation perpetuates the systematic discrimination of maternity in the work place. Women in all fields are vulnerable to loosing their foothold in their careers when becoming mothers.
Conversely, Nike could have supported this athlete, applauded her fortitude to continuing competing, and made an equal commitment to her athleticism and dedication.
If this is being evaluated by dollars, Nike is in first place for having the funds to take a risk on a champion who chose to be a mother.
7
@Stone
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be saying this about a male athlete.
2
In these athlete-sponsor contracts, the athletes aren't paid what they deserve, they are paid what they can negotiate. If you want a sponsorship deal to continue to pay out while you are pregnant or mother of a young infant (or injured, say), then add a contract clause to that effect.
In the non-elite world of regular work, pregnancy/parental payments are amortized through payroll taxes or similar insurance schemes. It shouldn't be too hard for elite athletes and their sponsors to do the same.
3
A few things to consider:
Ms. Felix says Ms. Montano and Ms. Goucher "heroically broke their non disclosure agreements with" Nike. A contract is a contract. Breaking the terms of the contract is, well, violating the contract. Something for lawyers to deal with.
Ms. Felix acknowledges that Nike is her sponsor, not her employer. The terms of payment to an athlete by a sponsor are governed by whatever contractual terms the two parties agree to.
If you don't like or accept the terms of a contract, don't sign it. If you do sign a contract, be prepared to abide by its terms.
7
@Mon Ray Contracts are broken all the time that is the basis of civil law. Non disclosure agreements should be illegal or at the very least limited in scope and duration. Only MonRays would defend such a despicable company.
1
The first thing that stands out to me is how sports companies are throwing away an opportunity.
Why aren’t they making opportunities for their pregnant athletes to champion health during pregnancy? They could even be marketing (gasp!) maternity exercise wear, walking shoes, exercise programs.
Money in the street.
What’s wrong with these guys anyway?
34
It seems to me that this comes down to the distinction between an employee and someone self-employed. As an employee Felix might expect some taking into account of her pregnancy. But as an independent contractor she should expect to be paid for result.
3
@Wim Roffel
Hmmm okay. So, how much is a life worth? I'd say, a couple of million anyway. Maybe, just maybe, until "men" discover how to grow a human being in a test tube, we should PAY women for conceiving, carrying, and nurturing each fetus, newborn, and continue until the child is, say, eight years old.
Olympic sprinters peak at an average age of 26. It is rare for sprinters to win medals in their 30's. Nike endorse athletes not as a reward, but to sell sneakers. If Allyson was a 22 year old mother soon returning to training, I bet Nike have signed her to a new contract.
6
The real problem is that athletes feel they have to sell themselves to these private companies. Whatever happened to competing just for the love of the sport?
4
@Peter Piper
Because in order to compete, you have to eat. These aren’t high school athletes living under mom and dad’s roof. Or athletes from high profile sports, like football and basketball. We all want to wave the flag and count medals when the Olympics are in progress, not understanding that nearly every other country supports THEIR athletes financially. Without endorsements they don’t train or compete.
4
@Peter Piper to compete purely for love of sport at the elite level, you have to be independently wealthy. Get real.
2
@Peter Piper
Mortgage? Rent? Food?
1
Olympian athlete works her way back to Olympic level after pregnancy. What an amazing story to tell, Nike. Opportunity lost.
45
Not buying Nike, no more.
17
I worked out up to the day before giving birth. Don't Nike employ pregnant women?
Bad Marketing too. They could have been the first sponsors of a pregnant woman while it was a novelty.
Big companies just can't think creatively or practically.
36
Thank you, Ms. Felix, Ms. Montaño and Ms. Goucher for your courage and integrity. As an active woman, I know which brands to avoid when I go shopping for my next pair of running shoes.
37
Women get pregnant all the time; it's a natural function. If you market yourself as a company that supports women, and don't qualify that you mean "women who don't get pregnant", that lacks integrity if the women are able to perform professionally proximate to their pregnancies. Think of it like an athlete who becomes injured. When a baseball player goes on the disabled list, all his endorsement contracts aren't canceled.
Further, pregnancy doesn't prevent women from participating in marketing and promotional events in many cases, so they are still fulfilling that part of their jobs.
What we're really talking about here is Nike inserting themselves into the coaching relationship, determining when someone should take the field during a medical event. If coaches and doctors say someone under contract should rest, then Nike should not be able to go in and make them run plays.
Performance is more than a single event; if that were true, a pitcher would never be able to lose a single game without losing their contract. If they are not able to judge professional standing more accurately than that, maybe they should be selling chicken (no disrespect to the poultry industry).
43
I know Nike. Our store has been a Nike dealer (retailer) ever since they started.
Nike will change the contracts anytime for any reason if they think it is not in their favor. We recently upgraded the store look in and out because Nike demanded. Otherwise they would not give us better merchandise. We spent nearly half million dollars for 2 stores in order to get the better merchandise. After a couple of years they stopped shipping the merchandise they promised. Now we are almost going out of business. There are dozens of Nike dealers like me. Nike's excuse is that it is for their strategic distribution. We heard that the merchandise we supposed to get were given to the big chains. We small guys supported Nike ever since and Nike became what it is now. Nike is not a humanity company.
Nike is money centered company.
62
Corporations NEED women to have babies not only as future employees but as consumers. Why do they penalize us when we comply by having babies?
13
Nike doesn’t care about anyone’s family plans (men or women), and nor should it. If you’re not at the top of your game, you cease to be one of the blessed few that get to play sports for a living. You join all the other people (nearly everyone) who never had it, got injured, lost the passion, decided to do something else with their lives etc. etc. Deal with it.
What’s happening here is you are taking a mundane reality that all people have to deal with (i.e., that once you cease to provide commercial value, the money tends to dry up quickly), and couching it in language of sexism. It’s extremely manipulative.
It’s great that folks want to raise a family but figure out a way to support that family with your own money, stop digging into other people’s pockets, and stop acting like you’re the good guy when you’re the one trying to shake someone else down. No one has an obligation to pay for your kids other than you. Get to work!
11
@Bill
Not sure you read the article. There are many adult concepts here, like whether pregnancy is a disqualifying disability for the job, and what the nature of the job is. Women get pregnant all the time; it's a natural function. If you market yourself as a company that supports women, and don't qualify that you mean "women who don't get pregnant", that lacks integrity if the women are able to perform professionally proximate to their pregnancies. Think of it like an athlete who becomes injured. When a baseball player goes on the disabled list, all his endorsement contracts aren't canceled.
Further, pregnancy doesn't prevent women from participating in marketing and promotional events in many cases, so they are still fulfilling that part of their jobs.
What we're really talking about here is Nike inserting themselves into the coaching relationship, determining when someone should take the field during a medical event. If coaches and doctors say someone under contract should rest, then Nike should not be able to go in and make them run plays.
Performance is more than a single event; if that were true, a pitcher would never be able to lose a single game without losing their contract. If they are not able to judge professional standing more accurately than that, maybe they should be selling chicken (no disrespect to the poultry industry).
47
Bill,
Clearly, you are lacking the ability to perform basic analytical functions. Nike is making a killing off athletes that work very hard. But they are discriminating against women and women who choose to get pregnant. It’s a morally reprehensible thing to do. But don’t let me tell you; let me and millions of women show you by not spending money on any Nike or other athletic gear until these companies change their practices. Now you get to work.
1
@Legallady
It’s interesting that the NYT board permits personal attacks (according to you, I’m clearly lacking in any analytical ability) when the view is a liberal one, but anything close to the line from a conservative gets bounced. Ok, well I can handle it.
You make a claim of discrimination against women with no factual support, kind of like some lawyers do when they submit a canned brief with bare allegations of misconduct and no illustration of why the facts in question constitute such misconduct. I don’t view that as the gold standard of debate. I say, in a contract where a person is paid simply for being good at something, in this case sports, it is not discrimination to stop paying them when they no longer can play at the top level irrespective of the reason (unless the parties want to agree to certain protections up front, in which case, the upfront consideration would be reduced to account for that). In any case, the argument that pregnant woman make good spokespeople may well be true, but that’s an argument for the agent to make. This, by contrast, is a public shaming/shakedown in breach of contract.
2
Honestly she is lucky Nike even designs apparel for women. When I started bicycling @1982 there was no bicycling gear for women. Bicycles were not designed for women. There was no Title IX for me. There were no sports scholarships. My mother's generation didn't even do sports. I was lucky even to attend college on my own dime. But didn't matter because when I graduated I was sidelined in my career. Shame on you Nike. Guess I won't be buying any of your hideiously overpriced running shoes.
14
Did Nike ask Tiger Woods to take a 70% pay cut during all those years he wasn't winning?
46
No, they didn’t.
Hmmm....
2
@gumbo Gatorade, AT&T, Gillette and Accenture all CANCELED Tiger's Wood's sponsorship contracts after his personal scandals (2009), so it's not unlikely that Nike significantly reduced their yearly remuneration to him when his contract was renewed.
2
Glad to see women speaking up!
Almost everything around having children in U.S. very-very far from ideal. Having a child entails a punishment. Maternity leave is non-existent or inhumanely short thus the popularity of silly breast pumps. We wouldn't need them if maternity leave was adequate. If you are "lucky" and you get 12 weeks to be with your baby you still arrive to a point of choosing to go back to work or sacrifice you career and stay with a newborn. As women we shouldn't have to have to make this choice: baby or career. And of course there is the whole healthcare/insurance mafia to deal with. Hospital where my baby was born had a health check with doctor out of network even when the hospital was in network. Are they expecting women right after birth ask "hold on doctor, are you in network?". I am sure every women in U.S. who had a baby can tell a ridiculous story. In addition, fathers have zero or tiny paternity leave which is ridiculous as well.
17
Nike is over-priced anyway.
6
@Ratburi People who buy name brands and display their labels for free are fools. When I see someone like that, which is often, it tells me they are insecure. I would be happy to wear Nike or North Face or another name brand IF and only if they pay me for carrying their advertising around!
Abortion rights are under attack and pregnant women are not supported. Go figure.
Don't go to Alabama. Don't go to Missouri. Don't buy Nike. Pretty simple.
23
I will never buy NIke again. They may thinks they can do anything but so do I.
3
Notice any pattern in the comments? Those who argue against Ms. Felix...all men. Now there's a big surprise.
34
@VoiceFromDumbo
Interesting...and quite on point...would be amusing if it wasn't telling about potential insecurities...and this coming from one of the members of the Male species.
.
3
@VoiceFromDumbo
Yes, it happens with disappointing regularity. I'm sure all these men that are making the case for Nike would turn around without hesitation and argue against Nike if their favorite male athlete got injured and tried to squeeze him with a 70% pay cut. The howling outrage of indignity would drown the airwaves.
3
Allyson Felix won the 200 at the Pre Classic in Eugene about five years ago and when I held my five year old daughter over the track Alyson handed her the winner’s bouquet. I wasn’t trying to show my daughter that wearing swooshy shoes makes you fast. I was trying to show her an amazing human being, kind enough to acknowledge an anonymous child in her moment of victory, fast enough to make history. She’s an amazing human being. Why any advertising executive at Nike thinks I don’t admire her more for being a mother is beyond me. I’ll just work harder for change where I do have the power to be the change, and support companies that support athletes, people who bring their full selves to the field, motherhood and all.
50
As a mother of young kids who has been relentlessly marketed to — and still gets ads for pregnancy apparel, newborn clothes, formula, etc. — it boggles the mind that Nike did not embrace and exploit the pregnancies of these incredible women and their strength in continuing to train in a series of emotional ads directed at women. Plus debut maternity athleisure. Any mother, most women working in marketing would understand instantly the potent images and associations they could bring up. But, of course, how many women do they have in key management positions? Previous reporting says not many, and many of them feel stifled. If only the men understood what they were missing by focusing on the most meaningless metrics to measure “performance.”
34
Right? Talk about a wasted marketing opportunity!
1
@Farina I bet they were still going to exploit the pregnancy for whatever it was worth, they just decided in their system of values, that she was worth less, hence they could get away with paying her less (the same they used child labor as long as they could and so on and so forth). If we as a society don't show them that they are wrong, that we value very highly pregnant women, and ethical behavior in companies as well, they will try to exploit her and be proud of it.
2
Unlike some, I did not burn, but bought Nike shoes when they brought on Kaepernick.
Now I’m reconsidering.
14
The biggest impediment Ms. Felix faces in securing a lucrative contract from Nike is not her gender or her pregnancy. Every interview she gives is the same: “Praise God. It was God’s will. I am truly blessed.” Most Nike customer want to hear what she is thinking but she never goes there.
@michjas She did have a lucrative Nike contract. It had nondisclosure language that forbade her from speaking out. Please read the article.
12
@MAJ After every major victory Ms. Felix is interviewed just like all major track stars. If you were a fan, you would have heard countless interviews where she praises God and says nothing about track. Track stars with personality like FloJo and Marian Jones (despite the drugs) make the big money. Felix comes off as a religious automaton. The Nike contract clause doesn't bar her from giving post race interviews. Those interviews and the athlete's persona make a big difference in career earnings ( think Muhammad Ali). I've been a big track fan for decades and I read sports magazines regularly. My comment was designed to add information to what is covered here. I am sorry that you are against that.
Nike’s not her employer. She’s an independent person with a contract. Surely she has an agent, a manager and/or a lawyer.
Why not buy her own health insurance? Health insurance should not be tied to employment.
2
The fact that Nike wouldn't support, even elevate, women who are exceptional athletes AND mothers reveals just how genuinely bankrupt their business practices are and have been. Even if only from a functionalist, profit perspective, you would think it would be in their interest to support and highlight these women. Nike doesn't lead... they just use some brain dead, old-boy formulas for making money. I gave up on Nike shoes a long time ago, first because their designs stopped being comfortable and later because of their politics. Besides, Mizunos are ten times more comfortable with a better fit and a beautifully cushioned ride.
7
All of you women speaking out against Nike are amazing. It’s hard though. Thank you for your contribution to equality!
9
As Lee Iacocca once said, if you can find a better car, buy it. Why isn't Ms Felix looking for a better deal with the other athletic gear companies? Nike is not the only game in town. If Nike truly wants to sign her and other companies are offering better deals, it can match those offers or wish her luck with a new sponsor. If no other company is offering a better deal, Nike certainly won't.
2
@Lynn in DC Read the article. She gave up more lucrative contracts for Nike's purported pro-girl efforts.
2
Allyson Felix is self-employed. This has nothing to do with women's rights. This is about her wanting to get paid when she is not working and Nike has every right to say NO. Allyson Felix is not a 9 to 5pm employee. I feel like she is trying to use her status as a famous athlete to pretend she is helping ALL women. she definitely is not. She needs to get a real job before she starts representing real women in real women situations.
5
She is still working. Promotions are a large part of a sponsored athlete’s job.
9
Sneakers are perfect footwear for pregnant women - build a phenomenal marketing campaign for this rapidly, ahem, expanding market with pregnant athletes as spokespeople.
It's so easy, and even profitable, to do the right thing here that it's all the more egregious that Nike refuses to.
30
This is not employment. This is not employment. It is a business contract with specific terms and timeline. If Nike thinks paying a pregnant athlete is good PR, so be it. My guess is that Nike realizes that pregnancy is the end of most athletes careers - with exceptions. They are probably right.
6
@wnhoke
I'm not sure if you understand the point or if you disagree with it. So, I'll explain and ask you.
Men don't have to deal with these issues and so are treated one way. Women that do, are treated differently and in a way that seems unfair to most people. No, a woman's career is not automatically over after pregnancy. There are MANY examples of this female athletes that have performed very well after having children.
The question, Wnhoke, is if you agree with the basic premise that sponsors should not discriminate against their female athletes who decide to have a family.
12
@wnhoke you are completely incorrect. Pregnancy does not end running careers. Kara Goucher, within 1 year of giving birth, placed 3rd in the NYC Marathon and 5th at Boston, then went on to make the 2012 Olympic team.
Stephanie Bruce, among a number of other impressive performances recently, just ran a 22-second lifetime PR in the 5K - a time of 15:17 - a few days ago. A world standard. 2 little kids at home.
Many professional female runners do not have kids. Perhaps if they were able to, we would see more post-pregnancy performances like those I’ve described above.
23
@willrun4tacos
I take it Nike is a practical, logical company. They certainly have experience in this area. If pregnancy is not an impediment to an athlete's career, then why would Nike care?
4
What really needs to happen, I suspect, is a deeper dig on the part of marketing people. Nearly all of Nike's customers are average people, who have children. And Nike could certainly sell workout gear across the pregnancy spectrum, right? A few additional sales as women grow, give birth, and then return gently to active life through their post-pregnancy time? My wife loved swimming when she was pregnant. Nike needs to expand beyond invincible-looking sexy athletes and embrace physical activity in all its forms, and supporting elite athletes through their lives could, I imagine, only help them in thinking through these natural and wonderful phases of life.
19
I’ve been reading the comments on this story and am quite taken by the “ pregnancy is a choice” comments, mostly from men in the east. Why? Because in the forefront of the news is the movement in many states to ban abortion in any form. And the places that ban abortion also make getting contraception difficult or impossible.
Whether you’re an athlete, an executive, a fourteen year old or a rape victim, pregnancy is a “choice” only to those women who have the means and live in the right places.
Think bigger, people, than athletes and Nike.
35
@Stephanie Cooper For an 32 year old elite female athlete who'd presumably accumulated a financial nest egg during her tenure as a sponsored world class runner, pregnancy was most certainly her "choice".
Ms. Felix has been blessed with a long career on the track, and has been well compensated for her efforts. There's no foul here...just greed on her part.
3
@Stone Why greed on her part? Why do you think Nike cutting down her pay 70% for a pregnancy is fair, but her demanding a salary according to her ability and performance (and not a temporary condition) is greed? She wouldn't have complained if Nike had demanded that in a reasonable period she got back to an acceptable level of performance (as they would, say, for an injured male athlete). What you are saying is that at 32, if a woman gets pregnant she must abandon her career as an elite athlete, period. No matter what she can do. This says a lot about your values regarding women and fairness, and it doesn't reflect well on you.
4
Interesting how many comments immediately went to"I'm going to buy competitors products". Is that all it takes? I buy Nike sneakers because I find them the most comfortable, period. Not because of who they endorse. Not because of some slogan or symbol.
That being said I think Nike could have spun this is in a way to empower woman. They aren't thinking out of the box, just can she perform. But I don't necessarily think that Felix has a leg to stand on. Some woman bounce back quickly after pregnancy...and some don't. Maybe none of these contracts are flexible enough to take the wide variety of what can happen and guarantee a set payment regardless of performance
5
"Ironically, one of the deciding factors for me in signing with Nike nearly a decade ago was what I thought were Nike’s core principles. I could have signed elsewhere for more money."
"Nike’s core principles" are making as much money as possible and spending as little as possible and that includes spending as little as possible on maternity "benefits" for athletes like Ms. Felix.
There are other companies with a more compassionate (and that is the wrong word, there should be no reason for "compassion") approach. I suggest that Ms. Felix check them out, although I gather her contract with Nike may be restrictive in switching companies.
3
I’m a male doctor, and I got no family leave when we had our 2 children. My wife got a combined 6 months paid leave, even though the babies didn’t affect her ability to do her job. She just got 6 free months off. It’s a huge benefit. Is it fair? Probably not. On the other hand, she put in the effort of the pregnancies. This option was not open to me, as a man. Thus, it isn’t fair. We are different, and via this fact, she got an unfair work benefit not available to me.
This athlete has a totally different situation; she has a pre-negotiated contract, and Nike is abiding by the terms of the contract. Why is she complaining about following the contract that she agreed to? That is, if she wanted a different contract, and they wanted to recruit her, why sign the contract that she didn’t want? The answer: she did want the contract. So don’t complain about it later! You’re rich!
I don’t get any of it. Nobody is making either this athlete or my wife have babies. It is their choice, as fully empowered people. They get the benefits that their job and/or their contract allow, and make their decisions accordingly. Why complain after the fact?
19
@Doctor
Maternity leave isn't a vacation. It is a required adjustment period, in which women physically recover from a difficult medical event, in which they care for a tiny, vulnerable creature who they are feeding with their own body. You dismiss the effort of pregnancy casually and act like maternity leave is some great perk. Please have your wife read what you wrote. I wonder what she would think about her 'work benefit.'
131
@Kj: As I pointed out in the first paragraph, she put in the effort of the pregnancies. Please read that part. I know it is not entirely a vacation. On the other hand, the acute physical recovery from birth takes a couple weeks or so, similar to most surgeries, not 3 months.
And babies can eat formula immediately, or breast feed for 18 months, or anything in between. So the maternity leave is not about the baby’s biological needs. Please don’t try to assert that.
But none of that is my point, which is that she knew the cost and benefits beforehand, and she made her childbirth decisions accordingly. (You don’t think my wife knew that taking 3 months off work was a sweet benefit? Don’t bet on it.)
The athlete had the same knowledge of her costs and benefits, or should have, but complains afterwards about a contract that she herself negotiated and desired.
8
If you want to start stacking up time spent on maternity leave, perhaps it’s worth considering the combined 18 months her body spent making two human beings? Your wife experienced all of the physical, hormonal, and emotional changes that resulted from the process. It seems that she bore everything with great patience and fortitude, since you were left with the impression that her maternity leave was something like a vacation. I have a hard time believing that she would agree with your assessment of maternity leave as “6 free months off.” If she does, more power to her, but that still doesn’t diminish the incredible physical undertaking that carrying a child to term represents.
11
How vile that Nike would treat an accomplished athlete like Allyson Felix in this manner. It cements my resolve on purchasing brands collaborating with women or owned by women, like Adidas, Girlfriend Collective and Outdoor Voices.
120
Why? What is the issue with letting people choose terms of their agreement? After all, this is not a contract of coercion, or is it?
6
@Sophia L. A few things to consider:
Ms. Felix says Ms. Montano and Ms. Goucher "heroically broke their non disclosure agreements with" Nike. A contract is a contract. Breaking the terms of the contract is, well, violating the contract. Something for lawyers to deal with.
Ms. Felix acknowledges that, as with Ms. Montano and Ms. Goucher, Nike is her sponsor, not her employer. The terms of payment to an athlete by a sponsor are governed by whatever contractual terms the two parties agree to.
If you don't like or accept the terms of a contract, don't sign it. If you do sign a contract, be prepared to abide by its terms.
2
@Sophia L.
Great Comment !!!!
1
I'm confused: Was this about women's rights and equality or about some professional athlete's contract negotiation?
6
@drDont
Both. Equal pay and not being discriminated against at work are feminist issues. They have been since the beginning.
14
Most women have children. Most women want to get in shape after pregnancy. Nike is missing a huge marketing opportunity.
74
Excellent point. Let Nike make its own judgement. It will profit or lose in the marketplace
13
@Michael Friedman If Nike had more women in leadership positions, this would be obvious to them.
64
@Beth Amen !!!!
Frankly, I am sick of women having to explain their choices. If they choose to do that, fine, but I have an issue with that as well. What I do with my body has nothing to do with anybody except me, maybe my partner, my family, my friends, but ONLY if I choose to do that.
6
@Merete Cunningham What on earth are you talking about? She didn't have to explain her choices. She chose to explain them, b/c she wanted out of a contract she'd agreed to. Nike's not telling her she can't have a kid. It's just holding to an agreed-to contract. Do what you want with your body. Just don't try to hold others accountable for your decisions.
2
This is what happens in a culture of winner-take-all and celebrity worship, i have never bought any item because it had a logo - in fact i often start by not looking at items with logos [the back of my smartphone has a logo which is covered with a plain sticker]. I will usually not buy products that are advertised too much [Geico, Nike, Progressive, Starbucks, most movies first runs, etc]. Grow up folks - stop getting manipulated.
5
@Tamza GEICO is Great value ... the rest are not ... you have a stable value system ... keep it up !!!!
I will never buy Nike again. The fact that they did discriminate infuriates me. Never Nike.
6
I’ll be wearing New Balance from now on.
8
How ironic that Nike is a goddess, a symbol of victory, strength and speed. Emphasis on goddess.....
19
I wonder how Serena Williams feels about this. Nike designed that controversial catsuit for her specifically to address health needs. Is a few months of leniency really that much for a postpartum athlete to ask?
13
@Mary Negro
Good Question !!!!!
No more Nike goods for me until they live up to the image and ethos they promulgate.
3
It’s really quite simple — and I work in marketing as a professional under similar contractual agreements. Nike Leadership made a poor decision and could have had the same outcome (not paying the same or cancelling contract) without bad PR had they exercised a little more intelligence.
Nike assumes that, likely based on statistics, post-pregnancy athletic performance declines. They should have waited it out and given her the time to bounce back. If she didn’t, then it’s a simple as that: “We pay you to perform at X level, and if your performance — regardless of other life decisions — is not up to par, then you aren’t marketable as a top-performer.”
It was her decision to become a mother, and her risk of losing the contract based on PERFORMANCE should have been an element in decision making...nothing on Nike, that’s just how marketing works.
Alternatively, the Nike marketing could have spun ANOTHER campaign celebrating top-performing mothers in ALL sports (Serena?) with another spin of the old and reliable “Just Do It” ethos.
84
@Drew Martin Thank you so much for fully articulating a very common discriminatory attitude towards women and pregnancy. Very few would risk writing this so clearly. Your words are so illustrative of prevailing sexist attitudes.
29
@Max
Drew Martin suggested that it was entirely reasonable that compensation should be linked to performance. And you find this to be a “sexist attitude?!?
3
@Drew Martin
True !
Allyson Felix is a national treasure. I’m done with Nike. If the company powers that be treat her this way, I can’t begin to imagine what they do to lesser lights. As always, big corporations look out for their executives gross pay - nothing else.
6
I gave up buying Nike shoes and clothing when I read the article about the last contract Nike made with the U of Oregon Duck Fan Store. Only Nike products could be sold and the Nike percentage take was outrageous. The Fan store in Corvallis where Oregon State University resides is non profit, gives student scholarship money from sales, carries many brands and the Nike percentage take is less than the Duck store. Furthermore, if Nike really wanted to increase their market share they could have made more shoes with removable foot beds for people who must wear orthotics. People in their 40's wear them, not just OLD people. But that would not fit the image they want to convey. Phil Knight still tries to buy influence in this state.
13
If a male athlete decides for personal reasons to take time off or to be a professional athlete and a something else that affects their prefomance, would anyone complain if their sponsors contracts reduced their payments, I don't think so.
If I went to my boss and said you know I'm taking up golf and I'm going to need more flexibility in my schdule and will have to take more time off and not always be available for overtime or weekend work, I'd get laughted out of the office.
Having children is a personal choice, playing golf is a personal choice. To the extent that these choices affect my work preformance why should one be treated differently than the other?
10
I’m not sure that having a child and playing golf are equivalent examples of personal choice, in the context of this story.
65
@Alice Kirby. How many women have fought hard for feminism and women's liberation, so we would not expect women to have children above all else? Having children is a choice, period. Some women may choose children, some may choose golf. That is their right as women.
Thinking that having children is somehow just "natural" or "the right choice" for women fails to acknowledge all the work that has been done in the women's movement. It also plays into the continued stereotyping of women as mothers that puts so much pressure on women to have children.
4
Why treat golf and pregnancy as different choices? Maybe because one is a leisure activity and the other is the creation of a life, family, and the continuation of our society?
19
Allyson Felix is my hero. She’s one of the greatest Olympians in US history, brave and tough and consistent, a world and Olympic champion when she was a teenager and still at the top now in her 30s.
Maybe she’s not a household name in the US although she should be. But Nike surely knows her value to the Nike bottom line as an athlete admired the world over. If Nike can’t figure out how to accommodate work-life balance for Allyson Felix what can we infer about the choices faced by millions of women of child-bearing age who are not world-famous athletes?
Thanks Allyson for going public and making this point for all women and good luck in your upcoming season and of course in 2020!
61
This ‘movement’ might help certain marquees female athletes but the unintended consequence will likely be companies offering fewer contracts to upcoming or potential future women athletes. If Nike is going to be responsible for paying maternity benefits for all women - and it’s not financially prudent for them to do so - they’ll probably be far more selective in who they support.
We saw this before with Title IX. Colleges were forced to provide equal athletic opportunities to men and women. The idea was colleges would be forced to add women’s sports. What actually happened was the schools that couldn’t or wouldn’t add women’s teams simply achieved equality by dropping some men’s teams.
Be careful what wish for ladies. You may win the battle but lose the war.
3
@Matt Williams This is capitalism at work. If Nike wants women to buy their goods they need to convince them it is worth the price. As all big brands know, part of that is the story, the aspirations that they sell. Nike is free to do whatever it wants here, and consumers are free to buy what appeals most.
1
@Matt Williams
This nation is more than 50% female. Nike isn't going to stop marketing to them.
1
@Matt Williams . not being financially prudent is a canard. Nike and other athletic companies can afford to be fair to women athletes. Be careful what we wish for "ladies'? People like you with attitudes like yours are why talented women are kept down and under the glass ceiling.
2
I worked for Nike for 17 years. In 2013, right before I left, our department was preparing a room full of our best examples of the current apparel line for leadership to review. I pulled the creative director aside, concerned that the sampling of product was primarily men’s, with little to no representation of our women’s product. I was told, point blank, “Women’s is not a priority”. There you go.
107
Such an interesting topic, especially in this milieu of anti-choice rhetoric.
I believe the two issues are closely linked.
I'm a strongly pro-choice woman. The awesomest thing about living in a pro-choice society is that you get to CHOOSE when (and if) to become pregnant.
This is a wonderful thing. How awesome that we get to use birth control (or not), freeze our eggs for later (or not), adopt, foster, or even hire a surrogate if we cannot (or do not want to) become pregnant ourselves. So amazingly cool that we can decide to have our first child at age 38 or 40 or 42 ....
The other side of this coin is that if we choose to do something entirely antithetical to elite performance in our current profession, we can get dropped.
We all make the choices that are best for ourselves. And that's a wonderful thing! Perhaps take the time off from competition to write a book .. or articles for the NYTimes. There are different stages of life, and different ways to earn a good income.
10
@GBR I hear you. And your point is well argued. But I also believe that our society Would be better off if employers stopped punishing women for bearing children. It is certainly a choice to back away from competition. Wouldn’t it be great if Nike chose to support its female athletes in this essential human function.
6
@GBR Part of what these athletes are saying is that they, too, have bargaining power, and they want to renegotiate terms of future deals. Of course Nike can drop them -- and I can buy Under Armour and Adidas and Saucony instead of Nike.
4
@Ms Wargo The key message of the women's liberation is that childbearing is not an essential function of women, and women are free to choose to have children or not for any reason at they like, with neither choice being better than the other Articles like this one suggest we should reflect on the social pressure for female athletes to have children.
1
CONSUMERS must demonstrate that they will not purchase materials from said companies . . . and act on that.
And, more importantly, federal policy must be made that provides paid maternity leave. We are the ONLY nation in our economic class who does not offer paid maternity leave.
Mind the gap.
34
@Hmmm Totally agreed, though no actual or likely proposal for paid maternity leave in the US, or, I believe, anywhere else in the world, would apply to a non-employee like Ms. Felix.
4
Yes to all who insist that a contract is a contract, conveniently ignoring the fact that Nike misrepresented its ethos toward women’s empowerment to induce Ms. Felix away from signing a more lucrative contract with another company.
Yes freedom of contract is what makes capitalism run, and I choose to never engage in the contract of purchasing Nike branded anything in future.
And p.s. I wish these articles would give the names of the sterling folks at Nike who were in charge of negotiating these contracts with women track and field athletes.
38
@winthropo muchacho Capitalism can work really well even if contracts are required to be ethical. In fact, I would argue it would work a lot better.
1
Women need to be aware of corporations, like Nike, Google, etc., where the culture for women is negative or even toxic. Hearing about Nike's treatment of athletes who seek to meld maternity with world class athletic performance makes me livid. So much so that, although I am a menopausal woman in my 50s, I will not buy another Nike product until this situation is changed for EVERY woman Nike sponsors, and for every woman Nike employs in any capacity whatsoever.
Without pregnant woman, Nike has no future consumers at all. Maybe someone in the hierarchy ought to just think about it.
44
I commend Ms. Felix for her outstanding running career and for her decision to be a mother. However, no one is guaranteed a "marketability" rating, and Nike is right to consider its financial interest in athletic endorsements. Moreover, nondisclosure agreements are contracts, and they should not be broken without penalty.
7
@Joel Sanders, like @E.G said "Without pregnant woman, Nike has no future consumers at all. Maybe someone in the hierarchy ought to just think about it."
This whole issue is simply about fairness and equal treatment for all. As a lawyer, I can assure you that these are legal concepts enshrined in US jurisprudence.
22
@Joel Sanders
If men were capable of pregnancy, none of this would be an issue. THAT is discrimination based on gender. Period.
6
@PG
Thank you for commenting. As a lay person, I cannot dispute your legal opinion. However, if "fairness and equal treatment" entails having a Nike endorsement, then sign me up!!!
Just a few points. Ms. Felix is an adult and knowingly signed a contractual agreement. She agreed to do "X" in exchange for consideration of "Y". Nike sells shoes and other apparel to us couch potatoes and weekend warriors and athletic has-beens and never weres. The consumers of the world. It's a business as old as business. She agreed to be a marketing tool for Nike. I understand she's a woman and therefore is at a marketing disadvantage as far as her own personal earnings are concered as Nike does not know how to leverage her value as a pregnant athelete. I wish Ms. Felix well and I bear her no ill will. In addition, I am truly impressed at her athletic accomplishments. I'm sure Nike's spin doctors will spin this situation to their advantage. Or maybe Addidas or Under Armour will pick her up. My sense is, if she is stellar post pregnancy, her marketing/shilling value will go up and she can sell herself for a higher consideration.
5
@ricocatx confused by your comments. Yes, I’m her previous contact she DID agree to do x for y. But she was talking about her NEW contact negotiation and their unwillingness to grant flexibility for a short period while she does her part in continuing the survival of the human race by bearing children.
14
@ricocatx
Good thing we don’t live in a black and white world.
The irony is that it seems like this could be a great opportunity to market to women. Most women will become a mother at some point, and would love to see how athletes handle pregnancy and the immediate postpartum periods. I worked out throughout my pregnancy and would have loved to see that reflected by athletic wear.
After reading this though, it will be hard for me to purchase Nike again, unless they make some major changes to address this.
52
Twentysome years ago I experienced a difficult high risk pregnancy that included multiple hospital admissions. I asked for a reduced work schedule and was told no. I resigned. It was costly. My spouse's employer denied insurance for the pregnancy due to pre existing condition so I paid for COBRA through my former employer. Even then it was a huge chunk of our income. I earned far less than I was qualified to earn that year. I am so encouraged to read this article. Speak up young moms and future moms! You are valuable to the workforce and deserve respect.
61
Hmm..... Ok, so they're contractors, with all the benefits that come from being contractors. But now they want employee benefits as well? As in having your cake and eating it too?
There's are reason these companies do this. Contractors are not employees and vice a versa. The law is very clear and specific on this.
10
@Mark
What law is this? When you speak about law, you have to specify. "The law is very clear and specific on this?" Really? The law allows large companies to discriminate in contracts? I need to read that law. Or maybe the law is whatever you say it is.
12
@Paul Glusman
It's called Federal, State and Local. An employee has certain rights, benefits, etc. A contractor, which is actually considered to be another business, falls under B2B relationships, not employee/employer.
There is no contract law for B2B that addresses the author's complaints. That exists in the W2 world. And I sincerely doubt that a law like that will be passed. Of course if they unionized they'd have a leg to stand on.
In the mean time our debt, national and personal continue to climb to unparalleled heights. Both political parties continue to play into Russian hands, further dividing the country. Millions of pounds of plastics continue to choke our world everyday. This country has bigger fish to fry.
To be honest the article sounds like the typical whining one hears from privileged elites who can't get their way. I'd bet she makes more in 1 year than I do in 5. The world is full of people like that.
1
I seldom feel a swell of pride when I read an article in the paper but Allyson’s story made me do just that for her bravery for writing the way she did. I am proud of her for her track accomplishments and equally proud of her for standing up for herself and all other women. From my perspective she just earned another gold medal.
82
You go, girl, as you always do!
My wife and I are among your biggest fans.
30
Beautifully written. If Nike doesn’t raise the standard or rise to the standard you have described, sign me up as an investor-sponsor for a new sports apparel company that will. Good luck!
21
@Daniel Kauffman - I agree! My daughter was forced out of Under Armour after complaining about sexual harassment. Is there even ONE sports apparel company that is worth buying from?
1
@Daniel Kauffman. You think she can find another sponsor after writing this?
Bravo Ms. Felix! The mothers of tomorrow thank you for speaking up.
32
Felix is a freelancer. She runs her own business. She is a company. The rules of employment do not adhere to her case.
17
@Marc
If Nike cuts the pay of male athletes for starting a family, then your idea might hold more water.
Getting pregnant and having a child should not equal a 70% pay cut...period.
158
@Marc
She's not a "freelancer," she's under contract with Nike, who has chosen to make rules and agreements for women that are unrelated to their ability to perform for them. That means Nike is discriminating, and it also means they are not living up to their promise of "supporting women and girl."
95
@Uno Mas
If she stops running for a period of time and loses her ranking in the process that doesn't benefit Nike. Nike pays her to run in their shoes, nothing more. If she isn't running why should Nike pay her?
10
With great respect to Ms Felix for her achievements, the kind lady has a net worth of several million dollars (probably somewhere between $4 million to $10 million) which makes this issue relevant to only the top 0.1%.
5
@Jester. I have to ask, if a man were facing a 70% pay cut because some temporary aspect of his life (say a recoverable injury) affected his ability to perform his top game for several months, would you feel the same way?
76
@Jester You're missing the larger point- which is that a pay disparity based on gender is simply wrong. If she and a top male athlete were both being paid $2 million, but only she had 70% of that cut after having a child, should she simply accept that because $600,000 is still a lot of money? The issue is not the total dollars, it's the inequity.
26
@Jester
That's not at all the point. If someone as successful and marketable as Allyson Felix has difficulty negotiating her contract around a pregnancy, what hope does any woman have? She was simply asking for relief right around the pregnancy and was denied by Nike. They had no reason to expect that she would not come back to her sports career, and so had no other reason to reduce her fee. The money is besides the point: it's all about the unfairness that women experience in the workplace. ANY woman, EVERY workplace.
28
Bravo, Allyson Felix.
Shame on Nike. I will not buy another piece of Nike apparel or athletic paraphernalia until I am assured that their proposed policy changes have been implemented.
81
@Maggie I quit buying Nike gear when they continued to support Lance Armstrong long after the facts of his doping and bullying of those who called him on it were well known. Unfortunately the running gear marketplace has consolidated a lot over the years and it is getting more difficult to avoid Nike than it used to be, but this will make me keep trying.
18
Same here. Bye bye Nike!
2
Nike is a company that manufacturers its products in Asian sweat shops, where workers are exploited every day trading long hours and mind numbing labor for dirt cheap wages in unimaginable conditions. Because of the shameless exploitation, Nike became a Fortune 500 company and Ms. Felix was more than willing to take their ill gotten money and become a millionaire herself. In light of that, this debate about Nike's maternity policy is rather trivial, and it's difficult to choose which side to root for. Really.
26
@mpound - I agree. The focus would be better placed on the low wages given to those working in sweat shops.
4
@mpound, you don't have to choose sides. You can root for both, Ms. Felix and the workers in Asian sweatshop. No need to pit the two against each other.
1
@mpound
How is having children a trivial matter for a woman when discussing earnings equality.
1
Ah yes, America, where life begins at conception and the support for childbearing women begins at... sorry, where does it begin at again?
493
@Kathryn W That's women's responsibility and they better do it in silence, and while upholding the myth of perfection! That's the burden women bear. Kudos to those who are speaking out.
19
@Kathryn W
In spite of the hullabaloo over the antiabortion laws just passed in Alabama and Missouri, abortion is still legal until at least the end of the second trimester in all 50 states. This article has nothing to do with abortion.
1
@Kathryn W
As you note, it begins at conception, but it's support and respect only for the fetus. The pregnant woman is only the "host." (I can't remember which member of Congress used that exact word. But you can be sure it was a Republican.) Adulation and protection for the fetus ends as soon as it's born.
17
I hate to tell you all the facts of life, but Pregnancy does make competition impossible. And after the birth it will take a while to get back in shape again.
The time lost in competitive sports is at least one year if not longer. Consequently I do
think the athlete should take a pay cut.
After all you got the contact based on superior athletic skills. If you have to take time off from competition, there is no reason you should be paid at the same level as when you were competitive.
It is not like you have an office job, where the time off from pregnancy and birth is minimal compared to the time and athlete must take off.
17
@judyweller Colin Kapernick hasn't played in the NFL for two years and is still endorsed by Nike. It is possible that the sponsors are valuable as role models not just for their performance in the sport itself, but also for demonstrating hard work, perseverance, and integrity. Perhaps instead of docking her pay because she couldn't run as fast for a while, Nike could have profiled her return to the sport after the baby -- that would have been interesting to watch.
And as a mother myself, I worked hard to get back into shape after my three kids, and I'm no Olympian. Watching her do it would be really inspiring to other new mothers... and maybe she'd sell me some sneakers along the way.
266
@judyweller. Judy, Nike benefits from the contract they have with athletes every day, whether the athlete is currently playing/racing/etc. Nike benefits from these athletes regardless of season. Do they pay basketball players less during the off season?
Nike, et al, have contracts with retired athletes, and while they may be at a reduced $rate, the $ is based on performance, past and present. A woman will have to take time away from the sport for a period of time, but many have returned to competitive level.
Allyson Felix is a uniquely successful athlete, motherhood should be honored, and Nike should publicize their support, it’d be the best $ they’ve spent.
43
@judyweller Someone below mentioned retired athletes that still have contracts. What about athletes that are injured? Do they maintain full pay during their injuries? Or do they take a 70% pay cut while they are recovering?
11
Here in Oregon, Nike founder Phil Knight is donating hundreds of millions of dollars for health research, which is a good thing, but he apparently does not have as much interest in the health of the athletes that help promote his product. His company can afford to support working mothers of all types.
33
@Padfoot I have to disagree with you somewhat. It's a wonderful thing that Knight donates a lot of money for research. But why does the family name appear on so many buildings in this state? Have you ever been to the U of O campus? Big donations have buildings named after all your family members. I believe if you are truly being philanthropic, not altruistic, you would donate without wanting your name all over what you "donated".
To the C-level teams managing sports agencies, sports law practices, AND Nike & its competitors: Really?!? Time to truly change up your routine to compete. 1st: hire women. Hire women of all races. Your employee diversity should mimic or exceed the icons under contract. You need to hear more women's voices at the table. 2nd: leap over the broken standards and practices of family leave here in the U.S. Train your product / contract teams on family leave in Sweden or Germany or The Netherlands or - for crying out loud, Canada. The gender and parent norms have evolved way beyond the atrocious U.S. models. Then rewrite your boilerplates. Actually be the best of sports' tagline: Just do it. Seriously. Just do it.
38
Factoid of the Day:
What does the US have in common with New Guinea, Oman and Somalia?
We are one of only four countries in the world without a national paid parental leave program.
So much for the land of family values.
351
@Drspock - Am I to believe China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Kazakistan, Pakistan (shall I keep going) have paid parental leave programs?
I seriously doubt it.
That's not to say we shouldn't have this policy as a leader of the world. Only to correct Drspock's implication.
3
@Ratburi
5 minutes on google will teach you, that yes Pakistan. Kazikstan and Syria have paid maternity leave. But we, as the supposedly richest country in the world cannot afford it. family values indeed.
5
@Ratburi
Actually China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and North Korea do have maternal leave policies (all paid except North Korea). A little googling would do you some good.
5
"Ironically, one of the deciding factors for me in signing with Nike nearly a decade ago was what I thought were Nike’s core principles. I could have signed elsewhere for more money."
Oops.
12
Nike, time to update your policy to conform the times. Just do it.
I'll be happy to purchase your products again once you do, as will my sons.
21
This has been so eye opening for me. You are a winner in more ways than one. You are a world class, gold medaled athlete and you are a world class woman in speaking up for US! no I'm not a world class athlete and I'm old but I will say I am a woman and I experienced unfair treatment most of my career. You are future woman. THANK YOU!
34
Hooray for Allyson! Only here is it necessary to "speak out." You can bet Daphne Schippers doesn't have to worry about health money or endorsements.
11
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant" is never more true than when it comes to corporate practice. Who knows how much longer Nike would have quietly discriminated against female athletes without brave women speaking out? Bravo to Allyson for telling us the truth.
138
This isn't illegal discrimination??
7
@NorCal Girl, that is the "beauty" of nondisclosure, mandatory arbitration, and no class action clauses in contracts. It makes it very difficult for female athletes to realize they are being discriminated against, and even if they do, to have much leverage in doing anything about it. Without having seen the relevant contracts, my guess is that they do not explicitly address pregnancy, and that is exactly the problem. Performance-based incentives that are based on achieving certain results and/or continuing to compete effectively penalize female athletes who become pregnant. However, gender-based discrimination based on this "disparate impact" regarding arguably "neutral" contract language is very difficult to establish by someone acting individually, assuming this individual is even willing to risk antagonizing her sponsor.
5
@NorCal Girl She's is not applying to be an employee of Nike where equal employment opportunity laws would apply. She is a businesswoman negotiating a contract with another business.
2
Yes, Nike can hire anyone they want as their spokesperson. The idea that it's only based upon athletic results is a joke. Yes, these athletes can choose to sign or not sign. Yes, we as consumers can now choose to no longer purchase their products because a few brave athletes broke their non-disclosure agreement (and probably lost a lot of money by doing so) and told us what really goes on behind the scenes of the "you go girl, rah rah" marketing spin.
19
Nike, and other companies that sponsor athletes, should know quite well that it is women who do most of the shopping. Will a mother choose apparel made by a company that supports mothers or a company that throws them aside?
Really, it is simple economics. The fact that companies cannot see that supporting mothers is good business are not looking at the big picture.
23
It is interesting to consider where the money will come from to pay promotional fees to athletes who are not competing or who are competing but not winning. Maybe the athletes will be able, though marketing their pregnancies and motherhoods, bring new revenue to Nike. That would be great, if the athletes want to use their pregnancies and motherhoods to do that. But assuming for argument that the economic rationale for Nike's original policy was correct -- that an athlete who is not competing or competing and not winning will bring in less revenue to Nike than an athlete who is competing and winning -- then the money to continue paying the prior promotional fees to the athlete will need to come from other athletes, from employees, from customers, from shareholders … from someone. Taking money from any of these constituents poses its own risks, just like taking money from them to pay fair wages to the mothers who make Nike shoes outside the US would have to come from someone and would involve some risk. A broader story here could be that Nike is pivoting intentionally from the promotional value of athletes who are competing to the promotional value of athletes who are not competing but have other currency -- like a Colin Kaepernick or a pregnant Allyson Felix.
6
@george That really isn't our problem as women, Nike will do what it needs to do to make tons of money for their stockholders. Why should Nike 'take money from athletes' to pay money for fair wages in Nike factories? THAT is the job of Nike and Nike should place the cost in salaries. Maybe less salary for Nike CEO? The CEO recenty had his salary cut from 45Million to 15Million because Nike is floundering, maybe 500K might be what he's worth? A pregnant Allyson Felix is a good role model for young women who compete.
10
@george And yet there are myriad public companies who have paid millions of dollars in settlements to men who have been proven to have sexually harassed and intimidated women. I'm assuming the risks would be the same to employees, customers, and shareholders in these cases. Yet the cost of what the female athletes are hoping for in terms of compensation would be a fraction of what these men cost their organizations.
I would also say that Allyson Felix value to Nike is great even when she is not competing. She has been a great brand ambassador and is respected by male and female athletes around the world.
5
@A Paul Nelson I agree on both points: (a) that companies would have more money to treat people like Ms. Felix fairly if they better policed other aspects of their business, and (b) that Ms. Felix is equally or more valuable to Nike as a "running mother" than as just a "running woman." I just wish more people would see things as I, and I think you, do.
I'm curious how Nike handled Serena's pregnancy and maternity leave. She's obviously one of the highest paid athletes in sport, male or female. Would they have valued her at 70% less upon returning?
17
In Canada either parent can request maternity leave which is partially funded by the Employment Insurance system. The leave totals one year of support which can be taken by either parent or split between the two. For example each parent could take 6 months or one could take 3 months and the other 9 months. This leave can be started either pre or post partum. Many employers then offer a top up to bring the salary to original levels but at the very least they must hold the positions open for return. Our EI pays about CDN $2000 a month.
12
Let's compare Allyson Felix to an elementary school teacher. Whom do we, as a society, "value" more: athletes, or teachers? Teachers, right? But who's made more money, Felix or the teacher? Felix. That's because economic value and social value are two different things. Because of her success in sports, she became economically valuable to Nike. If Felix's economic value to Nike decreases, that has nothing to do with whether Nike "values" women in some broader sense. That never even entered into the equation. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
10
@Dave few athletes have the success, competitively or financially, as she did. But you compare her to all teachers, not the most successful of them. And to add, I value her "socially" more than any generic teacher. She inspires millions, each teacher can only do so for hundreds.
For the sprinters that represent the alternates on the 4x100 relay team, or just making the trials each year, they have a choice between their living and motherhood. Something is not right in that.
4
@Dave You're analysis would be "correct" if Nike was a company that only promoted its economic value for it's consumer (e.g. we give you the best product for the lowest cost). But that's not Nike's only claim, as Felix points out. Nike also claims to promote social and cultural values such as female empowerment, diversity, inclusion and human achievement generally and, as such, should and can be held to account when it fails in this regard.
4
@Dave, it is precisely because economic value is so variant that this could work. An athlete’s success is only one piece of many that determines their appeal to advertisers - I’m sure we could find examples of athletes who perform better in the field, but receive less money from advertisers.
If she can gather pressure from previously loyal Nike buyers, she might get a better contract than she would have otherwise. And if they can get good advertising by creating a good deal for her, it might be worth it for them.
1
I am so supportive of these women speaking out. Maternity protection is overlooked across all industries, while at the same time, voices are screaming out for anti-abortion laws. We should be focusing our efforts on supporting the woman and families that are choosing to start a family.
I quit my last job in the hospitality industry because they refused to cover more than 4 weeks of maternity. I felt that I needed to take a stand for not only myself but for the other women that worked at the company. It was shameful that Milk Bar, a female-led company, refused to recognize the special needs of a new mother and claimed it was unfair to give more paid leave to a mother than to an individual who would only get short term disability for an illness. The also claimed that 4 weeks was extremely generous for the hospitality industry which although true is not a justification for their actions.
These companies need to be called out, just like the men who are called out in the Me-too movement. If Nike can change, so can others.
26
Totally impressed with Allyson Felix. World Class athlete and a new mom. Congratulations on your amazing accomplishments, and thank you for speaking out.
It's time for the women in this country to also step up and support women athletes. Buy tickets, buy gear, buy apparel and shoes, sponsor youth teams, and show your interest in women's athletics. Men support their teams and interests with their wallets, and we need to do the same.
17
The US is so terribly backwards as far as maternity support and LEAVE is concerned. Not only corporate America needs to be shamed, the many politicians as well that keep these issues from being solved by laws!
47
NIKE
Just boycott it.
177
Thank you for publishing your experience and your thoughts.
9
Thank you for your candor, Ms. Felix. Congratulations on your many successes and on speaking out about this issue. Rest assured that there are many women, many moms, many working moms, many moms with a lot of spending power as consumers who are paying attention. Companies like Nike should keep in mind the importance of sponsoring athlete-moms. It would set a great positive example to young people and growing families. Best wishes to you and your family.
12
I'll start by saying that I think all full-time employees should get a minimum of 6 months of paternity/maternity leave. No exception.
But Allyson is not an FTE. She's a freelancer. She's able to provide some extraordinary service, perhaps for only a short period of time and she's highly compensated for it. There are other benefits she has, such as being able to have multiple clients and also receiving the earnings from winning races. Most of us sign a contract that says we can have only one employer - one paycheck.
For this reason, I don't think we should require Nike to pay her even when she can't run. Nor would we expect them to pay their ad agency if the agency was all women on maternity leave.
Sports is cut-throat. It's high-risk, high-reward. She's been getting the high reward up to this point but sadly, she's not encountering the high-risk part.
13
@Tim:
but as others here said, athletes are paid in the off season, right? Or while on the IL (or whatever the PC word of the day is for disability leave)....why should women who have babies be treated differently?
@M
Utterly confounding to read your comment.
How about if ALL women just stop becoming pregnant and having children, like you, in order for them to achieve their goals in life?
How would that work out?
5
Nike would be wise to be honest in response to pieces like this. They sign these athletes to represent their brands and pay them based on what they understand to be their value to Nike.
Athletes do not have to sign. There are other brands.
8
@Scott then put that in the contract and then say if you become pregnant we will lower your payments. See how that flies, are men paid less when they become fathers? It's sincerely fascinating to me how men just don't get it.
The operative issue here is how Nike and others value women as 3 dimensional human beings, not just medals and performers. If that's all they are, then to Nike and others they're just meat and highly replaceable meat at that.
7
@AnObserver That's how they value athletes in general. Gender has nothing to do with it.
6
@Dave The Kaepernick promotion suggests a bit more nuance. He wasn't playing football at all at the time.
3
In a normal job, this would be outrageous. But this is not a normal job. Ms. Felix isn’t sitting in front of a computer or delivering packages. She’s getting paid a huge amount of money to promote athletic gear, because Nike believes that having a famous athlete promote their products is good for sales. If her ability to promote their products is diminished for any reason, of course she’ll become less valuable to Nike. We can argue about whether her impact on sales really has been diminished, but isn’t that up to Nike to decide?
Complaining about this is a bit like a famous actor complaining that he’s not making as much money in Hollywood as he made when he was younger and better looking.
25
@Rick So, being a mother, being a role model for other women who are strong and athletic and have children and still competes, makes a woman "less valuable?" Shame on you. It's men like you, with those attitudes about women and pregnancy and how it affects "the bottom line", that make women realize more and more that it's way past time for men to step aside when it comes to making decisions about how being a woman affects corporate profits.
57
@Claudia I do not believe that there is an attitude about women/pregnancy and how it affects the bottom line. If a male athlete went up to Nike and asked, "Could I take a year, maybe a year and a half, where I won't be competitive at the thing you pay me to do?" Nike would cut their pay just as fast as they do for women.
10
@Claudia You are absolutely right. I think Nike shareholders should be OK giving up value in order to pay pregnant women athletes more than they would be paid under a narrow and purely economic rationale. But I also think there is an broader economic rationale to pay pregnant women athletes more than warranted by their present competition victories alone. As an example, a retired woman athlete might still get paid to promote shoes, because she is a legend. Likewise, a pregnant woman athlete might get paid because she is an inspiration to other women. I think this issue is about rethinking underlying assumptions about how to achieve "corporate profits," not just about whether shareholders should take less so pregnant women can take more … if it is just about taking money from shareholders to pay women, I am afraid it does not go very far … especially if the shareholders are pregnant women (or investment funds in which pregnant women invest, or insurance funds that fund benefits to working pregnant women on leave … then you would need to ask which pregnant women should get more money and which ones should get less).
2
It seems like you have to be a competitor. If you’re pregnant, you are no longer visible in competition.
6
@Jackson:
Colin Kaepernik isn't competing yet he's been paid.
Athletes are paid during their off season and injuries....
6
@Jackson is Michael Jordan still competing? Was Michael Jordan paid less when he switched to baseball and was terrible?
The more important question is: Why is it up to employers to provide family leave in the first place?
Most developed countries around the world manage to provide families with paid family leave, taking the entire issue out of the hands of employers:
https://www.insider.com/maternity-leave-around-the-world-2018-5
As with healthcare, it would be less expensive and less complicated if we were to decide that family leave is an investment we make in each other, to ensure that our population is healthier and that children are well cared for, and have a chance to form strong attachments as a family.
Sure, it would be great for Nike to provide family leave. But that the question is in their hands in the first place is the real problem.
44
@Ashley:
same argument true for universal health coverage in which this could be a rider.
3
Ms. Felix should find a different company to work for. Her agent was not be too smart.
Struggles like Felix's are infuriating to me because I personally find that the very ability to be pregnant is one of the most wondrous things about female athletes. That ability is one of the main reasons that comparing female and male athletes is such a pointless exercise.
Why would I care how many of the top male sprinters are faster than Felix when Felix's body allows her to move faster than 99.9% of the human beings I will every meet--and that same body CAN ALSO CREATE LIFE INSIDE OF IT?!
Why do we take such a mind-blowing reality for granted? Why has Nike tried to obstruct athletes like Felix from going to the magical place that Michael Jordan or Lebron James could never dream of reaching?
Serena Williams recently took a break from her sport to create a human being and usher it into the world. Then Serena returned to the pinnacle of tennis. To a man like me, that's practically sorcery. Felix has that same awesome power, and Nike should be doing absolutely everything in its own power to allow us all to witness it.
168
Allyson Felix Just know the great majority of people out here are your fans and believe in you and whay you represent...may God keep you and your baby safe and healthy and that you continue to thrive in your career
24
I dunno... If Nike has a marketing campaign in mind, they get to hire the model/spokesperson that matches their marketing campaign.
11
Very, very few corporations 'do the right thing' voluntarily - so this kind of article is spot on. Keep on keeping on.
31
That is, so not right!
And, once again if we had a National Healthcare Program (Single Payer, Medicare, etc.).
This would NOT be an issue!!!
7
@manutx. Yes, the rest of us would be paying for her.
3
@Jackson Seriously? Have you no humanity - or common sense - in declaring that sharing health costs is a burden we should slough off as a society? I assume people should pay for their own primary educations, stretches of road, firefighters, etc in this sick Scrooge-like world of yours, too.
9
@Jackson Exactly. That's how it works. Like highways, national parks, and most sports stadiums. You should get out more...
10
I am deeply disappointed in Nike where they drop athletes' health insurance when they are pregnant. I will be posting this info on Facebook. All of my sneakers are Nike....which will change because of this. Men can become fathers and still have their health insurance. These women are strong and need to be supported through their pregnancy. Sports is their job as with any job, you should have health insurance. Bye Bye Nike....
15
Why should Ms Felix, or anyone else, be surprised, or dismayed?
Money talks...
2
The value to the apparel company of an endorsement contract comes from having the public see the athlete performing at an elite level while wearing their gear.
Consider four elite baseball players:
- Christian Yelich
- Mookie Betts
- Dallas Keuchel
- Craig Kimbrell
The first two are the reigning MVPs in the National and American league and are having excellent 2019 seasons so far. Keuchel and Kimbrell are World Champion pitchers who declined all contract offers they received during the off-season.
Yelich has endorsement deals with Louisville Slugger and others; Betts is signed with Nike and others. Keuchel? Kimbrell? Uh, nope.
6
And how much money has Nike made from the hard work of these athletes. Yes, they made money too for sure.
But I'd be willing to bet the farm that the profits generated for Nike by these athletes far outstrip their compensation.
And now a pregnancy is used as an excuse to further enhance Nike's bottom line?
Shame, Nike, shame!
7
@Dan
If earnings didn’t exceed compensation the company would be bankrupt.
11
@Dan It looks like she hasn't raced since June 8, 2018. She gave birth in November. So she took off 5.5 months prior to giving birth and hasn't raced in the nearly 6 months since. Why should Nike be paying her a full salary when shes 2.5 weeks from 1 year without a single race?
What if she never races again? How long are they supposed to continue paying her full salary while waiting for her to return to competition?
4
Courage. The word "courage" comes from "heart" (couer).
You have both.
It's not only female athletes who support you, it is all of us.
Say the word, and Nike will be hit with a boycott beyond their wildest dreams!
5
Allyson, I've followed you since your HS career. Your career has been a pleasure to spectate, your grace a pleasure to witness. My one comment to what you wrote is this: You referenced athletes who've been told to "shut up and play." remember that it was Nike who stood up, and stood behind, the very athlete whose decisions sparked that comment. Nike is like you. And me. And all of us. We have virtues; we have blind spots. So, by all means let the internet pile-on begin - that's what we do nowadays. Just let's remember Nike's virtues as we pile on.
2
@Slowman
I wonder what the Indonesian teenage girls behind the sewing machines think of Nike's virtues?
13
@Jim, you make a fair point. Off-topic point, but fair. Just, who makes the shoes you run in? And the t shirt you're wearing? Nike participates in this problem; it doesn't own this problem.
1
So well said. Ms. Felix's story provides another reason why women need access to health care that includes her right to decide and implement her decision on having or not having a child. Discrimination against women with children exists in the workplace.
5
Maybe it is time for track and field athletes to form a union and negotiate contract terms that apply to all athletes regardless of who sponsors them. Absent collective action and the possibility that athletes will not participate in meets, i.e. go on strike, the status quo will continue to be just that. This is not just a Nike issue. The company gets attention because it endorses the most athletes. What about New Balance or adidas or Saucony or Asics? Pressure needs to be put on all of these companies for real, lasting change to occur.
9
Do not other athletes lose their marketing value in a new contract when their performance declines in a similar way? Does it matter if the decline is due to an orthopedic or gynecological reason? If their performance improves after they recover, can they not pursue a larger contract?
Sign or don’t sign the contract offered. If you don’t sign with them, look to sign with someone else. Athletes are basically independent contractors when it comes to advertising.
Did Serena expect to take home a purse for a tournament she did not participate in because she was pregnant?
24
This kind of treatment is nothing less than misogyny on the part of these companies. Pregnancy is not a disability that renders you unable to pose for photographs or speak. It is the height of hypocrisy for Nike to state that it values and promotes girls and women and then treat pregnancy, a vital part of the lives of most women, as some sort of contract violation. And as for their business model, where precisely does Nike think its next generation of customers is going to come from?
16
Talk about first world problems. Instead of highlighting the REAL injustices of environmental degradation and exploitative labour practices by apparel companies such as Nike, we're treated to the whining of a privileged millionaire who wants more money despite making a CHOICE that will most likely impact her ability to honor her contract in representing said company. Give me a break!
14
@James - You know, it’s possible to be upset about more than one thing at a time. And outrage isn’t a zero-sum game. I can protest Nike’s misogynistic treatment of female athletes AND their poor environmental policies and slave-labor policies.
8
@James Only such a comment could have come from a man... Ask some of the women around you and see how they feel about the issue of maternity leave and equal pay.
Nike is my new simile for tone-deaf. And stupid.
Just how good does an athlete have to be for Nike to support them? A 70% pay cut?
Thank you to the brave athletes who broke their non-disclosure agreements to speak out about this ridiculous situation.
Most women i know would have been beyond proud (and shown it with our Nike purchases) had Nike simply done the right thing.
Well - my next athletic gear purchases will not be Nike. Waaay too little, too late.
Ladies, let's show Nike the true power of what having a uterus can mean for their bottom line.
8
First of all, love you Allyson- you are incredible!
I feel like this brand has been lying to me. The advertisements claim to be motivational and inclusive. The way this incredible professional woman was treated is making the assumption she will become weaker from this life experience she is entitled to. Nike has no way of knowing how this expert runner would rebound. It is also acting completely inexclusive to mothers and young women. The message that is being sent by denying Allyson the pay she deserves is that Nike is a spineless masogynistic corporate board of inhumane liars. This runner is going to trash the shoes and not buy again until I see a change. #boycottNike
6
The worst part is that companies like NIKE try very hard to fool us into thinking they are pro-women. They are pro-women until they are pro-money. It's a little like being pro-life until that darn birth happens. A woman needs to start a shoe company and actually support women, pregnant or not.
31
Yep, once again something every European women takes for grantet but the US is on the level of a third world country, which also applies to child pregancy, childbirth motallity rate, and health care. But social is not a stink word, its necessary for a resonable good live for the people living in a country. Maybe sometimes the US citicens will understand that the so colled communist countries where dictatorships which had nothing to do with socal or communism. But i would not hod my breath for it. as long as it is America First for the wealthy, for the cheats, for the gun lobby nothing will change. I feel sorry for most of the american people
6
Although it's a step in the right direction to shame companies like Nike into continuing pay and benefits (such as health care) for pregnant employees, cases like those of Felix, Goucher, and Montano show how ridiculous it is that we still rely on a system of employer-based healthcare in this country (both Montaño and Goucher lost their healthcare coverage through Nike when they were pregnant).
Laws like FMLA and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act are intended to protect pregnant people's employment when they give birth or must be absent from work to care for a child. However, there are numerous loopholes and exclusions regarding who gets covered. You must be an "employee" (which sponsorship deals apparently don't entail), you must have been working for an employer for a certain amount of time, and more.
We don't just need to shame Nike—who, as other commenters have noted, is motivated by market forces and will change if we vote with our dollars. Because there are plenty of people who will become pregnant who don't work for Nike, or who don't have the clout of someone like Allyson Felix, who won't be helped by that. What we need is laws that ensure fair treatment, employment and wage protection, and universal health care for ALL pregnant people regardless of who they work for.
20
Nike’s quiet bigotry against women is reminiscent of the junk food industry’s portrayal of its product as family friendly and community-building. “Things go better with Coke”…”I’d like to teach the world to sing”…”McDonald is such a happy place”…etc.
Meanwhile their products are, factually speaking, slow poison. Beware the big corporations. Greed is all they know.
“Just do it”. Nike pretends its products embody self-realization and follow-your-dreams glory. But in truth their laser-focused goal is solely selling apparel, social justice be damned.
9
Why do so many athletes seem to think they shouldn't be held to the terms of their contracts? You sign a contract, you agree to be covered by the terms of the contract. Don't like it? Don't sign it. Simple as that.
16
Kudos to Ms. Felix for standing up and speaking her mind.
Now it's up to Nike to do the right thing by her and other female athletes.
If not, buh bye.
8
Just another reason why I and my extended family members will not buy Nike products. That can be hard because they sell some terrific things. However, Nike has always been too slow (or has never been) coming to humanitarian positions.
12
Thank you brave sisters of color, with much to lose for speaking out. Women are learning to stand together to fight for equity... With each voice we gain strength, momentum and power. Thank you for leading us.
17
As a single female, never married with no children, I feel compelled to weigh in on this topic. In addition to this opinion piece, I read the article last week featuring Alysia Montano and Phoebe Wright. My understanding is that these athletes are contracting with Nike to provide a particular service - i.e. - to promote Nike's brand. Perhaps my POV will be unpopular here, but, realistically speaking, how can they run and promote Nike during their pregnancy and recovery period?
IMO, if Allyson Felix knew she wanted to get pregnant, then she should have delayed negotiating a new contract with Nike until after her baby was born. Knowing that she was planning to get pregnant, Ms. Felix was not negotiating in good faith. It's really important to plan for the choices you make. I understand her desire to have a child...so couldn't her partner have picked up some slack and earned additional income? Was she able to save some $$$ over the years she had a contract with Nike? I know this is not popular for women today, but sometimes choices have to be made and you can't have everything you want. To my knowledge, she is not an employee of Nike, which would put her in a different classification.
I should add that I have worked as a contractor for years. When I don't work, I'm not paid and I have to plan for that. Having children was far too expensive for me so I made the choice not to have them. Other women will choose differently. We all have to accept the consequences of our choices.
52
@M That attitude is part of the reason why women still make 75 cents on the dollar in comparison to men. Men don't have to make those choices because of their biology. Until we start supporting women and saying that having children is not a choice that should hold them back or for which they should pay a personal price, all women will continue to pay the price in terms of gender discrimination.
94
@M I'm not sure if you really read the first article but in fact many of these women do continue to work for Nike during their pregnancies, making personal appearances and even having Nike market them as pregnant athletes they support.
And they don't disagree that it's a personal choice to get pregnant, only that they would like to have the choice to have a child and not be penalized financially for that, especially since men are not. I think since these companies make money off of the women's talents, even while they are pregnant, it is fair that they start giving them a window to have a child and get back into competition form again. And clearly many companies faced with losing these unique athletes realize they must support them or lose their female athletes to a company who will.
49
@M. but "society" needs (at least some) women to have babies. If there is not protection for income (as well as other support), then more and more women will make the decision that you did and decide to remain child free. I don't know for sure, but I don't think that male athletes with endorsements are penalized for being laid up for a while with injuries. They may miss out on bonuses (so much for winning this or that, which they cannot possibly earn if they aren't active) but the basic endorsement fee is still paid (unless the injury leads to the player's/athlete's retirement).
18
That's appalling Nike valued Allyson Felix at 70% less. I think she's the only track and field athlete I would recognize on the street, other than Usain Bolt.
27
The sports apparel industry could do a lot more to encourage fairness, not only with the athletes they employ as brand ambassadors but reform the way they pay coaches and school officials to force all the players on college teams to wear specific brands of shoes and clothing. These sports stars who have spoken out about their treatment are showing the same stamina and courage they bring to the sporting environment.
11
This is fantastic. Best of luck to you and your family, and keep fighting important fights.
Now leave Nike. They aren't worth it. I won't buy another pair of their shoes or article of their clothing.
56
THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING OUT!! It takes brave voices like your own to help effect change in this world. I support you!
142
For Nike it's about the money. They want to maximize profits and for them, athletes are just tools to be used to do that. When an athlete gets pregnant and the focus for them is now away from the sport they are known for, then Nike will move on to someone else that is the current star. It's always about the money. It's about the money for athletes too.
18
@Lew
pregnant women are money spending customers too....
7
@Lew I would argue Serena's pregnancy made her far more marketable and profitable, because it inspired, oh gee, at least HALF of the world's population to believe that embracing motherhood and being fierce are not mutually exclusive. Athletes can and do inspire people in other ways beyond winning medals, and people spend their money on companies that inspire them.
6
Allyson Felix has long been a hero of mine. She is smart, tough, and amazingly fast. My sons and I loved cheering her on at the Olympics and celebrated her wins for our country. Nike, show female athletes some respect.
68
How strange. I would be excited about Nike promoting a pregnant athlete! I am a Title IX kid (now middle aged) who first played school sports when the legislation affected girls in school. My older sister did not have the same opportunities I did, and decades later, it's clear that girls and women can do phenomenal things. Nike is missing the boat here. Women are people. End of story. Becoming a mother is the hope and dream of some women (not all) and I can't for the life of me see how a pregnant athlete or an athlete who's a mom is automatically worth less in the eyes of Nike.
82
Nike is indeed missing the boat. EVERY local race and big city marathon I’ve run in have been filled with moms whose kids are cheering them from the crowd. And just about everyone else in those races are or will eventually become a mom or a dad. So, yeah, not very good long term marketing from Nike.
15
@Anony-mom: Nike is more than happy to promote the pregnant women and use them in advertising campaigns, as noted in the article; but behind the scenes they are threatening them with contract termination and dropping their pay by 70%...
8
@Anony-mom
Well said. Clearly Nike's goal is to sell more shoes, not become a paragon of virtue. If a world class athlete wants to have a child, as another commentor said, Just Do It, and if the marketing morons at Nike can't use that to sell more shoes, well, see 'morons' above. Ditton for seniors. Running has a world wide audience, as witnessed by the predominance of swooshes at any weekend 5/10k, 1/2 or full marathon, and ultras. None of these runners will set records. They ALL buy shoes every 300 or so miles.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, its interesting to note that people still think that companies care about anything else besides their bottom lines and how this contributes to shareholder value. Legally (in our system) this is the absolute and only requirement for the company. Anything else that they do is public relations and window dressing designed to boost their public image to achieve their legal requirements of shareholder value. Anyone who takes their money in sponsorship must be aware of that.
69
@Sipa111 You're missing the point here, though. A lot of women and girls would be more inclined to buy Nike products if they promoted such role models. I don't see how they're missing the big picture here. It could HELP their bottom line, but they are jumping to the conclusion that a pregnant athlete will hurt them, not much different from labor practices of decades ago when women were fired just for getting married or becoming pregnant. I'm old enough to remember that the word "pregnant" was not said in polite company.
41
@Sipa111 No pregnancies, no more future athletes. How bout that?
8
@Sipa111 Exactly right. Why are so many people just discovering that unregulated capitalism does not actually make a good society to live in, and government's role is to bend capitalism until it is a good society to live in.
3
Nike, I hope you are listening. We like that you promote strong girls and women. We want you to say women can be athletes and mothers. Bravo to the Nike-sponsored athletes who are brave enough to speak up. I hope they will be rewarded for this, not punished.
267
@susang
Fight on Allyson! You are such a great role model. Thank you for sharing the insane, dinosaur mentality that mucho hubris, swoopy foot waffle stomper brand exhibits. As you are finding out, there are many great gear companies that actually have human and family values in their locker. Let us all remember this when it is time for a new pair of kicks: just say no (to nike products). Typical, they pretend to be "good guys", only when the truth is spoken, as you so well have done. Thank you!
17
@susang
For more than 40 years, I have not purchased any products from Nike, except one T-shirt. After reading this article, I will continue to not buy anything from their brand.
Cheers to these women for coming out of the outrageous silence closet about these issues.
You Go Allyson !!!
Nike's attitude reminds me of the recent past when phone operators, airline stewardess, office clerks, nurses were told if they got married they would quickly be fired. Because if they did marry, they would have babies instantly and all the costly training they had to go through would be wasted.
I have known 2 women who needed jobs and worked under this ridiculous rule in the 1920's to 70's - my mother and the mother of a friend.
14
Companies will not "do the right thing" on their own. It takes women like you standing up and challenging the status quo. It takes all of us to join together, men and women, and demand that companies do the right thing. Sometimes, our purchasing power may be called upon to send a message. In the case of labor, it is only together (through unions) that we can force change. Alone, we beg. Together, we negotiate.
374
@ATronetti
And because companies will not "do the right thing" on their own, that right thing needs to be inscribed into actual national law, superseding anything that could be written into a contract. You know, as in most of the rest of the civilized world, where there are national policies about maternity leave and paid time off and employer obligation.
It serves Nike right that the bad publicity they're getting around this (they obviously feared that on some level, as they had athletes signing non-disclosure agreements) may cut into its bottom line a bit, inasmuch as it could have turned these situations into excellent adjunct marketing opportunities with a little more thought (so many have commented here that they would look quite favorably on an ad campaign emphasizing postpartum return to competition). But the fact remains that the law should be such that neither Nike or any other company should be in a position to exercise such corporate stupidity in the first place.
6
@ATronetti A few things to consider:
Ms. Felix says Ms. Montano and Ms. Goucher "heroically broke their non disclosure agreements with" Nike. A contract is a contract. Breaking the terms of the contract is, well, violating the contract. Something for lawyers to deal with.
Ms. Felix acknowledges that Nike is her sponsor, not her employer. The terms of payment to an athlete by a sponsor are governed by whatever contractual terms the two parties agree to.
If you don't like or accept the terms of a contract, don't sign it. If you do sign a contract, be prepared to abide by its terms.
3
@Mon Ray Fairness and decency should be values upheld by everyone. The role of the women who broke the silence imposed by Nike is that of a whistle blower.
According to what you are saying, the only options for athletes is to accept unfair contracts (unfair labor practices) and keep quiet, or abandon their careers, while Nike can do anything they want with impunity. When something is wrong, it is wrong, and a contract that demands unfair labor practices is wrong.
3