After Atalanta

Nike sponsors various philanthropic activities largely aimed at empowering young people. They have (and still do I believe) offer grants to organizations providing sport opportunities for girls and young women. But I did not know they have a similar effort aimed at young Native Americans and indigenous youth in the United States and Canada. They (just) do (it). I discovered the N7 campaign (named after the Native American philosophy of 7 generations--thinking about one's impact 7 generations into the future) when reading about the University of Nevada's basketball team. Nevada partnered with N7 as part of the university's Native American Pride day last weekend when Nevada took on New Mexico State. What's slightly problematic is the way Nike markets the N7 campaign. Because it's not just a campaign to raise awareness and fund opportunities for indigenous peoples, it's also to sell shoes. And not sell shoes in that good-publicity/charity-equals-more-product-sold k...

I haven't written anything recently about pinkification, because I have said (probably more than once) before it places one in the not so pleasant position of appearing to be pro-cancer and maybe even anti-woman. Nonetheless, I find it difficult to refrain from infusing some critical commentary when the issue comes up. This one is not a diatribe. I just happened to come across news that the University of Alabama (whose softball team just won the SEC regular season and tournament and got a #1 seeding in the NCAA tournament) has renewed its contract with Nike . (This isn't even going to be an anti-Nike post!) As part of said contract (which runs through 2018!) Nike will provide 'Bama with apparel, equipment, coaching gear, and shoes. They will also: will allocate funds...for the athletic department's annual Power of Pink initiative in which the company will provide specific "pink garments" to be worn by each women's sports team at one contest per year. ...

...and apparel and equipment and a lifestyle. It's the last part that seems a little off when we think about--or when Christine Brennan makes us think about--Nike continuing to sponsor Tiger Woods, Ben Roethlisberger, and Kobe Bryant. Sure "image is everything" is Canon's slogan. (Of course it was famously spoken by one-time Nike client, Andre Agassi.) But clearly, as Brennan points out in a very good column* (and sometimes I think Brennan is a little too easy on certain aspects of sportocracy so I was pleased by this one) Nike does not think it's image will be harmed by continuing to be associated with these men. Conversely, Nike also sponsors out US soccer player Natasha Kai, so I guess their devotion to their stars cuts in many different directions. Former Women's Sport Foundation CEO Donna Lopiano felt that Nike's refusal to admonish their athletes sends a clear message to consumers about the image of the company (macho, edgy--Kai certainly fits the la...

I must be in a slump because I don't have that much to say. Sure I could complain about how the WPS is in full swing and I have yet to see any scores or highlights on ESPN. (Of course I don't watch ESPN has much as others so please, please let me know if I am wrong. I will happily tune in to see coverage.) But I have already done that. More than once probably. I could say my slump is part of my depression over flipping through the gazillion channels on my girlfriend's HDTV getting excited when I see softball, women's soccer, and women's tennis listed in the guide and then being let down because none of these channels are part of her cable package--which is not that basic, people. I know WPS peeps did a major celebratory dance when they negotiated a deal with Fox Soccer Channel but how many people have access to this? I could talk about Nike's announcement last week of the Nike Gamechangers award winners . Nike worked with Changemakers , an organization dedicated...

It's been a while since I have done a fashion review but with the absence of Maria Sharapova I feel some of the fashion discussions have tapered. And since much of this blog is about filling in the gaps (and gaffes) of commentators (though usually on a more political and philosophical level) I figured "why not." Besides it's Saturday. Jelena Jankovic's yellow dress ? Ick. At least when it had the silver belt thing on it. I liked it much better without the adornment which she took off some time during her (2.5 hour) second round match against Sofia Arvidsson. Arvidsson was wearing the not so pretty-in-pink Adidas outfit that several of the players are sporting this year. Not a fan of the design on the top nor the color. In other Adidas fashion: I liked Ana Ivanovic's white top and dusty purple skirt. I like the sleeves on the top and the cut of the skirt. I liked some versions of the taupe/orange combo Adidas has for the women. Patty Schnyder's outfit, for ...

Wrestling, of course. With Wimbledon on its day off, it's time to tackle other issues. Or rather wrestle with other issues. Found this interesting story about the group in Oregon, SOW (Save Oregon Wrestling), that attempted to bring some attention to its cause by buying ad time on ESPN and ESPNU. The group, which is suing the school for dropping the program and adding competitive cheer and baseball, bought spots to air during the DI wrestling championships. But ESPN execs turned back the ads saying they don't take ads that contain political advocacy or issue-oriented advertising. Wow--so many issues here. First, SOW is claiming that Oregon had no reason to drop the program: it costs less than the programs they are adding; the department was in compliance with Title IX (I haven't checked out the reality of this situation, though). And in general they seemed pissed off the the athletic director, a man without a college degree, seemed to make the decision unilaterally. Sounds ...

In my INBOX this morning was an email from Nike, NikeWomen specifically. (I keep telling myself to unsubscribe, but then I hesitate when I get bloggable moments like these.) Here's what I read first (It's all in caps but I won't do that to you. Also note the punctuation is the way it appears int he original.): Sport is universal. It appeals to our sense of adventure. Provides a platform for accomplishment. And an opportunity to forge bonds with like-minded competitors. As female athletes, sports defines who we are. Because, collectively, we are redefining sport. Gender doesn't define a great athlete. Great does. This is part of their ongoing ATHLETE campaign. If you scroll down the email you find a link to the ATHLETE t-shirts ready for you to purchase and the ads that have been running as part of the campaign. But directly underneath the above "gender doesn't matter in sport" message is this: Nike helps you put it all together with Shop by Outfit . Becaus...

Nike unleashed its new ad campaign aimed at women on Saturday. It's called ATHLETE and features world-class athletes talking about what being an athlete means to them. The new campaign that consists of television commercials, an internet component, print ads, and billboards was created after Nike found out that female athletes are tired of not being taken seriously because they are women. To address the problem the modifier "women" is absent. Sounds good, eh? Sure. It addresses a major problem in the discourse on women's sports where unmodified "athlete" equals male in most written and spoken coverage. But like other Nike campaigns (i.e. If You Let Me Play), this one falls short of anything that might engender change. Because Nike is selling a false empowerment; an image of equality that doesn't come near addressing actual inequality in sport. A forthcoming billboard that features Serena Williams with her arms crossed wearing a t-shirt that says ATHLET...

Am I the only person (well me and Carrie , anyway) who had a problem with Nike's "thank you, ignorance" ad that came out last week? (There was a print version in April 15's NYT in addition to the various websites it was posted on.) The impetus for the ad, according to this source , was a self-questioning Nike wondering whether it was doing enough to promote women's sports. Apparently they are according to the Advertising Women of New York who will present Nike with an award called "10 Years of Getting It" this week. Unless "it" means lots of money from women buying their stuff (and in the interest of full disclosure, yes I do own Nike apparel), I am not sure what it is that Nike gets about women's sports. The article cites one of the most well-known campaigns: "if you let me play." That campaign, about which much critical scholarship has been done, does, I suppose, show that Nike gets that women's sports are always subordinat...

I really need to unsubscribe from Nike's email list. I got a notice today called "Nike Love" that invited me to watch three short films about love and sports--specifically youth sports. It seemed to be a "support youth sports programs" kind of message. The first was animated and featured a desolate boy of color (tattered clothes, unkempt hair)seemingly from some non-US place. He is kicking along a can in the street, very bored. He comes across a lantern which he rubs and of course pops up the genie offering three wishes which can include anything like a car or money. But the boy wishes for a basketball which the genie gives him. The boy runs off to play with his basketball forgoing his other two wishes much to the genie's puzzlement. The boy's race and apparent class status are unavoidable markers in this "film." It plays into the belief that the only way boys of color can get out of poverty is through sport and that it is a noble way--evidenc...