Skip navigation
MOST POPULAR RELATED TAGS
  • TOPICS
  • SECTORS
  • COMPANIES
Sports Biz Video Gallery
CNBC's Darren Rovell has the story on Scott Smith putting his Sports Illustrated collection on sale.
CNBC's Darren Rovell follows the money and the future of Notre Dame head football coach, Charlie Weis, after another dis...
darren rovell's sports index
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

RSS FEED

» Help

Current DateTime: 08:36:09 24 Nov 2009
LinksList Documentid: 30212900

SPORTS BIZ VIDEO GALLERY

» More

Current DateTime: 08:36:09 24 Nov 2009
LinksList Documentid: 30231077
powered by digg

Sports Biz

Text Size
Jul.26
11:58 AM ET
Thursday, 26 Jul 2007
Nike: Drop Michael Vick Right Now
Posted By:Darren Rovell
Sectors:Media
Companies:Nike Inc

Michael Vick

When activist organizations ask for a shoe and apparel company to drop athletes before the legal process has seen them through, I usually don't agree. The main reason I stand up for these companies is that it's good for business to ride it out. People forget and if you have an athlete who is acquitted of charges who is a big star, they will prove they can sell again.

Nike [NKE  Loading...      ()   ] handled the situation perfectly with Kobe Bryant. They signed him. The sexual assault charges came. They waited. The criminal charges were dropped. The civil case was settled. Then they began using Bryant again. And it has been good for business. Kobe might be the league's most dynamic player and he does sell shoes. It's why they recently re-signed him.

But Michael Vick will never be used in association with Nike ever again. That's whether he's innocent or guilty of the charges brought before him. That being said, why would Nike stick by him? I know, it's about the message it sends. The guy is not guilty and here they are convicting him if they drop him. Except for the simple fact that--whether it's right or not--the message that is coming out now is: This guy is accused of killing dogs and Nike is standing by him.

Nike has suspended the release of the Vick V shoe, which was scheduled to come out Aug. 23. That shoe, I predict, will never come out and sources tell me that will cost Nike a measly $1.5 million in revenue. I would normally say that this would be enough. Hey, I was the guy who came out and said that they should just quietly come out with the shoe! I'm not being hypocritical here, I 've just seen the tremendous force this has become.

I'm not sure why--maybe because many people have dogs and people can't always relate to murder victims--but if you're associated with murdering dogs the general public seems to think it to be worse than being associated with murdering people.

I'm sure Nike wants to make its own decision. I'm sure they don't want to be seen as buckling under the pressure of PETA, which has begun protesting in front of their Niketowns. But I think Nike should also remember its history. Years ago, Nike was blitzed by activists who slammed their overseas workplace conditions. By most accounts, Nike did an unbelievable job and totally turned it around. Today, Nike wins awards for their disclosure of factory conditions. Why did Nike make that turnaround? Because their executives smartly believed that the cheaper cost of unsavory workplace conditions wasn't worth the hit the brand was taking. That's how they should look at Michael Vick.

Are they convicting Vick by dropping him? No. I would handle the news release by sending the press a one-liner that simply said that Nike had severed the contract of Michael Vick. That's it. That's enough of a statement. Don't make any other further comment. The fact that you severed the contract is enough of a statement. If it turns out that he's not guilty of the charges and at some point Nike officials want to explain the decision, they should just say that it was a strictly business decision. Bottom line? Michael Vick wasn't an effective spokesperson any more. He couldn't help them sell shoes. Nike doesn't really owe Vick the due process that the court system owes him.

I don't envy the position Nike is in. Had I been a top executive at Nike, I would not have thought about dumping Vick until earlier this week. But now I think there's no choice. Whether the pressure fades away or not in the coming weeks, it does not pay to stick by his side. Now I wonder if they could sign a deal with Kevin Harvick so that they could take some sharper to those Vick V's sitting in the warehouse, put an "HAR" in front of "VICK" and make a NASCAR cross trainer.

Questions?  Comments? 


Tools:
PrintEmailAdd This share icon
  • digg share
ADD COMMENTS
Remaining characters


Current DateTime: 03:14:50 24 Nov 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29778428

Current DateTime: 12:00:47 24 Nov 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29779196

Current DateTime: 04:59:27 24 Nov 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29779199

Current DateTime: 12:00:49 24 Nov 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29779198
  Data is a real-time snapshot  *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data and Analysis

© 2009 CNBC, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
A Division of NBC Universal
Thomson ReutersThomson Reuters