Took me way too long to see what was "wrong" with the picture.

I'm a Nike-hater, so enjoying it.....but...some chance it's just a really bad mannequin modeling session. Pole Vaulter Katie Moon replied modelling the same design with a couple selfies, and felt it was fine. (I refuse to link to X, but it's not hard to find).

https://www.instagram.com/...gsh=YmllOHgzazRudXJn

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

For clarity, she was wearing the same bottom that has been worn by female track athletes for years, not the super-high front cut that the Olympic uniform has. She did express her concern regarding that cut. She also mentioned that the athletes have several styles to choose from, and can pick a style that is most comfortable for them.

Sharon

---

Festina Lente

Yeah I've been seeing some athletes giving weak defenses of the obvious problem kit by saying that they have plenty of other options. That doesn't excuse the problem kit imo. Weird line to draw & weird play on buzzwords (with ideological leanings) like "freedom" & "choice." Having the freedom to not choose the sexist kit doesn't mean that kit isn't a problem.

Is there a line that can be drawn where a kit goes from okay to 'sexist'? Were the old brief-cut kits from last year sexist?

Furthermore, if the 'bunhugger' style wasn't provided as an option and the only women's options were split shorts or half tights, would that also be sexist? Only prudish sharia-law kits seems kinda sexist too.

It's pretty simple. If an athlete thinks the kit is a problem then she won't wear it. If the kit is actually a problem then none of the athletes will wear it. The dirty truth is that sex sells and Nike knows this. Look at the disparity between men/women followers below and take a simple guess at why Sisson has the most followers. Nike knew exactly what they were doing and these criticisms are exactly the engagement they wanted. Something tells me when the kits actually come out there will be no shortage of athletes proudly modeling them for the 'gram.

Okeeffe 34k, Sisson 150k, Lindwurm 33k
Mantz 29k, Young 17k, Korir 5k.

The instagram comments are truly priceless.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Not sure if that was a parody, but did nike or sport governing bodies really send hairspray and make up kits to athletes ??? If yes, that's simply unbelievable.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Total parody. Her videos are quite funny.

So she is just making up the hairspray and make-up kit part?

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Yes :)

Who picked comic sans for the USA font??!

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Yeah, it's a distant second criticism to the obvious, but the livery isn't....good. Bad font. Women's girl-color-pinstriping colorway kind of bland and washed out. Men's a little more interesting...but red paint spatter effect...hmm. Is it too late for a complete do-over?

Just give them what the swimmers and water polo players wear. Or beach volleyball.

I don't remember "wardrobe malfunctions", except Nathan Adrian.

Dropping Nike for Tyr/TURBO respectively would turn Nike's ample legal dept. into a frenzied shark tank....so sounds like a good idea to me.

I don’t think “sexist” is the word anyone here is looking for. I seriously doubt Nike believes women are inferior to men. Rather, I think the word you are looking for is either objectifying or sexualizing.

Either of which still goes back to NIKE not giving a shit about female athletes as people, but as commodities

"So & so wants to have a baby? That will negatively affect her future performance. Just take her off the payroll and insert someone younger; preferably NOT in a relationship at the moment"

Ellie St. Pierre was able to take a year off and have her son before she came back to set the track on fire; I'm not saying it was ALL because she's on New Balance, but ...

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Truth. Nike is garbage.

I must admit, it made me wonder 'What's Maggie Vessey been up to these days?'

https://www.thecut.com/...hlete-right-now.html

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

I'm not condoning Nike, but doesn't every sponsorship company view their athletes as commodities? Maybe I'm too cynical, but if I were in Marketing at NB I'd think Ellie St Pierre posting about her pregnancy, newborn, and training to get back in is more relatable to her followers (female followers, at least) than more drivel about "the grind". I'd wager the economics of it have more to do than any moral decision. A more-hot-than-good female athlete with 80/20 male/female followers isn't going to be a financial positive to keep on board, but a more down-to-earth, mostly female followers seems like a good bet.

Take it with a grain of salt, I'm not into marketing.

Nike seems to be a “first-step,” amoral-acting company. I don’t think they necessarily think of their athletes as commodities. Nike appears to view athletes merely as objects that generate near-term revenue opportunities. They do not look like they think of their athletes (and workers, suppliers, vendors, etc.) as people with dignity. They do not appear to think beyond the first step to subsequent steps in longer-term relationships with anything. To me, Nike is one of the most repulsive companies in America.

And yet people keep buying their stuff and athletes keep lining up for their sponsorship. Given the choice of sponsor 9/10 people would still choose Nike of NB/Hoka/Asics/Adidas, in no small part because they offer more $$$ but also because their shoes are objectively faster. So what do they care about being amoral if it helps their bottom line?

Idk what point I'm trying to make. I don't like Nike as a company. But I'm not going to sacrifice seconds/minutes in a race to make a moral statement to myself about how much I don't like them. With deeper digging I'm sure all of the other shoe brands have unsavory moments as well, and then we get into moral equivalency which is always a quagmire.

We're getting a little off track (sorry) - marketing & such and how expendable the female athletes are, is a whole other story; and THAT comes to agents who may not have the balls to say "that deal sucks. We're leaving"

The point is, NIKE designed the women's track & field kits with ZERO consideration of real-world function--- I highly doubt they've done the same for women's basketball (which, by the way, is where the money is, nowadays, as far as women's sports is, I think?) or women's soccer

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Did stray off topic, but your post begs the question: What is the real world function of these kits for Nike?

The knee jerk answer is to win. Why does Nike want to win tho? Surely because winning generates more publicity/profit than losing. Don't these kits shortcut that? We're all talking about NIKE right now. When female athletes wear ever more exposing kits they'll get more attention on social media. When people complain about them the attention will go up again. All of this is pure money for Nike.

The money in T&F doesn't come from competition. It comes from hot girls posting on social media in your brand's revealing uniform. There's no morality, just profit.

Define "hot?"

Some might find shot-putter Chase Easley hot (rightfully so) and there's NO FUCKING WAY that she's wearing that shit

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Don't be obtuse. Conventionally "hot". The type that gets millions of followers for posting bikini pictures of zero substance. The type that the most amount of people find attractive.

A conventionally attractive athlete in 3rd is more marketable than a more winning athlete who isn't as attractive. The star of the 2020 trials was Seidel even tho Tuliamuk won. Hmmm.

I get that it's not appropriate/cool/progressive to acknowledge that anymore, but dollars didn't lie. And companies will only participate in any stance insofar as it raises their bottom line. I wish it was different but it's just not

You're dead right about that. Lauren Fleshman talks about this a fair bit in Good For A Girl, which is one of my favorite recent reads as the father of a young daughter.

Quote:

A conventionally attractive athlete in 3rd is more marketable than a more winning athlete who isn't as attractive.

Sheer nonsense. Caitlin Clark just set the the NCAA on fire in women's basketball marketing, and though I really don't want to reduce this thread to "hot or not" BS, she's nothing like a pouty-lipped IG model. I could give about 1000 more examples.

Quote:

I get that it's not appropriate

100% not appropriate. At least you're self-aware...

A generational talent is the exception that proves the rule. Furthermore, WCBB is boosted by March Madness, a yearly tournament. I'm sure you've heard of Clark before then, but the masses did not until March. It's a super subjective measure, but just search T&f athletes (or really any female athletes) on Instagram. The ones with the most followers are the most conventionally attractive. Kind of like social media as a whole. Kind of like marketing as a whole. Or more simply, sex sells.

We don't even have to argue it here. We'll see if the athletes wear these in Paris or not. And if the reaction is "how terrible" or millions of extra clicks. Either way Nike wins. That's the whole point. Eyeballs, views, sales, $$$.

FWIW I'm not condoning or celebrating the state of things. Just pointing out the way things are and how people and companies are capitalizing. It's not good. Thx for shooting the messenger.

The clicks aren't going to NIKE

They're going to Kara, Lauren, NB, Oiselle, even Slowtwitch

NIKE is gaining nothing from our chatter here

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Because she said she'd wanted a beer and flashed her PUMA shoes over the NIKE banner

Personality > appearance

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Only the women

Not details on whether Nikki Hiltz got some or what they did with it?

I sure hope they get to race in the split shorts they've been wearing

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Wait, so they did send hairspray and makeup to US women olympians?

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Anna Kournikova

I don't think we are off topic. This thread began with two issues kinda intertwined: 1) These kits seem inappropriate and revealing; and 2) Nike is sexist, misogynistic, objectifying, or sexualizing, etc. for doing this.

Nike has a lot of money and they objectively make very good products. It also looks they know sex sells when it comes to women's kits. I don't think we know whether Nike had zero consideration for real-world function. If history is a guide, their stuff is fast.

I prefer companies that think beyond the first step to longer-term and that value people and partners with high regard. Nike seems to do none of the above. They make a crapton of money, but they could probably make more if they were not focused on just today. I would not own their stock and I avoid their products. It is not a moral statement - I dislike their business practices and would rather see better companies thrive.

Why not? It's only a couple seconds/minutes here or there? Not that they'd matter much, in the long run - so to speak?

When NIKE bought Converse, I had to say to myself 'Well, that's it for me, sorry.' I still wore what I had, but would not buy any more

When my last pair of Chucks wore out past wearability, I replaced them with VANS (of which I already had several pairs), thus completing the transition away from Converse

A Punk who no longer wears Chucks seems, to me, like a rare thing, indeed


Yeah, VANS (my casual shoes) or asics (my running shoes) probably have their issues, too, as far as sweatshops and unsafe material handling go, but at least they respect their female athletes

Also, they fit me better; NIKEs were never that comfortable, really, so I was clearly drawn in by the marketing - I was a Pegasus guy for the longest time

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Why not? Personal values I guess? Because my singular non-purchase of a Nike product is not going to change their practices. Losing out on a win/podium to make a statement by omission is not a balanced outcome in my view. If Nike shoes allowed you run a marathon 5 minutes faster would you wear them then? 10 minutes? 20? At a certain point the quality of the product overcomes the faults of the brand.

This doesn't mean that anybody wearing Nike stuff "hates women" or any of the other reactionary things people may say. I'm not sure what particular straw broke the camel's back for you, but a poor design of a skinsuit (probably photographed as such to generate engagement) isn't enough to make me boycott a brand.

Also, if "NIKEs were never that comfortable" for you then your self-enforced boycott of them is a bit hollow. Moving from Chuck's to Vans isn't the same level of sacrifice (to me at least) as giving up performance benefits.

Just give them what the swimmers and water polo players wear. Or beach volleyball.

I don't remember "wardrobe malfunctions", except Nathan Adrian
---
Umm, there are websites and pages dedicated towards swimming wardrobe malfunctions in water sports during the Olympics, especially water polo and diving.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

There ya go; same here, but the other way

Neither is right, and Neither is wrong

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Moderately talented pro tennis player. Smokin' hot. Advertising gold mine.

But now you have done it. Extreme leftists don't appreciate inconvenient facts that contradict their world view. Prepare for trail to call you a misogynist or a sexist or some other type of ist. How someone be so much a prisoner of their own agenda that they fail to acknowledge basic reality when that reality is smacking them in the face everywhere they go in society? Earth to trail, sex sells, always has, always will.

Yo. Randmart. This is the internet. This is no place for agreement and politeness towards people with different views.

Joking aside, you actually make a really good point about the original topics of this thread. Kara G's personal values don't align with wearing a revealing skinsuit. I'm 100% positive that some T&F athletes will love the suits and attention they bring. Who's Kara to tell them that their wrong?

Kourinikova at least managed the odd Grand Slam doubles title. While IMO her wins on court alone didn’t justify her endorsement deals, I feel like she was a better player than what a lot of people giver her credit for.

As for Nike, they also have a pretty awful track record in terms of sexual harassment and their central office female employees. The misogyny runs deep at that company.

If there are a wide variety of bottom kit options, why do you model the one that shows the pubes? It was either intentional in order to generate discussion about the kit in a ‘no publicity is bad publicity’ sort of way or utterly clueless.

As the saying goes..."If it enrages, it engages..."

The icon Swoosh was designed by a woman, Carolyn Davidson, and she was paid only $35 for it ($2/hr x 17.5 hrs --- about 2 days in graphic design terms)

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

I understand how that fits the theme of Nike not being woman-friendly, but like 99% of everything is made by an underpaid worker, male or female.

Not to ruin that particular anecdote, but the wiki article paints a very different picture.

"In September 1983, nearly three years after the company went public, Knight invited Davidson to a company reception. There, he presented her with chocolate swooshes, a diamond ring made of gold and engraved with the Swoosh, and an envelope filled with 500 shares of Nike stock, then worth about seventeen cents per share or $85,[8] worth in 2023—after stock splits bringing the total to 32,000 shares—about $4 million."

Sometimes a brand earns an identity that transcends its products. This can be very powerful and difficult to achieve. Loyalty can become tribal when people see the brand and associate it with its broader identity.

When people see a pattern of headlines, like child labor exploitation, firing an elite athlete because she is pregnant, sponsoring an elite athlete camp where women are abused, lawsuits accusing executives for behaving like sexual predators, designing sexualized Olympic uniforms for women, etc., it forms an extremely negative transcendent image. When I see the Nike Swoosh, the image that comes to my mind is that of a slimy lech - the Harvey Weinstein of sports wear. That image cannot help but rub off on anyone wearing their product. That is definitely not a tribe I want to be personally associated with.

TBH, when I see Tiger Woods wearing Nike gear, that seems like a good match.

^^^^^ well said and totally in line with my thoughts. Never Nike for me.

---

Kiwami Racing Team

Canadian Olympic gear released:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/olympics/article-lululemon-unveils-its-first-summer-kit-for-canadas-olympic-and/

Disclaimer: I'm a sports media professor and my research heavily focuses on gender in sport and media portrayals.

It's not appropriate, but he's (sadly) not wrong, and his statement isn't sheer nonsense. This has been the long range view of women in sports for a looooong time - women first, athlete second. And not just female, but a 'desirable' (read: white standard of beauty) female. Let's not forget that she also has to be straight. For the women? Yes. A conventionally attractive and straight athlete will be a more marketable sell, even if she's not the best.

Take Livvy Dunne out of LSU. She's currently the highest female NIL earner. She's not, by a long shot, the best gymnast on the college circuit. So why is she making the most money of all the females? Because she's blonde, blue-eyed, super hot, and flexible. Is that an awful thing to say? Sure is. It's also the reality.

Caitlin Clark has definitely snagged some good endorsements, and I hope will continue to do so. She's capitalizing on her amazing season and career, and I hope that continues. Maybe she starts to be the turning point in marketing women's athletics. I would love to see it. But it's a huge uphill battle. Right now, at this moment in time, she's a flash in the pan in terms of marketing. I hope she's not. I hope she morphs into more in the marketing of female athletes, and that effect spreads beyond her. It's change that needs to happen.

This is a large understatement. There is more going on with her than "some good endorsements." The NCAA women's tournament exploded this year. The title game had higher viewership than the men's. Likely a variety of factors - the "rising tide" quote from the linked article, etc., but the Clark "it factor" is pretty undeniable. Angel Reese as another big draw. According to the article it was the most-watched basketball game since 2019. Full stop. Men/women/NBA/NCAA. This is driving millions upon millions in ad revenue. And that game wasn't a freaking "swimsuit contest." It was a battle.

I disagree in the totality of his statement: "A conventionally attractive athlete in 3rd is more marketable than a more winning athlete who isn't as attractive." as broad statement of fact. Certainly physical attractiveness is a very real factor in both female and male sports marketing. Arguably women more than men.

This depends on context, e.g., what "attractive" means to him. But I assume it's mean to refer to athletes who intentionally promote the "model" side of their brand. For women, people like Maria Sharapova. Your Dunne. Or men like Cristiano Ronaldo or David Beckham.

But as a lifelong fan of women's sports, I just don't see this from the anecdotal perspective. Women who are the best athletes get marketed just fine. Caitlin Clark is one. She doesn't appear to GAF about anything but winning. Katie Ledecky in swimming. Marianne Vos in cycling. Puck Pieterese in MTB/CX. Mia Hamm in soccer. Shiffrin and Diggins in alpine/nordic skiing. These are women who are well known and nearly without peer in their respective sports marketing efforts because they are/were the among the very best-known and best-compensated athletes. They don't appear to spend much time catering to the purely appearance-based type of marketing. For every Dunne/Sharapova you might bring up, bet I could rattle of 20 iconic names of women who aren't/weren't models.

Now maybe @mathematics puts those in the "attractive" category. I certainly consider them attractive. Maybe we all do. In that case we're all in agreement. But I assumed he was referring to more "model" style self-promotion more than just people who are "naturally" good-looking but don't exmphasize self-promotion

Sure, Livy Dunne may be a counter-anecdote (I'm not familiar with her). Once again, I'm pushing back against the notion that "model" type female athletes dominate as a whole over women who are better athletes. Just don't see that as in any way a general truth.

Also, for the record, I have zero issue with Dunne, Beckham, et al, doing what they do.

I was watching the WNBA draft last night. The Iowa team came to Brooklyn to witness her selection into
The Association, which was nice

Imagine Kate Martin's surprise when she was drafted by WNBA champion Las Vegas Aces "just for being there"

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Can’t imagine a better example of an internet rando telling a person who’s job is literally the topic on hand that they’re wrong.

Just to reiterate, I'm not condoning the current situation. : "A conventionally attractive athlete in 3rd is more marketable than a more winning athlete who isn't as attractive." Wasn't meant as a broad statement of fact, but as an anecdote in furtherance of the larger point that physical attractiveness can transcend inferior performance, at least in marketing/sponsorship.

I think a large amount of difference here comes from the algorithmic differences in what is marketed to us. I'm a guy, I didn't think I'm chauvinistic, misogynistic, sexist, etc, but I understand the whole "sex sells" thing and recognize it in the world. I'm positive that I see advertisements targeted towards men. Advertisements targeted at men have used conventionally attractive women since forever.

I've never scrolled social media as a woman, but I have to imagine that the advertisements targeted at women are somewhat less sexually suggestive. I may be entirely of base here, idk.

The entire premise isn't based on who I personally consider attractive. Conventionally attractive is a shorthand for a person who a preponderance of people find attractive. Which is exactly why they're so useful for marketing.

Again, I'm not saying it's right or condoning it. But I'm also not putting on blinders and pretending it doesn't happen.

Replying in general....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC6261420/
"There is a durable, persistent, and economically large correlation between the facial attractiveness of men, as measured by their high school yearbook photos and their earnings in their mid-30s and their early 50s. The magnitude and significance of the correlation are similar whether we condition only on IQ or on an extensive set of characteristics, including family background, educational attainment, household characteristics, and occupational choices. "

I wonder if such an effect exists for women? .... //sarcasm

Biology will always have a seat at the table. We are evolved to procreate, find attractive ripe fruit, be attracted to various positive sexual characteristics, etc. Social conditioning can meddle with the underlying hormones at the margins of what we find attractive, but the sex hormones are not going away. The biological necessity to perpetuate life (eating/overating, sex/infidelity/porn,etc) cause all kinds of pathologies in social settings with an mix of various dimensions of scarcity in some areas and abundance in others. There are biological economies taking place underlying the instagram algorithm that is demonstrated in mostly male, heterosexual employers being more likely to hire more attractive men to better paying jobs. IE the male employers aren't hiring that once good looking high school male to a higher paying position because he wears yoga pants and short skirts.

We might as well complain that the buck with the big antlers mates with the most deer, the female baboon with the brightest red backside attracts the most male mates, or that large flowers attract more than 300% more bees than small flowers.

To set the record clear, objectifying a person is wrong, and using sex to sell yourself is inappropriate. We should resist those impulses whenever we see them and discourage others from engaging in them. Unfortunately, when you go that route, you'll end up with people who are overly zealous shaming the gymnast on instagram who thinks she knows exactly what she's doing. There's always a balancing act right?

I'm still confused about what sexiness NIKE is trying to sell here, though?

The outfits are not for public consumption, only Team USA athletes?

I could understand if NIKE were proposing some innovative tech that would eventually roll out to mass market, and increase sales there, butt I don't see any of that; in fact, maybe the opposite as that high hip design would be a performance detriment?

If they're just trying to get more eyes on the events in Paris, who benefits most there, besides the network covering it (Peacock, I believe?)

Everything taken together just makes it seem like no one was really paying attention in the meetings, and just said "Yeah, let's go with that; whatever"

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Could've been worse; could've been Papyrus

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

And all of those Bees ... are female

Oooooohhhhhh!!! Can we talk about Praying Mantises now???!!! Or spiders? Black Widow spiders, especially!!!

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

There's either some nefarious Calvin Klein push the envelope like marketing strategy going on, or the design team hasn't read the cultural room and is excited to highlight and show off elite female physique and argued the design through the committee by pointing out things like how these women are the peak of human performance and appearance and don't you know the first Olympians were entirely nude, etc.

It's very bizarre, because obviously Nike is two very different companies, where on one hand you've got revolutionary game changing shoes being made that is transforming sport, and on the other, where they could be exploring how fabric can aid human performance they are captured by runway fashion ideology.

Hard to decide. The only thing I can comment for sure is that Nike has consistently been line stepping with their in house programs for men's and women's sport, shamefully devalues their female athletes as humans and aside from making a good shoe, pretty shit in their business ethics.

Phil Knight started the company by selling "over-stocked" (read; "they fell off the truck!") Onitsuka track shoes (eventually, ASICS) out of the trunk of his car

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Remember Michelle Jenneke?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

nike obviously has a policy strategy issue given the article bellow.

https://www.triathlon.org/...ident_sport_campaign

Yes, more eyes is 100% the point. There's the whole theory that every 1,000 views leads to 1 visit, and every 1,000 visits to their website leads to 1 sale. (I have no idea the actual numbers, just the premise of the theory). Nike benefits from getting eyes on their products. They may not even sell these publicly, it just boost the status/visibility of the brand. Why is Baleaf clothing less desirable (read:priced lower) than Nike? There's little difference in the quality.

The athletes can use it to their benefit too. Bikini clad influencers get paid everyday for shilling some crappy product to their 100k followers. There's no rule saying that if you're an Olympic athlete you can't post salacious photos and benefit from a similar revenue stream. This Nike kit is giving them a bit of moral cover to do just that.

It's really not complicated. You just have to think about it in terms of the way things are, not the way you think they should be. It's good and laudable to be the change you want to see in the world, but that's not the imperative of Nike, theirs is to return maximum returns to shareholders.

Are these the only options available to them? Because I saw Shacarri Richardson (US woman, 100m) in Paris modeling a new team uniform, and maybe it was all the lighting, hair, makeup, etc. that comes along with a Paris fashion show, but the uniform looked totally different than these. I think she looks great in it!

https://dumbrunner.com/...rm-for-2028-olympics

“Our focus was on three things—light weight, breathability, and freedom of motion,” read a statement accompanying the photos. “This uniform offers all three in an unparalleled way.”

“And it looks great, too,” the statement continued.

The photos, apparently demonstrating the uniform’s freedom of movement, depict a model in various positions, including bending at the waist and leaning against a wall as she looks over her shoulder.

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

I just saw that and was going to post it but you beat me to it.

I like to think I do more to support Mark Remy by posting his links here, so he gets the clicks, than I would by giving him money LOL

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

No.

“The track and field collection has nearly 50 unique pieces and a dozen competition styles designed to serve athletes across a multitude of disciplines, body types, and size ranges.”