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.”