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.