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.