FanDuel - WFBC

September 30, 2009

Report: Nike Reaches Endorsement Deal with Michael Vick: It took two incomplete passes and seven yards on the ground but apparently Nike has reached an endorsement deal with Michael Vick, his representative announced at a marketing conference Wednesday in New York. Nike denies the report of an endorsement deal.

posted by dfleming to football at 08:23 PM - 54 comments

Sometimes, Nike sees something in a potential endorser that apparently eludes the marketing departments of other companies. Their first endorser was Ilie Nastase.

If the Unabomber busted out of jail wearing a pair of swooshies, he'd get his own shoe deal, sure as hell.

I'm fine with Mike Vick the pro athlete being compensated for his services, and I'm OK with him having an opportunity to participate in the NFL, but I have a problem with Mike Vick the highly visible individual being rewarded for his image recognition value at this point. He hasn't logged enough mileage on his redemption meter yet.

posted by beaverboard at 10:13 PM on September 30

I know Nike's decision to sponsor the Heaven's Gate Away Team was fairly controversial, but at least they only killed themselves. This is a bit much, Mr. Knight.

posted by Ufez Jones at 10:56 PM on September 30

I won't buy Nike. Never. Ever.

posted by bigmickfan at 11:21 PM on September 30

Can't wait to get a pair of the first release.

/stands back waiting for Vick haters

You know, there is a very good chance that Vick will donate the bulk of this endorsement to the SPCA. I'm willing to wait and see before I join the lynch mob.

posted by irunfromclones at 11:41 PM on September 30

I won't buy Nike either. I don't blame the Eagles or the NFL for giving Vick a chance to get back to his career after he served his time.

But a Nike deal is a reward, putting him on a high-profile platform as a cherished icon and role model. I don't want any part of that.

posted by rcade at 11:44 PM on September 30

"Nike... Perfect for quietly sneaking away from that illegal dog fight you just attended. Just do it."

Fuck you, Nike. (Not that I'd ever buy your overpriced shit anyway.)

posted by Drood at 04:11 AM on October 01

My old dogs are killing me

posted by bobfoot at 05:31 AM on October 01

You know, there is a very good chance that Vick will donate the bulk of this endorsement to the SPCA. I'm willing to wait and see before I join the lynch mob.

At this point, I don't really have a problem with Vick accepting Nike's offer (he's been, well, good to this point); I have a problem with Nike offering it in the first place. If Vick suddenly turns and donates most of this money, that doesn't really affect my opinion that Nike shouldn't be putting him in the spotlight as a role model.

posted by dfleming at 07:22 AM on October 01

Good for Nike. Let these self rightous haters protest against the animal slaughter houses where animals are raised in pens with little room to turn around, then cruely butchered or the fur industry where animals stunded and then skinned. The man served his time and should be allowed to take advantage of his skills and his name. Nike is no fool and they see the potential for making money in this deal. Nike doesn't care that some fools can't see the forest for the trees. Don't buy Nike, THEY WON'T MISS YOU! Any one of these hater fools would gladly take Vick's place if they could make the money he makes (oh yes, and they could still be white). Dog fighting is and has been the national past time in the South and the "good old boys" are the vast majority of these people. Go hate some of them!

posted by beetsdecant at 07:34 AM on October 01

Speak for yourself, beetsdecant. I wouldn't take Vick's place for any amount of money. And as a southerner, I don't appreciate your bogus claim that the extremely cruel sport of dogfighting is our "national past time [sic]." I don't think I've ever met someone who's been to a dogfight, much less been involved in one.

posted by rcade at 08:11 AM on October 01

I won't buy Nike. Never. Ever.

I won't buy Nike either

People are free to feel any which way they want to but because Mike Vick is back to being endorsed by Nike, now people are choosing to not purchase their product? What about before Vick was endorsed by Nike?

Did the fact that these shoes are made in: Taiwan, South Korea and China not enough of a deterrent to stop purchasing these products? Don't they eat dogs in these countries?

posted by BornIcon at 09:10 AM on October 01

I won't speak for rcade or thebigmick, Icon, but neither of them stated that Vick's endorsement deal was the last straw when it comes to shopping decisions.

Also, oddly enough, there are a lot of people, myself included, that enjoy an order of steak fajitas or a nice omelette that still find bullfighting or cockfighting to be grotesque and senselessly cruel. Your comparison doesn't hold much water.

posted by Ufez Jones at 09:51 AM on October 01

I won't speak for rcade or thebigmick, Icon, but neither of them stated that Vick's endorsement deal was the last straw when it comes to shopping decisions.

Really?

I won't buy Nike. Never. Ever.

posted by bigmickfan at 11:21 PM on September 30

I won't buy Nike either..

posted by rcade at 11:44 PM on September 30

My comparision wasn't about fajitas or a nice spanish omellete (which are both very tasty), it was about how now there are people that choose to not purchase a pair of Nike because of Vick's endorsement deal while where the same shoes are being made overseas in sweat shops by people that kill dogs, not as a sport but for dinner.

Would that be considered irony or coincidence?

posted by BornIcon at 09:54 AM on October 01

Again, neither stated that their viewpoints had anyrthing to do with Vick's endorsement. Nike is one of the corporations (with McDonald's, Raytheon, GM and many more) that have been viewed as the leaders in corporate greed and deplorable labor practices. Right or wrong - and it's a very complex issue that probably doesn't belong here - people have been boycotting Nike for well over a decade.

posted by Ufez Jones at 10:10 AM on October 01

The new Vick deal is not the first bad thing Nike has done, and it isn't the worst, and it likely isn't the last, because they have a history of not doing the right thing and a knack for finding trouble.

Maybe someone at headquarters thought that a Vick signing would take some attention away from some of the older problems, like child labor issues, etc.

There ought to be a way to do for Nike what the NFL is trying to do for Vick - instead of making a pariah out of them, help them learn from their mistakes and become a better company.

It would help if some of the other endorsers stood up and joined an effort to hold Nike to an ethical standard.

It's hard to picture Jordan or Krzyzewski ever doing anything like that.

Meanwhile, I can't tell if beetsdecant's post is just trolling or if beets is one or two sanitary napkins shy of being in control, but no, I would not gladly take Michael Vick's place to make the money he makes. His assets and income don't stack up well against his monetary obligations and liabilities.

A chance to flirt with insolvency and remain disliked by lots of people around the country while trying to regroup my skills playing for a team that already has two legitimate QB's in the city that booed Santa Claus? I think I'd have to pass on that one.

The best thing about being Vick right now is that he gets to visit with Tony Dungy on a regular basis.

posted by beaverboard at 10:13 AM on October 01

Did the fact that these shoes are made in: Taiwan, South Korea and China not enough of a deterrent to stop purchasing these products? Don't they eat dogs in these countries?

The suggestion that we should boycott all products made in countries where people eat dogs is idiotic. First, I don't know where or how widespread that practice is. Second, what people do for sustenance is different than what they do for kicks. Should Indians boycott American products because we eat cows?

I'm tired of being told that because I'm not offended by X, I'm not allowed to be offended by Y. One is not obligated to be outraged by everything in order to be outraged by something.

Nike rewarded a convicted dog abuser with an endorsement deal. I choose not to spend my money with a company that values notoriety over decency.

posted by rcade at 10:20 AM on October 01

Again, neither stated that their viewpoints had anyrthing to do with Vick's endorsement.

Ummm.. so what is this post about again? Oh right, it's about Vick's Nike endorsement deal. It wasn't like it was said in some post about world hunger.

The suggestion that we should boycott all products made in countries where people eat dogs is idiotic

Where did I say to boycott anything? I pointed out how the same shoes that are being looked upon with disgust just because Vick is back with Nike are made in countries that produce these products in sweat shops and they eat dogs.

I'm tired of being told that because I'm not offended by X, I'm not allowed to be offended by Y.

And I'm tired of words being put in my mouth that I never even said.

Nike rewarded a convicted dog abuser with an endorsement deal. I choose not to spend my money with a company that values notoriety over decency.

And rightfully so. People can choose to spend their money any which way they want to but to. Your choice to not purchase Nike products because Vick is being endorsed by them is your right but just don't overlook where these products are being made in the 1st place.

posted by BornIcon at 10:33 AM on October 01

Sorry, BI. Your first comment read less as "Nike has a history of farming out their manufacturing to areas with deplorable labor conditions" and more like "nike's products are made in a part of the world whose culture I disagree with". Then I got caught in y your edit window the second time around.

Anyhow, whatever the reason, if more people are thinking harder about voting with their dollars and deciding to buy from a (hopefully) slightly less evil corporation, that's fine by me.

posted by Ufez Jones at 10:36 AM on October 01

It's cool Ufez, it happens.

....if more people are thinking harder about voting with their dollars and deciding to buy from a (hopefully) slightly less evil corporation, that's fine by me

I agree.

posted by BornIcon at 10:41 AM on October 01

because Mike Vick is back to being endorsed by Nike, now people are choosing to not purchase their product? What about before Vick was endorsed by Nike?

Yes, I think that some people clearly feel that way. I'm sure my wife will not have anything to do with Nike from now on. Where's the disconnect?

Your choice to not purchase Nike products because Vick is being endorsed by them is your right but just don't overlook where these products are being made in the 1st place.

What does this mean? You're like the slippery slope police. Why can't something just be?

posted by yerfatma at 10:57 AM on October 01

rcade : I'm tired of being told that because I'm not offended by X, I'm not allowed to be offended by Y.

BI : And I'm tired of words being put in my mouth that I never even said.

BI : Your choice to not purchase Nike products because Vick is being endorsed by them is your right but just don't overlook where these products are being made in the 1st place.

I'm confused. rcade doesn't need me fighting his battles for him, but you have a knack for this and I'm trying to understand. If you're saying "DON'T forget where these are made" ... isn't that essentially telling someone what and why they have to be offended? You're right - you don't need anyone putting words in your mouth - you're double-speaking on your own just fine.

ie - what fatty said

posted by littleLebowski at 11:02 AM on October 01

It's impossible to discuss anything with you, BornIcon. When people disagree with you, you dispute their interpretation of what you said. (Such as asking "Why all the Favre hate?" and then denying that you called people Favre haters.) So instead of discussing an issue, we get to discuss what you meant or didn't mean as you run away from the implication of your own words. I'll pass.

posted by rcade at 11:19 AM on October 01

"A chance to flirt with insolvency and remain disliked by lots of people around the country while trying to regroup my skills playing for a team that already has two legitimate QB's in the city that booed Santa Claus?"

Ease up on us Eagle fans -- this was in 1969 when they still played at U. of Penn.

That having cleared my mind, I absolutely have no problem with the endorsement even if Vick keeps most of the money. I can hear the jokes now: Will Nike put out a new brand for dog paws? I'm sure their may be countless others.

posted by jjzucal at 11:20 AM on October 01

Nike denies that they have a deal with Vick. And, to add some not-exactly-sports-related perspective, Nike quit the board of the Chamber of Commerce this week because of their position on climate change.

posted by bperk at 11:23 AM on October 01

Nike is still denying it.

posted by Debo270 at 11:28 AM on October 01

I succumbed to the advertising flurry and purchased Nike shoes on 2 occasions years ago.

Their products suck.

I've never bought a Nike product since, and have no intention of ever doing so.

Some of the commercials are interesting, though.

posted by cixelsyd at 11:32 AM on October 01

Well, in that light, it seems to be a different story. Throwing millions at Vick at this stage in his comeback is one thing; having a deal to supply him with shoes is another. I have no problem if that's all it is. Nike seems to be saying, basically, that if Vick is really going to be a story of redemption and rehabilitation, they'd like him to do it wearing Nike shoes. Seems rational.

I'm still part of the "never going to buy Nike" camp, but for a different reason. I was out shoe shopping a few years back and walked into a few chain shoe stores, Finish Line, Foot Locker, you know the usual suspects. The only shoes they had on the 40' x 8' walls there were Nikes. That just didn't strike me as kosher, kind of smacking of some sort of collusion. Now I seek out other brands and stores (and usually pay a ton less!)

posted by tahoemoj at 11:37 AM on October 01

So instead of discussing an issue, we get to discuss what you meant or didn't mean as you run away from the implication of your own words

I'm not running away from anything or anyone. If people choose to read between the lines of what I'm saying and come up with their own interpretation of what I did say ("Why all the Favre hate?" doesn't mean that I called anyone a hater, that's just you're interpretation), that's on them. All I can do is stand by my words regardless if people agree with me or not.

I don't agree with people not wanting to buy a Nike product just because Mike Vick is being endorsed by them but it's still your choice. I understand but I don't agree.

My question is: Is it because of Mike Vick and his arrest or is it because Nike produces these products in sweat shops?

Seems it doesn't matter since Nike is saying that they don't have a deal with Vick. So will you now go and buy a pair of Air Force 1's?

posted by BornIcon at 11:46 AM on October 01

I'm still part of the "never going to buy Nike" camp, but for a different reason. I was out shoe shopping a few years back and walked into a few chain shoe stores, Finish Line, Foot Locker, you know the usual suspects. The only shoes they had on the 40' x 8' walls there were Nikes. That just didn't strike me as kosher, kind of smacking of some sort of collusion. Now I seek out other brands and stores (and usually pay a ton less!)

Try eBay. Works for me.

posted by BornIcon at 12:02 PM on October 01

In my opinion, BornIcon, that's exactly what you are doing: Saying something and then refusing to stand by it. The clear implication of your comments is that people have less standing to be offended by this endorsement if they're not already offended by Nike's labor practices and the production of its shoes in countries where some people eat dogs.

You certainly can respond that you didn't mean that, but if you find yourself frequently in the position of telling people you didn't mean what they think you meant, you should take the time to be more precise in what you say.

posted by rcade at 12:02 PM on October 01

Or how about this: Why not just read what I exactly wrote instead of FILLING IN THE BLANKS and adding things to what I did say. I may frequent a bar from time to time but that doesn't make me an alcoholic just like when I wrote "Why all the Favre hate?" doesn't mean that I called anyone a hater, it's reading too much into something.

I have and will always stand by what I write because it's my opinion. We're not all going to agree but because I so happen to disagree, my opinion is wrong?

You certainly can respond that you didn't mean that..

My comment about Nike was: Why would people not want to buy a Nike product now? Is it solely because of Mike Vick or is it because for years, Nike has been protested against because their product is made overseas in sweatshops?

I meant what I said.

posted by BornIcon at 12:23 PM on October 01

I'm reading exactly what you wrote:

"Why all the Favre hate?"

I fail to see how that doesn't involve people, which would then mean that people were Favre haters.

Who are you saying hates Favre? Kittens?

posted by wfrazerjr at 12:36 PM on October 01

What does this mean? You're like the slippery slope police. Why can't something just be?

What it means is that people want to take some sort of stand because they felt that Nike signing Vick was this deal made in hell whereas those same products are made in countries that has children making these products for like $.02 per hour (I don't know, I'm just saying) and that wasn't even the focal point about Nike. People were more offended about Vick being endorsed by Nike, here in SpoFi land, then were about where these shoes are made.

I'm reading exactly what you wrote:

"Why all the Favre hate?"

I fail to see how that doesn't involve people, which would then mean that people were Favre haters.

So if you read exactly what I wrote, where is it that I called anyone a 'hater'?

We're just going to have to agree to disagree because if I felt anyone was being a hater, then I would've just asked, "Why are there all these Favre hater?" but that is not what was said.

posted by BornIcon at 12:45 PM on October 01

Apparently my updated posting was removed, but Reuters reports Nike officials said the company does NOT have an endorsement deal with Michael Vick. His agent on Wednesday said they had an agreement. Be wary when an agent talks!

posted by jjzucal at 01:08 PM on October 01

Your post didn't link to anything. I've updated this one with the denial.

posted by rcade at 01:23 PM on October 01

We're just going to have to agree to disagree because if I felt anyone was being a hater, then I would've just asked, "Why are there all these Favre hater?" but that is not what was said.

It doesn't have to be a agree to disagree situation. You could just explain what the difference is between "Why are there all these Favre hater?" and "Why all the Favre hate?"

posted by bperk at 02:26 PM on October 01

Who are you saying hates Favre? Kittens?

I much prefer adult cats to kittens. (just saying)

posted by tommytrump at 03:05 PM on October 01

New Balance makes a nice running shoe. And they're made in America.

posted by cjets at 03:32 PM on October 01

You're like the slippery slope police.

Do they work with the Ski Patrol?

posted by cjets at 03:34 PM on October 01

Nike makes shoes? I thought they just made really bad golf clubs and really cool commercials.

posted by smithnyiu at 03:53 PM on October 01

I much prefer adult cats to kittens.

Catty.

posted by yerfatma at 03:58 PM on October 01

I don't like cats, kittens, or Favre.

I don't like cats in hats, I don't like kittens with mittens, nor do I like that Favre fellow, whether he wears purple or green and yellow.

posted by cixelsyd at 04:25 PM on October 01

How can anyone not like kittens with mittens. Jesus, they're just so fucking adorable.

posted by smithnyiu at 04:43 PM on October 01

How can anyone not like kittens with mittens. Jesus, they're just so *fucking* adorable.

posted by smithnyiu at 04:43 PM on October 01

Come on Smith. My 11 yr old son likes to read sports filter. Can you and the rest please police your cursing? Darn!

posted by kerrycindy at 05:46 PM on October 01

You mean a minor might read or see something on the internet that you don't approve of?

I think it is better to lecture him than everybody else.

posted by Atheist at 05:55 PM on October 01

Catty.

Pussy.

posted by tommytrump at 07:12 PM on October 01

I love the part where kerry chastises Smitty's cursing by quoting his curse word. Like my dad used to say:

"Jesus Christ! Will you guys stop taking the Lord's name in vain?"

If Nike shoes cost so much money and yet are produced in 3rd world countries by kids making next to nothing, I wonder what the deal was with these crappy Starbury shoes I got on. Maybe the kids that made these actually owe money at the end of their shift.

posted by THX-1138 at 07:45 PM on October 01

Pussy.

That's a trim little remark.

posted by yerfatma at 07:46 PM on October 01

Well at least this discussion has finally wobbled its way to humor. I mean, it's pretty damn (sorry, kerrycindy) ironic that this whole hullaballoo was more about some blowhard agent than The Evil Empire of Nike throwing bushels of C-notes at Vick.

posted by outonleave at 08:05 PM on October 01

I give props to Nike for quitting the board of the Chamber of Commerce.

I also think we oughtta have a gentleman's agreement that it's uncouth to bring cyber fisticuffs from one thread into another.

posted by outonleave at 08:26 PM on October 01

That's a trim little remark.

I like Brazilian cats much more than Persians.

posted by tommytrump at 12:10 AM on October 02

It doesn't have to be a agree to disagree situation. You could just explain what the difference is between "Why are there all these Favre hater?" and "Why all the Favre hate?"

Sure but it's only going to lead to another debate about whether or not people agree with the way that I use the term 'hater' but here goes anyway:

A 'hater' is a person that simply can't appreciate another person's success so rather than be appreciative for that person, they make it a point to expose that person's flaws.

So when I raised the question, "Why all the Favre hate?", it was simply because instead of people saying, 'You know, after all the off-season, retirement/un-retirement nonsense, Favre has gone out there and actually has played well for the Vikings', all you hear is things like, 'Yeah well..it's only 3 games' as if 3 games into the NFL season isn't enough to show people that a player is performing well thus far.

Now, can we get back to the humorous side of SpoFi?

posted by BornIcon at 07:58 AM on October 02

This is a minor quibble but I don't exactly like having my posts moved and edited. This is the second time in two weeks (another was a post made to a huddle post that I found on the front page) that I've come to SpoFi and found something different about something I've posted here. It's not anything major but it just feels a little authoritarian for my blood.

Anyone who read the thread could've found the link just fine in a comment.

posted by dfleming at 09:55 AM on October 02

That's a trim little remark.

I like that cunning stunt.

posted by irunfromclones at 04:45 PM on October 02

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.