Opinion: Nike’s unrealistic expectations for athletes and ethical issues require us to be more critical, informed consumers

Mary Cain prescribed illegal diuretics to force weight loss graphics by Jennifer Ren From selling sneakers out of the back of a car to becoming the largest sports brand company in the world, Nike has built up its name through smart advertisement strategies, marketing trendy styles, and appealing to consumers through proclaimed support of racial, religious, and gender minorities in the past 50 years. However, recent events have put into question whether or not the company truly stands behinds the ideals they claim to uphold. Founder of Nike, Phil Knight, started his business by driving from track to track selling imported Japanese sneakers before he decided to expand the business. Knight reached out to Bill Bowerman, his former running coach, for help. In January 1964, Knight and Bowerman invested to expand and open up a storefront under the name of Blue Ribbon Sports. In 1971, with rising demand and an expiring partnership with their Japanese suppliers, Knight and Bowerman decided to open an independent shoe company under a new brand name, Nike. Drawing from their previous experiences in marketing and shoe design, the Nike founders saw quick success and popularity from an ever-growing fanbase.

Cameron Levins, Oregon Project athlete who attested to the claims made by Cain Opinion: Nike’s unrealistic expectations for athletes and ethical issues require us to be more critical, informed consumers

In its half century, Nike has brought awareness to controversial topics and social movements through advertisements. Since the launch of the ‘Just Do It’ campaign, Nike has tried to represent a wide array of people from the LGBTQ+ community to minorities, like Muslim and African-American athletes, not adequately represented in the sports world. But more than any other groups, Nike has advocated for female sports participation, releasing ads in 1995, 2012, and 2017 to try to increase their role in this realm. Additionally, this past year Nike’s CEO Mark Parker declared that “2019 [was] going to be a true tipping point for women in [sports], with more participation, more coverage, and overall, more energy.” However, many athletes’ experiences with the brand tell a different story.

Amy Yoder Begley, allegedly body shamed by former Oregon Project coach, Roberto Salazar This past November, 23-year-old Mary Cain came out against Nike, speaking out about the mental and physical abuse that she went through under Roberto Salazar’s coaching at Nike’s Oregon Project, a training camp for top runners all over the world. She was told that being thinner would make her faster and was shamed in front of her teammates about her weight. Being accepted into the Oregon Project with many of the world’s fastest runners was an amazing opportunity for Cain, but what she experienced over the course of her three years with the program didn’t match up with the reputation surrounding both the program and the company. She was held to unrealistic physical expectations, expected to weigh 114 pounds at 5’7” by a group of people who put performance in front of health. What is more concerning is that Cain’s account of what happened at Nike wasn’t the first one. An allegation against Nike regarding the ethics of the Oregon Project first came out more than a decade ago. Along with Cain, both men and women have since confronted Nike on this issue. Amy Yoder Begley, a past participant in the Oregon Project, stated that Nike staff told her she was “too fat and had the biggest butt on the starting line” after placing sixth in a race. Opinion: Nike’s unrealistic expectations for athletes and ethical issues require us to be more critical, informed consumers

Dathan Ritzenhein, given thyroid medication to improve performance despite adverse side effects The toxic and overly critical environment perpetuated by the world’s largest sports brand has been overlooked for years by both the media and the public. News outlets have consistently failed to cover this issue, instead praising Nike for its inclusivity. Although Nike’s treatment of their athletes is immediately relevant to professional athletes, it remains an important issue to us. As members of a high school where many students participate in sports and even pursue them to the collegiate level, it’s important for us to consider which companies we support through our purchases. Fifty-three percent of athletes at PHS have felt the need to change their body for their sport. This could be caused in part by the big sports brand culture that glorifies unhealthy body standards. Even further, 64 percent of the student body is unaware of Nike’s scandal and 91 percent of the students have owned Nike products, speaking to the lack of public awareness surrounding this issue. Now that we’re informed, we can no longer be ignorant. It’s our responsibility to make smart purchasing choices and decide whether we want to support brands like Nike — brands that have contributed to the body image issue among student athletes at PHS.