Although the NFL is over a month underway, Colin Kaepernick, former San Francisco 49ers pro quarterback, continues to make headlines despite not having played a game in almost two years.
On September 6, 2018, Nike spurred a series of mixed reactions with feature of Colin Kaepernick, who narrated the 30th anniversary rendition of its “Just Do It” ad. Having aired during the NFL Thursday night season opener, as well as other major sporting events such as the U.S. Open Tennis tournament, Kaepernick joins the lines of Lebron James, Serena Williams, and other notable stars as one of the main spokesmen for the company.
The ad itself begins with a montage of various athletes overcoming various degrees of difficulties in a range of sports. Narrated by Kaepernick, the ad is tailored with the goal to inspire its audience, reminding them to be ambitious and follow their “crazy dreams.” The camera then pans out to Kaepernick reassuring the following claim, stating “even if it means sacrificing everything.”
The national outrage regarding Kaepernick was dates back to August 26, 2016, when he gained attention for infamously deciding to sit on the bench during the national anthem of a preseason game, in protest for the ongoing issues with police brutality and oppression towards people of color, while his teammates stood. Days later, Kaepernick further elaborated on his decision in an interview stating “when there’s significant change and I feel that [the] flag represents what it’s supposed to represent, and this country is representing people the way that it’s supposed to, I’ll stand.”
Kaepernick then garnered support in this protest, joined by fellow teammate Eric Reid in taking a knee during the anthem during their next game. Other notable athletes since then have taken similar measures, ranging from teams such as the Seattle Seahawks linking arms during the anthem to fellow US Women’s National Team Player Megan Rapinoe also taking a knee before a game. In doing so, controversy has developed: many view the athletes’ symbolic gestures as divisive, an anti-American act and a sign of disrespect.
Kaepernick was originally under contract with the 49ers until 2020, however he chose to opt out in 2017 and become a free agent after meeting with the team’s general manager and coach. The decision is one of which that is common in the sports industry, but resulted in a strange situation where no teams, regardless of their quarterback demand, approached Kaepernick with any sort of deal. As the issue became more polarized in the media, it only magnified as President Donald Trump outwardly became involved, urging the league to blacklist players who demonstrated any signs of protest during the anthem. With Kaepernick becoming the face of the movement, his grievance with the league became public and even legal, alleging the team’s owners have been in collusion against him.
Such handling of the situation has reignited, the issue regarding the role of sports in politics, ensuing wide debates amongst the communities of fans and reporters alike. Under the current administration, this has only intensified, with various athletes throughout the years seeking outlets to express themselves and their beliefs, whether it be through the media or simply through their choice in wear. As athletes themselves have become more embroiled with political (and racial) clashes, companies themselves have been mindful to stray on a fine line in attempts to limit their involvement. With such as a paradigm shift regarding the involvement concerning our generation’s athletes, Nike has thus become the prime case for whether or not companies can continue to stay neutral in today’s politically tense era.
As Nike appears to take the side of its athletes, the magnitude of such decision only further stipulates discourse. Does Nike for example, thus view itself as simply a brand, or is there more to the iconic insignia that can be recognized worldwide? As similar issues continue to saturate the media, and other notable figures in our society (i.e. athletes, celebrities, artists) normalize the aforementioned discourse, it poses the question as to whether or not their voices should intermingle with the realm of politics.
From a business perspective, the fundamental criteria here that should be examined is the marketing and the appeal to the consumer. To the consumer, as well as the general public, there continues to be divide in regards to how the news has been received. For some, Nike has made the decision to forswear its principles of compartmentalizing solely on the focus of athletic dominance for its selling point and instead embrace politics. By doing so, the company has alienated part of its respective selling market, as there is the notion that companies should try to serve every consumer regardless of that person’s race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, or political persuasion. However, upon cross examination and using a glance at history, Nike remains amongst one of the companies that throughout the years have catered to minority and youth communities as their marketed demographics. In doing so, decisions are made under the close following of trends from such community, in manner where the company has to be cognizant of their sentiments.
Moving forward from this point, it is just a matter of time before other companies become the center of attention as the dynamics of political issues start to become more intertwined with society. For now, fans will continue to do as they please, whether it be through means of supporting the company, or uploading videos of them burning their memorabilia. From the standpoint of Nike, the company continues to buoy in the market in terms of stocks as its continues to make the news in whatever way possible.
-Dennis Portillo’22
