The Swoosh Is In Your Court
Submitted by claymore on Sat, 05/26/2001 - 07:08.
Olympic skier Jeremy Bloom isn't allowed to play college football because he received a skiing endorsement from Nike. The NCAA doesn't like that sort of thing. Well, Bloom saw a big flaw in the NCAA's logic, so he took them to court. And you may or may not be surprised by the ammo he has in his pocket, or rather, on his pocket.
So what do you think? Since US Olympians rely solely on sponsorships to train and compete, do you think he should be denied a chance to play in a completely different sport that's regulated by the NCAA's double standard? Will college athletes now be forced to play naked?
One thing's for certain though - this would make for one helluva Nike commercial.
(story found via Fark.com)
Technorati Tags: marketing mishapsBookmark/Search this post with:
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
The double standard is frightening.
Bloom, 20, testified he can't remain a World Cup-caliber moguls skier without endorsements, which the NCAA prohibits. That's why, with judge Daniel C. Hale and lead NCAA attorney Linda Salfrank watching, Bloom attorney Peter Rush of Chicago carried the CU jersey to his client at the witness stand and asked him to explain the easy-to-see Nike logo.
"Because Nike's a smart company," said Bloom, a former Loveland High School star.
And why the positioning of the Nike logo on CU pants?
"Because it's visible," Bloom told Rush during his 90 minutes of testimony.
Bloom said "the only difference" in Nike's contract to provide apparel for CU teams and his endorsements is "I'm not benefiting (from the Nike-CU deal and others like it allowed by the NCAA). I believe Nike is, the NCAA. I believe a lot of people (other than the players) are."
*****************
wait, did I get that right? Bloom can't be sponsored if he plays CU, but they want him to wear that shirt?
I for one, do hope he wins. The guy has a point.