Hypocrisy Is Nike's Sole Purpose

TIM KEOWN

THE EVIDENCE is piling up around Nike's well-adorned feet. There are more charges of human-rights abuses in poor countries, and more evidence that Nike would prefer to keep it all quiet.

There's no stopping Nike, of course, and the company knows it. It has purchased the soul of America's youth, as well as most of its famous athletes and an alarming number of its university athletic departments. A few howling cries from the wilderness, from human-rights organizations and newspaper columnists, is a minor nuisance, not a significant threat.

Besides, is this even a sports issue? Does it have anything to do with sports when it is revealed that an independent report -- commissioned and paid for by Nike -- found the company pays young Vietnamese women $10 a week for up to 65 hours to make shoes that cost $5 to produce and sell for more than $100?

Does it matter that Nike tried to keep the report under wraps, and only acknowledged its existence when a former employee (``disgruntled'' is the obligatory adjective) leaked it to the media?

Does it belong on the sports page when that same report, conducted by Ernst and Young, reveals that 77 percent of the workers in one Ho Chi Minh City shoe-manufacturing plant suffer from respiratory problems because their workplaces are insufficiently ventilated and filled with carcinogens?

Of course it does. Nike is more powerful than any individual sports franchise, more powerful than any individual league, even. Nike knows athletes are as loyal to their shoe company as they are to their teams.

Besides, Nike's hypocrisy knows no bounds. It aligns itself with just causes -- the courage of Jackie Robinson, racism in country clubs, the plight of inner-city kids -- then indignantly wonders why anybody gives a damn about the respiratory problems of a few thousand young women in Vietnam.

In some of its most cynical moments, Nike runs television spots that preach empowerment of girls through athletics. By contrast, the young female factory workers in Vietnam are empowered in unique ways; for one, they are forbidden to speak while they work. And, as an aside, the punishment for speaking is strictly corporal.

This, then, is how Nike participates in the lives of Vietnamese youth.

But that sort of gentle tweaking of image and reality is all part of the process. It's just business, good old-fashioned capitalism as employed by multinational corporations. They're selling something more profound than shoes here, so please don't disturb the fairy tale.

But where are the humanitarians now? Where is Spike Lee? Where is Tiger Woods? Where are the university administrators who believe the value of athletics travels beyond the playing field and into some deep sociological realm?

We have public universities making private deals to accept Nike's money as well as its gear. Cal's basketball team is one program with a Nike contract. Berkeley, the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, the place where boycotts are tossed around like failed term papers, the city that can't find a gas station to fill its cars because none of the oil companies fit the exacting human-rights standards -- Cal's basketball team is funded in part by Nike.

Isn't the college campus the last resort of the idealist? Isn't it the bastion of innocent, pure and sometimes misguided dissent?

I called Cal athletic director John Kasser to see if the university had taken note of the most recent revelations against Nike. Kasser said he had noticed, but there has never been a serious discussion about the message the university sends by allowing its athletes to fly the Nike flag on the court and on television.

Frankly, Kasser was not especially interested in discussing this topic. He said the university is sensitive to such issues, but there isn't much they can do. Kasser says he reads all the materials Nike sends out, and -- surprise surprise -- everything looks pretty good from that end.

``If we started that with Nike, we'd have to go after everybody we buy from,'' Kasser said. ``I'm not defending Nike, but if we're buying copiers, there might be issues there, too. There might be problems with the labor practices of other companies, even in U.S. plants.''

The copiers argument doesn't wash, of course. It might be less specious if the university's office personnel were occasionally on national television wearing Xerox emblems on their sleeves, but the ``Copying and Collating Channel'' seems at least three or four cable expansions away.

And besides, nobody is asking Cal to conduct independent investigations of every company that makes paper clips and magnet schedules. The evidence against Nike is on the table, right there, ignore it or accept it. This isn't meant to pick on Cal, because the Bears basketball team is an infinitesimal spoke in the giant Nike wheel. But isn't it part of a well-rounded education to develop a social conscience when it comes to consumer goods? You know, maybe a speech that starts with, ``Gentlemen, we might like the gear and the shoes, but we're going to look a little deeper here.''

The whole concept of critical thought surpassing thoughtless commerce might be hopelessly naive in an era when college sports is big business and professional athletes are royalty. After all, Kasser has to keep the programs running, and a buck in the hand is worth more than a hypothetical pair of Reeboks on Sean Marks' feet.

Could you imagine how refreshing it would be if a major university -- Cal or any other one -- took a stand? Imagine the great press a university president, athletic director or coach could receive by calling a news conference to say, ``We've read the reports, and we're going to wear something else for a while.''

Idealistically speaking, this seems like the perfect opportunity for someone to suggest that the ``student'' portion of ``student-athlete'' bridge the gap created by that tiny hyphen.

The problem, of course, is that idealism is dead. Even it has its price, and Nike made the purchase long ago.

* return to top