Nike and Empowerment

Just do it. Dream crazier. This is the new direction Nike has taken with their marketing this year. Most notably, their Dream Crazier ad, which was narrated by 23-time tennis champion Serena Williams, received commendable phrase for going “above the brand” and speaking to the experiences of women both in the workplace and in sports. At the time, people connected with the ad and applauded Nike for supporting equal opportunity. While on the surface it seems that Nike has become a leader in the movement for female empowerment, the recent allegations by a number of high-profile Nike athletes signal that Nike’s recent focus on social justice issues may have more to do with capitalizing on the women’s athletic-wear market rather than affecting actual change. 

Former world number one Simona Halep is part of Nike’s Dream Crazier campaign.

Most recently, Mary Cain, a 23 year old professional runner - who was once the fastest female runner in the world by age 17 - spoke with the New York Times about the abuse she faced as a female athlete at the hands of Nike coaches. Cain recalls being told repeatedly by the all-male coaching staff that in order to become faster, she had to become “thinner, and thinner, and thinner.” By being coached by a staff that did not understand the difference between the male and female body and how they each develop, Cain lost her period for three years and broke five bones. 

Cases of Nike’s discrimination against women like Cain’s are not standalone. Earlier this year, Allyson Felix, one of the most decorated track athletes of all time, and one of Nike’s most marketed sportspeople, broke her non-disclosure agreement to reveal her hardships finding maternity protections at Nike. After deciding to strive after the “crazy” dream of being an athlete and a mother, Felix gave birth to her daughter in November of 2018. According to the New York Times, Nike wanted to pay her 70% less and expected her to be at peak performance just months after giving birth. Felix says her experience with Nike has been “heartbreaking,” considering that one of the reasons she signed with Nike, although she could have gone somewhere else for more money, was because of the inspiring ideals they seemed to tout. 

This problematic culture of mistreating female workers has roots deep within the company itself. In a 2019 New York Times investigation, workers reported that there were “staff outings that started at restaurants and ended at strip clubs” and supervisors “who tried to forcibly kiss a female subordinate.” Francesca Krane, a previous Nike employee, said she came to the realization that she, “as a female, would not grow in that company.” She noted that men who were less qualified often were promoted into jobs instead of women who were “equally or better qualified.”

Companies such as Nike may only be utilizing the idea of female empowerment to hide their systematic sexism. Indeed, the issues revealed by athletes and Nike employees ultimately reveal a deeper problem within the workplace - namely, the lack of female leaders in positions of power who can understand and fight for working conditions suited for women. Nike’s own research shows that although women are “nearly half the company’s workforce” only 38 percent have attained “positions of director or higher,” and just 29 percent are vice presidents. In other words, those who are deciding the paychecks and working conditions of athletes are still typically men.

In conclusion, female empowerment must become the norm, not a trend, in order for the Nike’s inspirational ad campaigns to be considered actual social change. However, achieving real empowerment is not easy. It means hiring qualified women of all races to high positions within the company, and it means that Nike must also ensure sponsored maternity leave, appropriate pregnancy working conditions, and a coaching staff best suited to their athlete’s needs, even if it is not always the most profitable option. In other words, to create change, Nike and other companies must begin thinking of equal opportunity as a future, not a marketing tool.