 |
| Source: adrianbrandon.com |
The practice of athlete activism dates back hundreds of years.
Sportsmen and sportswomen have a long-dignified history with using their
platforms to provoke social change and spark dialogues regarding the controversies
surrounding the sport, organisation and country they may represent.
The power of sports has remained a force to reckon with,
whether that be the fabled football game between the German and British WW1
troops, or Ivory Coast’s Didier Drogba who used the 2006 World Cup to unite his
nation once again after civil war.
Today the influences of an athlete are just as strong but are
now acknowledged by millions of more people globally.
Currently the most well-known example of athlete activism is
undeniably the anthem demonstration movement associated with National Football
League. In 2016 former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers Colin Kaepernick
evoked a firestorm of protest by choosing to #takeaknee instead of standing whilst
the US national anthem was played as an action against the racial injustice
that exists in the United States, especially in regards to police brutality. He
has since been released from his contract as part of the team and is consequently
now under the position of a ‘free agent’.
Evidently it was the NFL’s position that Kaepernick’s purpose
in sports was to do nothing but play and he had stepped outside of his limits. In
a previous case of protest against the racial injustices relating to the US,
evident during the Black Power Salute of the 1968 Olympics, the individual was also
rejected from the sport and organisation and subjected to extreme criticism.
This stands to support the claim that athletes, especially
Black athletes, are simply expected to just ‘shut up and play’ and will be
reprimanded for choosing to do otherwise. As a result it may be suggested that
the state of the Black athlete is somewhat torn and conflicted. It is expected
of them to turn in their voice and morals in exchange for the fame and riches.
 |
| Source: solacilike.com |
Eventually with continuous backlash comes the media’s
perception of events and how they choose to display such information to the
wider public. As a result of wider reporting and publications, wider issues
have come to surface, issues surrounding the true meaning of the national
anthem and the possible disrespect Kaepernick and other #takeaknee supporters have
shown toward the US military. The actions of the social media and publications
have also led to a variance in why Kaepernick kneels. Some perceive it to be an
act in protest of the Trump Presidency whilst others see it as simply a way to
support the NFL players. Sadly, for those people Kaepernick’s original objective
has been lost amongst all the controversy and misinformation.
What is different about this case of athlete isolation, however,
is the reaction of billion-dollar brands, particularly Nike. Their campaign,
celebrating 30 years of the ‘Just Do It’ slogan, employed Kaepernick as the
face, alongside athletes such as Serena Williams and Odell Beckham Jr.
Immediately the campaign was met with waves of criticism and
even prompted many to burn or destroy Nike branded products that they owned as
part of the Nike Boycott.
 |
| Source: wmagazine.com |
But aside from the irrational and essentially futile actions
of critics, this movement stands out as a noteworthy change in the usual dynamic
between the choices of an athlete and corporate sponsors. In the past many
sponsoring brands have pulled out from deals with athletes who choose to speak
out against political issues, in fears that damage to the athlete’s reputation
would be then reflected upon the brand. Yet Nike have gone completely against that
tradition and have instead chose to highlight such a current affair. Nike have
made the conscious and powerful decision to not terminate the sponsorship deal
that have had with Kaepernick since 2011.
It goes without saying that regardless of Nike’s motives
towards racial injustices, their decision has significant implications towards how
its brand is received by the public. Nike are aware of what their consumers are
exposed to. They are also aware of the growing interest in politics that is
developing in their main target market of young people. This decision wasn’t made
on a whim and definitely wasn’t carried out by those who are not experts of the
marketing world.
Ultimately, Nike could not have chosen a better time to show
their support for Kaepernick and draw in those consumers who are more politically
aware and influenced by what brands believe.
Nike may have been hit by a small drop in stock immediately following
the release of the campaign, but that is completely insignificant in comparison
to the major and long-term attention and respect that the brand has gladly welcomed.
Outside of Nike’s own sales and stocks, the brand now serves
as a prime example of just how important it is to stand by athletes, a move
that is likely to be mirrored by other sporting brands and sponsors in the very
near future. This itself has made athlete activism much more of a force to be
reckoned with and has evidently shown the NFL that if it desires a long-term solution
to the controversies it will eventually have to embrace the social justice
initiative.
Thank you for reading!
Aman
