Legendary Romanian tennis player Ilie Năstase had just won his second Grand Slam, triumphing over Nikola Pilić in straight sets at Roland Garros to win the 1973 French Open. He won the US Open the previous year and was now the World’s number one tennis player. So he seemed like an obvious choice to be paid to wear Blue Ribbon Sports’ new tennis shoe.
He was the first person the company endorsed and he would be the first in a long line of winners and champions that the company would align itself with. But Năstase was also a notorious womaniser, he was named by Maxim magazine in its top ten “Living Sex Legends” list, reportedly having slept with over 2,500 women. This was a sign of things to come for the company, as he would be first in a long line of their winners and champions who would cause sexual scandals. When Năstase’s career petered out in the late 70s Blue Ribbon Sports turned to a new tennis star. The company signed up John McEnroe in 1978 and in the same year renamed itself Nike Inc.
Sponsoring the world’s greatest athletes is a massive part of Nike’s marketing strategy and they now have sponsorship deals with thousands of sports stars and sports team around the world. And just like Ilie Năstase did, a raft of Nike’s sponsored athletes have caused scandal recently with lurid tales of their private lives.
A string of Nike’s athletes have been involved in murky sexual dealings recently. Wayne Rooney reportedly slept with vice girls, Tiger Woods cheated on his wife with a string of women, Christiano Ronaldo fathered a love child, Ashley Cole is now divorced after bedding a number of women, and Frank Ribery solicited sex from an underage prostitute.
But what happens to the public’s perception of Nike when their athletes go bad, does it adversely affect Nike’s brand and reputation and have a knock on effect on their sales?
Nike seem bullish about their long term sales prospects, they reckon by 2015 its revenue will have risen by 40% to $27 billion. But in the short term there has been a massive hit on one of their brands, sales of its Woods branded golf merchandise has slumped, this come at a time when golf apparel sales overall are on the up. But is this sales slide due to Woods’ infidelity or the fact he has not been playing as much golf, and when he has been playing he has not been winning?
So there seems to be a short term hit on one of Nike’s brands but what is the long term damage? Nike has stood by their athletes, generally releasing statements saying it is a private matter for the stars. But by standing by their athletes – and effectively not condoning their behaviour – is the company doing serious damage to its brand in the eyes of the public and specifically women?
We look at the actions of Rooney and Cole who have allegedly wronged their other halves, Coleen Rooney and Cheryl Cole, who are both role models and are viewed very positively by women in the UK. Would Nike supporting athletes such as Cole and Rooney have more of an effect on whether women choose Nike over its rivals, or does Nike’s association with top women athletes have more of an effect? What would be the stronger influence in the mind of women when choosing a sporting goods brand, is it positive role models the brand associates itself with or the brand not condoning the sleazy antics of its male athletes?
