September 24, 2014
Photo taken from article by Marie Cabural
SUMMARY
“Nike Inc. suspends contract with Adrian Peterson” is an article written
by Marie Cabural for ValueWeek.com on September 17th, 2014. As per
the title, it speaks on the contract suspension for sponsorship Nike had with
the running back for the Minnesota Vikings, Adrian Peterson. The reason for
this suspension was due to the child abuse allegations against him. In a quote
from the article, Nike has said “Nike is in no way condones child abuse or
domestic violence of any kind, and shared our concerns with the NFL.”[1]
The author states that this happened when the Minnesota Vikings removed Adrian
from the active roster to deal with these allegations against him and that Adrian was
advised to stay away from any activities that directly related to the team.
Adrian was accused for injuring his child when he spanked him with a wooden
switch. While he admitted to the incident, he claims he never meant to injure
his child. Nike recently has also terminated its sponsorship deal with another
running back Ray Rice because of a public domestic violence issue.
OPINION
I completely understand why Nike suspended their contract
with Adrian Peterson. They’ve built their company from the ground up and in
order to protect their name from being dragged through the dirt, they cut all
ties with the party bringing them down. In relation to my last post, Nike endorses so
many athletes that cutting one probably will not matter financially for them. Their sales in the
football league will still continue to be on the rise as they have other players
endorsing their products. Just like in a job, you represent the company you are
with and any action either in bad faith or that can irrefutably hurt the
business, will be terminated. Not directly in response to this particular situation but in recent light of scandals regarding Nike's endorsees, I think it is right that Nike and many other companies do not entertain the tomfoolery that high paid celebrities and athletes tend to get away with due to their income. I believe if you make an example, it will deter people from trying to be above the law and in turn they will appreciate the opportunities they have more as they know they can be taken away despite who they are.
QUESTIONS/FEEDBACK
1. Do you think that Nike was justified in their
decision?
2. If no, would you have any amendments added to
his contract?
3. When do you think an athlete comes a liability for a company?
3. When do you think an athlete comes a liability for a company?
[1] Cabural, Marie. "Nike suspends contract
with Adrian Peterson" ValueWalk,
17 Sep. 2014. Web. <http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/09/nike-inc-suspends-contract-with-adrian-peterson/>.
1.) We believe that Nike in unjustified in firing Peterson as there should be a distinction between work and personal life. This firing might be legally challenged by Peterson as this child abuse is merely an allegation, and he is not convicted yet according to the article. If he was convicted in court, then Nike can fire him for ruining their brand, but since the trial is still ongoing we need to give him the benefit of defending himself first. if he will be convicted of the crime, he will pay for his wrongdoings by going to jail, but enforcing "double" the consequences is too harsh of a punishment
ReplyDelete3.) to reinforce my answer above, an athlete's personal life should be separate from his work. family is a private matter, although he is a public figure. his actions in his personal life must not affect his representation of the company. his an athlete for his skills in the field. being a good father should be a separate issue! others may not agree, but we are merely bringing up the defense side which will make this discussion fruitful.
-carmelle wong & laura truong
Hi Carmelle & Laura. I'm not sure where my original post went so I'll just retype it.
DeleteWhile I agree that personal and work life should be kept secret, Peterson has admitted to the allegations against him, no longer making them allegations but a true fact. Nike knows he did it and so as not to be seen in support of someone who supposedly supports child abuse, they let him go. Also I disagree with the "double" consequences statement because if Peterson does go to jail, he wouldn't be able to work for Nike regardless which would then be a "double" consequence anyhow.
Yes, I believe Nike was justified in their decision because child abuse and domestic violence should not be condoned by anyone and we all need to make a stand and speak out against this type of behaviour. Thumbs up to Nike for making a stand and saying that this type of behaviour is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteI think an athlete becomes a liability for a company when they put themselves and the companies image in a negative position such as in this case.
Thanks for your reply Jennifer. It seems we are on the same page.
DeleteNike was justified in their decision because child abuse is a serious issue and by continuing a contract with Adrian Peterson its almost as if Nike is turning a blind eye to the fact that he was guilty to committing child abuse. An athlete becomes a liability to a company when the company starts to be seen as the "bad guy" too. If the public does not support a person then they are not going to support a company that does.
ReplyDeleteThat's very true. Thanks for your comment.
Delete1. Do you think that Nike was justified in their decision?
ReplyDeleteYes both Teresa and I agree that Nike is completely justified for suspending Petersons contract. The reason why it is necessary to suspend this contract is to not only protect the image of Nike, but for humane reasons as well. For example, you cannot have someone who is abusing children, be the image of selling product to a majority of children.
3. When do you think an athlete comes a liability for a company?
An athlete becomes a liability for a company when any breach of contract is committed. And those breaches can be specific by either breaking contracts by defacing the value of the athlete themsleves or the product.
Thanks for the comment you two.
Delete