Nike v. Under Armour

Does it happen that steps to protect brand jump over the line?

Consider “Nike to 9-Year-Old: Change Your Shirt,” Wall Street Journal, August 2, 2014 A12  The son of the Florida State University football coach ran up to his dad after a major win and the moment was captured on TV.  Celebration ensures, right?  Wrong.

Apparently, Florida State has a deal with Nike whereby Nike supplies a bunch of money and free apparel to Florida State.  All that apparel has the Nike marks on it.  Not so the sweatshirt the coach’s son was wearing; it clearly displays the Under Armour logo.  Nike actually raised this in an email to the coach.

Query:  Wouldn’t it be unseemly for an uniform manufacturer to enter into a contract with a 9-year-old whereby he was paid to wear the manufacturer’s logo?  Or a contract with his dad (or his dad’s employer) that required the kid to wear branded merchandise?  Aren’t there child labor laws?

Is this information governance?  I submit that for the Nike assistant director it was a career limiting move.  Did his actions actually hurt the Nike brand?



Leave a comment

Filed under Controls, Definition, Information, Ownership, Protect assets, Protect information assets, Third parties, Value

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s