Marcus Jordan, son of Michael Jordan, has caused quite a debate in the news this past month. Marcus Jordan is in his freshman year at the University of Central Florida where he plays basketball. Going into the agreement to play there, Marcus was promised that he would be allowed to wear his shoe of choice, White Nike Air Jordan’s; despite the fact that UCF has an exclusive contract with Adidas. Reports indicate that this promise was made in the presence of UCF officials and Adidas regional representatives. However, corporate officials for Adidas overturned the promise on the company’s end of the deal. Because Marcus was allowed by UCF to wear his father’s brand of shoes because of previous terms of agreement, UCF lost their 6 year, $3 million contract with Adidas.
Is this a question of special treatment and privileges or does this fall into the category where a precedent was already set? Before I did so research, I thought it was a cut and dry typical case of a famous athlete’s child receiving special treatment because of their last name. Everything fits the mold for that situation. But, at UCF, athletic director Keith Tribble defended Jordan’s decision to wear their competitors brand because a former football play for UCF was allowed to a different brand because of the way the shoe fit. Precedent was set when UCF and Adidas allowed that situation to happen.
I am not familiar with all the terms and conditions placed on UCF’s contract with Adidas, but what has been reported in the news seems to me that the blame is mostly on UCF for any financial losses or breach of contracts. Is the case a little different because Marcus Jordan is who he is. Think about it they are not going to go back on a promise they made to Michael Jordan’s son, and that I think is the only shady part of this situation. It is hard for people who have to make the judgment calls to only focus on the facts, and not weigh in the hype surrounding the situation. Would UCF go back on a promise made to a ‘no name’ athlete to save financial burdens?
"The Money is Clean when They Scrub it Good"
[DMB][Joyride]
I have mixed emotions about this particular topic. On one hand I think it is selfish for the Jordan to not wear the team shoe because it shoes he is above the team and can do what he wants just for the fact his last name is Jordan.
ReplyDeleteMy question is if Adidas did end their contract, why can't Jordan's brand just give them a contract now? His son is going to play there for a few years so just replace the Adidas shoes with Jordan's. Personally I think the players would rather wear Jordan brand anyway.
I think it looks bad on Adidas if everything is right about the promise being made by the University and Adidas representatives promised Jordan's son it would be ok. I think it just shows how much Adidas is trying to save a few bucks by voiding their contract with UCF.
I was not familiar with this issue until I read about it in Megan Meade's blog. It is really interesting in light of the implications of Jordan's celebrity. It reminds me of the hoopla surrounding the "Dream Team," when Jordan and other Nike endorsers covered the name of the maker of their warm-ups (not sure if it was Reebok or Adidas) because they were not Nike. That seemed like the ultimate in commodification. I can see making an exception if another brand of shoe fits better, because "fit" and "comfort" ought to count for something.
ReplyDeleteSome tennis players who received racket endorsements used to re-paint their old rackets when they changed to another endorser. Andre Agassi was one of those players who did that and, needless to say, the company of his original racket was not too pleased to find out about it. As if recruiting is not complicated enough, it seems ridiculous that coaches and ADs now have to worry about a recruit having to honor an endorsement deal because of his legendary father!