By Mark Hanrahan
Athletic apparel company Nike have long been dogged by accusations of using sweatshop labour and by comparisons of the wages their workers in developing countries earn with those of the athletes who endorse their products. Late last century, it was said that US basketball player Michael Jordan earned more than Nike's entire Asian workforce.
Nike's relationship with its endorsees has not been without its problems however. Tiger Woods, the most recognisable of Nike's current stable of stars, endured a significant dip in form when he started to use the company's clubs in competitive play. Nike's marketing strategy is based around the use of high-profile athletes like Woods and Jordan, the mere presence of whose names makes pairs of $150 shoes a must-have for many fashion-conscious children, much to their parent's dismay.
This could be about to change, if New York Knicks' basketball star Stephon Marbury gets his way.
Marbury has launched his own line of athletic shoes, aimed specifically at relieving financially struggling parents from having to fork out huge sums for designer shoes. The shoes retail at $15 and Marbury himself is wearing them in competition to prove their mettle.
Marbury is seeking to drive home the point that it costs very little to make high-quality running shoes, "two hundred to buy a pair of sneakers? That's groceries for a week", he says on his website. Marbury's shoes have become something of a phenomenon in the US – with customers lining up outside the discount store that sells them, which has been forced to implement a two-pair-per customer-rule.
Marbury's innovation – and his decision to put principles before profits – has significant implications for the athletic equipment industry. If children can be convinced that a pair of $15 shoes are just as cool as a pair that cost $150 – then where will the money come from to pay huge endorsement fees? Nike will doubtless survive Marbury's attack, but will $150 shoes survive the war?
Picture via brndnprkns's flickr page.
