The first name in second reads.
Vick, Nike: On again, off again
Vick's potential Nike deal has media spinning circles
Why in the world would Nike want Michael Vick on their roster of spokesballers?
That's probably the question (aside from the use of 'spokesballers') that most were asking yesterday when word from Vick's agent, Joel Segal, indicated that the troubled QB is "excited to be part of the Nike team again."
As a matter of fact, that's a question Nike ended-up asking themselves... eventually answering, "We don't," in a statement made this morning:
Nike does not have a contractual relationship with Michael Vick. We have agreed to supply product to
Michael Vick as we do a number of athletes who are not under contract with Nike.
The news of the potentially-renewed contract made waves yesterday, as Vick - who was a Nike poster boy from 2001-07 - is still considered PR-poison by many. Though speculation is that Vick may have been working toward a deal with the House of Swoosh, and that Nike reneged when the leaked info created enough backlash to scare them off.
No matter what the actual circumstances, the media were quick to hop on the "Vick-is-back-with-Nike" news, only to have to retrace their steps and correct the story this morning. Just further proof that "fact-checking" has become a lost art.
Has Vick's public image improved enough for companies to want him to endorse their products? Should the media have checked with Nike before running stories like this one?
That's probably the question (aside from the use of 'spokesballers') that most were asking yesterday when word from Vick's agent, Joel Segal, indicated that the troubled QB is "excited to be part of the Nike team again."
As a matter of fact, that's a question Nike ended-up asking themselves... eventually answering, "We don't," in a statement made this morning:
Nike does not have a contractual relationship with Michael Vick. We have agreed to supply product to
Michael Vick as we do a number of athletes who are not under contract with Nike.
The news of the potentially-renewed contract made waves yesterday, as Vick - who was a Nike poster boy from 2001-07 - is still considered PR-poison by many. Though speculation is that Vick may have been working toward a deal with the House of Swoosh, and that Nike reneged when the leaked info created enough backlash to scare them off.
No matter what the actual circumstances, the media were quick to hop on the "Vick-is-back-with-Nike" news, only to have to retrace their steps and correct the story this morning. Just further proof that "fact-checking" has become a lost art.
Has Vick's public image improved enough for companies to want him to endorse their products? Should the media have checked with Nike before running stories like this one?
Comment using
