NCAA Shoe Deals: Just Wear It!

An interesting dispute emerged as the Arkansas State University basketball team began its season at the end of October. The school, like many other schools in today's NCAA, had just signed a contract with Adidas as the exclusive supplier for its sports teams. Ever wondered what would happen if a player tried to refuse to wear the school's designated shoe brand?

Enter senior guard Jerry Nicholas who was forced to sit out the first week of the season because he refused to wear Adidas. Earlier in his career, Nicholas sustained a serious injury wearing Adidas shoes. He felt that he was risking further injury by wearing Adidas. At the very least, he was not comfortable competing in Adidas shoes. The school took the position that in order to play, Nicholas would have to wear Adidas. Nicholas held firm. He threatened to sue the school. Perhaps sensing a public relations issue, Adidas, began to intervene sending an athlete care specialist from the company to work with Nicholas to find an Adidas shoe he would be comfortable with.

Ultimately, the sides resolved the dispute with Nicholas wearing a shoe approved by Adidas. It is unclear whose shoe Nicholas is wearing. The logo is obscured, but one can be sure its not Adidas! With the issue resolved, Nicholas and his team can get on with the business of playing basketball.

Along the way, Nicholas and his school received much coverage and criticism that neither wanted or needed. In a column defending Nicholas' decision Matthew V. Roberson notes that the player received criticism from the likes of Dick Vitale for not following his coach's and school's rules. Many felt that Nicholas was acting the spoiled brat who simply wanted to make a fashion statement. Nicholas' argument, well articulated by Mr. Roberson, is that Nicholas, for whatever reason, did not feel comfortable in Adidas shoes. He suffered a serious injury playing in them and whether or not he was scientifically correct, there was doubt in his mind. Why would his school want to feed into its player's insecurity and doubt?

The school received the expected criticism for placing its financial interest above the well being of one of its players. The real criticism should lie in allowing the dispute to get this far when an obvious solution existed. Was the school concerned that it would not be able to get any of its players on board with its new sponsor's products? Did the school agree to a contract with language that made no exception for athletes with medical or other conditions? Did Adidas insist that every player comply without exception?

Typically, schools resolve these issues as Arkansas State ultimately did. The player can use another brand but must cover the logos. In professional sports and in the Olympics, the Federations and Leagues license manufacturers to permit them to arrange for players to use their equipment in the Federation or League event. In that case, everyone gets paid. In the NCAA, the athlete can never get paid, but so long as competing logos are obscured, what's the harm? Are shoes an integral part of a basketball uniform?

If the Nicholas-Arkansas State dispute had reached a courthouse it would have been interesting. Could an NCAA school compel one of its athletes to use product dictated by a contract to which the athlete might be a beneficiary, but is not a party? With the continued growth of collegiate sponsorship and the increasing prevalence of athletes asserting their rights, we might soon see the issue play out.

Posted in: