An End To Neutrality For The Sporting Apparel Industry

BY CAROLINE CANNATA ‘22

For many years, corporate America wouldn’t entertain certain conversations. They used to plead that it was not their place to discuss public issues, that they sold sneakers and not advertising for political causes. Of course, most of these statements were hypocritical, considering their behind-the-scenes political donations that promoted their business and gained them tax breaks. However, we now live in an age where consumers use social media to hold companies to a higher standard, rightfully expecting action as a product of past promises. Today, according to Axios, companies must work to ensure “brand safety.” If their messages, or lack thereof, are associated with hate speech, the consumer response could haunt a company’s stock forever.

The sporting apparel industry is no exception to this rule. Companies such as Nike recognize that their sphere of influence is greater than shoes: does Nike influence who sits in the Oval Office? Of course they do. The Nike website has woven the question  “are you registered?” into sweatshirts and running gear. The slogan “Just Do It” now holds more weight: it's a Swoosh that checks whether or not you have contributed to democracy. 

Meanwhile, some companies have been stumbling through promises of change after receiving heightened criticism for their histories of racism, sexism, and blatant disregard for the environment. Lululemon made national headlines after its art director, Trevor Fleming, promoted a long-sleeve T-shirt reading “Bat Fried Rice” on a Chinese rice box with “No Thank You” written on its sleeve and back. The company released a statement to Huffpost: “as a brand that advocates for a positive and healthy lifestyle, we are against all racist behavior. Lululemon’s brand, core values, and culture represent our stance.” In response, waves of tweets reminded them of their “core”: their founder Chip Wilson. Wilson is perhaps best known for his reasoning behind the company name, choosing to incorporate many letter Ls because he thought “it’s funny to watch [Japanese people] try and say it.” After years of backlash, he left the company. Nevertheless, although Fleming and Wilson actively promote hate, the company's stock never took the same hit that their Twitter account did. The Lululemon website now presents their commitments to “making real, lasting change.” Lululemon, along with other sports apparel companies, is quickly realizing the need to be politically active, exercising their hefty pockets for good. 

Another sports apparel supergiant has also been accused of using their power to spread hate: Soulcycle. Once hailed for promoting good health, the company was condemned for a 2019 fundraising event hosted by one of Soulcycle’s owners that offered tickets of up to $250,000 to have a conversation and photo-op with President Trump at a Hamptons mansion. Unlike Lululemon, Soulcycle’s rate of class sign-ups decreased 12.8 percent, thanks to the uproar across social media platforms, according to The Atlantic. Speaking about the decrease, a professor at Northwestern University remarked “it’s surprising because we have very little evidence that when boycotts are announced, they lead to behavioral change.” A Instagram story post at Soulcycle used to impress some people, but now clients see more than the bike: they see their money being spent in support of causes they disapprove of.

Unlike some of its competitors, Patagonia, an outdoor clothing company, is no stranger to the political world. Since its establishment in 1973, they have resisted shortcuts to reduce production cost at the expense of the planet. However, the recent release of a tag reading “Vote the a**holes out” is a level of aggression rarely seen by corporations. The tag hasn’t had an effect on Patagonia stock; in fact, Amy Horton, the senior director of sustainable business innovation for the Outdoor Industry Association, says, “to be a relevant brand today, you need to be doing something on climate, and doing something authentic,” according to the LA Times. Patagonia pushes for everyone, regardless of political affiliation, to fight for the planet. After all, studies conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found 72% of voters believe in global warming. Moreover, as a company reliant on the outdoor industry, Patagonia needs our world to remain healthy. The same applies to all sport equipment companies. A neutral stance will not save businesses on an issue that shouldn’t be politicized in the first place. If sport companies want to survive, let alone thrive, they will have to invest in the candidates that respect the environments that their businesses profit from.