This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Seems like a win-win situation. Adidas pays 10K for publicity for their product on Bush, and getting it in the media.
"All day . . ."
They made their 10K back from the publicity alone already. Smart move by Reggie and Adidas if you ask me as they obviously knew the fine would be negligible. I have a feeling the NFL will lay the smack down if Reggie/Adidas try it again.
That belongs to Reggie Brown.
FYP
I don't think Reggie would be allowed to sign a contract like that. If suspension is mentioned it should stop.I wonder whether Reggie is obligated to continue wearing Adidas per his contract with them if the league starts threatening suspension.
Agreed. But even if it were 100k, I still think that is a small price to pay for all the pub. As long as they make damn sure that Adidas logo is well visable.
They probably should have waited for the Monday night game against ATL, or better yet the week before, that way it will be all that they talk about on ESPN Monday night, and of course he wears them again.
Double edged sword - the more exhorbitant it is, the more publicity it will get Adidas as a conversation piece.
Good call. That could have worked real well for even more added pub. Didn't ESPN go nuts talking about Manning wearing the black "Unitas" shoes after it happened?
Right, but I don't think the NFL can just name their price for a fine. They probably have a system of some sort.
Agreed. They can't fine Adidas, so it must run through Reggie which of course means that it would be governed by the labor agreement.
I remember back in the days of the Gang Green defense they all wore black shoes and the NFL could only fine them 5K each game. I'm sure there's something in the bargining agreement to prevent 100k fines over shoes.
. . . or to pull up their socks or to tuck in their jerseys or to write their real names and not "He Hate Me" on the back, or . . .The NFL is a marketing machine and likes to maintain a clean, professional image. You can argue "fairness" all you want, but the revenue that the league has generated and that has made the players rich is hard to argue with.
Well, if you walked in with dolphin shorts and ski boots every day, your boss would probably step in as well.
I think he meant brand. For instance, I would not be pleased if my boss told me not to wear my Kenneth Coles b/c he was making money off of me wearing Bostonian's.
When you walk into work at McDonalds without your hat, do they send you home?
What if he paid you a $10M signing bonus to play by his rules?
Because the Brand paid BILLIONS of dollars to make it so. That's why there is a "QC coordinator" for every NFL team...usually an ex-player...who checks uni's, shoes, etc to make sure they are wearing what they are supposed to.In fact, the main reason ADIDAS BOUGHT REEBOK was to try to compete with NIKE in footwear. One giant step toward making that happen is showcasing their styles in the NFL.
From a column by Kenny Wilkerson (Saints radio sideline reporter and afternoon 870am sports talk host):Link
Yes, unless you're doing the Merton Hanks chicken dance.
I doubt that.You think the NFL is going to let Nike/Reebok get screwed? It's probably a 100million dollar deal, and I'm sure Nike isn't too happy right now. So when the next fine is $100,000, $500,000, 1mil, 5 mil Adidas might change their tune.The NFL isn’t going to let Bush single handedly devalue the equipment deals they sign. The last guy who messed with the NFL is now fat and behind bars.
Where the #### do I sign?Of course, his endorsment deals will pay him more over his career then his NFL paycheck and pension.
I wonder if Weatherford is getting a fine too....This is very interesting.
Speadking off the top of my head without researching...but...No, they cannot wear Adidas without logos. They did that in the old days of the war between Adidas and Nike...taping Adidas logos over Nike shoes...not gonna fly now.The Under Armour commercials you see are with NFL players (Julius Jones, Vernon Davis, etc) who have signed deals with the company to wear their apparel...as equipment under their uniform. You will not see a UA logo anywhere on a player during a game. The performance tees, etc that you see coaches and players wear are NFL Equipment by Reebok. The NBA has a similiar deal with McDavid, who makes the stockings that James, Wade, etc wear. The players can wear McDavid product, as long as it's not advertised and logos are showing.Under Armour is making a serious push to take over the NFL Equipment portion of the license...or at least share it with Reebok. But that hasn't happened yet.
They tape over the logo. Some college teams go even further. I have a friend that was a manager for an SEC team that had a Nike contract. Some of the players preferred a different brand. They had a little swoosh stencil they would spraypaint on the tape.gump said:
J
I have CLARIFICATION! Sorry for the confusion...The NFL shoe contract is split between Reebok, Nike, and now Under Armour.NFL players can wear the footwear of any of the 3. They are subject to the fines stated above if they do not.Adidas, even though they now own Reebok, is not a licensed brand (yet).They tape over the logo. Some college teams go even further. I have a friend that was a manager for an SEC team that had a Nike contract. Some of the players preferred a different brand. They had a little swoosh stencil they would spraypaint on the tape.
That makes the situation kind of bizarre....Anyhow, IIRC, Walter Payton at one time had to cover up the Kangaroos logo on his shoes in the mid 80s. (Remember Kangaroos? That lunch-money pocket on the side? 
)
And of course, there was Jim McMahon being told he couldn't wear an adidas headband because it wasn't an approved company.
This may go on for a little while, but I promise the NFL will get him straight. Seems to me the NFL has officials at the games. I'd guess they may have the power to keep a player from playing, or they can retroactively suspend Mr Bush (notice not "Reggie") for the following week. They may let him play with it during the preseason, but I'd bet he doesn't wear them during the regular season.And of course, there was Jim McMahon being told he couldn't wear an adidas headband because it wasn't an approved company.
That's ridiculous... So if Tom Landry was still coaching, he'd be denied the hat then?
Yes, unless Reebok designed a hat similiar...which they could do much easier than a suit.
Of course, he substituted the Rozelle headband, and then mooned the helicopter covering the Super Bowl.And of course, there was Jim McMahon being told he couldn't wear an adidas headband because it wasn't an approved company.
GB Jimmy Mac.
