US Cries of Sexism Greet a Nike Olympic Reveal - The sporting giant offered a sneak peek at its track and field outfits for Team U.S.A., and an unexpected backlash ensued.


NIKE-OLYMPICS-03-jumbo.jpg
The Nike Air Innovation Summit in Paris on Thursday.

vanessa-friedman-thumbLarge.png
By Vanessa Friedman
April 12, 2024

Ever since the Norwegian women’s beach handball team turned the fact that they were required to wear teeny-tiny bikini bottoms for competition into a cause célèbre, a quiet revolution has been brewing throughout women’s sports. It’s one that questions received conventions about what female athletes do — or don’t — have to wear to perform at their very best.

It has touched women’s soccer (why white shorts?), gymnastics (why not a unitard rather than a leotard?), field hockey (why a low-cut tank top?) and many more, including running.

So it probably should not have come as a shock to Nike that when it offered a sneak peek of the Team U.S.A. track and field unies during a Nike Air event in Paris celebrating its Air technology on Thursday (which also included looks for other Olympic athletes, like Kenya’s track and field team, France’s basketball team and Korea’s break dancing delegation), they were met with some less-than-enthusiastic reactions.

See, the two uniforms Nike chose to single out on the mannequins included a men’s compression tank top and mid-thigh-length compression shorts and a woman’s bodysuit, cut notably high on the hip. It looked sort of like a sporty version of a 1980s workout leotard. As it was displayed, the bodysuit seemed as if it would demand some complicated intimate grooming.

Citius Mag, which focuses on running news, posted a photo of the uniforms on Instagram, and many of its followers were not amused.
“What man designed the woman’s cut?” wrote one.

436566151_2190665214602735_2926161786985016088_n.jpg

“I hope U.S.A.T.F. is paying for the bikini waxes,” wrote another. So went most of the more than 1,900 comments.

The running comedian Laura Green posted an Instagram reel in which she pretended to be trying on the look (“We’re feeling pretty, um, breezy,” she said) and checking out the rest of the athlete’s kit bag, which turned out to include hair spray, lip gloss and a “hysterectomy kit,” so the women would not have to worry about periods.

When asked, Nike did not address the brouhaha directly, but according to John Hoke, the chief innovation officer, the woman’s bodysuit and the man’s shorts and top are only two of the options Nike will have for its Olympic runners. There are “nearly 50 unique pieces across men’s and women’s and a dozen competition styles fine-tuned for specific events,” Mr. Hoke said.

NIKE-OLYMPICS-02-superJumbo-v2.jpg
Sha’Carri Richardson.

Women will be able to opt for compression shorts, a crop top or tank and a bodysuit with shorts rather than bikini bottoms. The full slate of looks was not on hand in Paris but more will be revealed next week at the U.S. Olympic Committee media summit in New York. The Paris reveal was meant to be a teaser.

NIKE-OLYMPICS-superJumbo-v2.jpg
Anna Cockrell.

Mr. Hoke also pointed out that Nike consults with a large number of athletes at every stage of the uniform design. Its track and field roster includes Sha’Carri Richardson, who happened to be wearing the compression shorts during the Paris presentation, and Athing Mu. And there are certainly runners who like the high-cut brief. (The British Olympic sprinter Dina Asher-Smith, another Nike athlete, told The New York Times last summer that while she opts to run in briefs, she also leans toward a leotard style, rather than a two-piece.)

What Nike missed, however, was that in choosing those two looks as the primary preview for Team U.S.A., rather than, say, the matching shorts and tanks that will be also available, it shored up a longstanding inequity in sports — one that puts the body of a female athlete on display in a way it does not for the male athlete.

“Why are we presenting this sexualized outfit as the standard of excellence?” said Lauren Fleshman, a U.S. national champion distance runner and the author of “Good for a Girl.” “In part because we think that’s what nets us the most financial gain from sponsors or NIL opportunities, most of which are handed out by powerful men or people looking at it through a male gaze. But women are breaking records with ratings in sports where you don’t have to wear essentially a bathing suit to perform.”

The problem such imagery creates is twofold. When Nike chose to reveal the high-cut bodysuit as the first Olympics outfit, purposefully or not, the implication for anyone watching is that “this is what excellence looks like,” Ms. Fleshman said.

That perception filters down to young athletes and becomes the model girls think they have to adopt, often at a developmental stage when their relationships with their bodies are particularly fraught.

And more broadly, given the current political debate around adjudicating women’s bodies, it reinforces the idea that they are public property.

Still, Ms. Fleshman said, “I’m glad Nike put this image out as the crown jewel of Olympic Team design,” because it may act as the catalyst for another conversation that has been long overdue.

“If you showed this outfit to someone from the W.N.B.A. or women’s soccer, they would laugh in your face,” she said. “We shouldn’t have to normalize it for track and field anymore. Time’s up on that.”



‘My hoo haa is gonna be out’: US Olympians slam Nike for skimpy women’s track kit (archive)
5400.jpg
 
What Nike missed, however, was that in choosing those two looks as the primary preview for Team U.S.A., rather than, say, the matching shorts and tanks that will be also available, it shored up a longstanding inequity in sports — one that puts the body of a female athlete on display in a way it does not for the male athlete.
Yeah, cause no one ever comments on men's bodies and how revealing their sports wear can be.

36 of the Greatest Summer Olympic Bulges

 
I fail to see any issue.
If there are any humans on this planet that should be proud of their bodies, athletes with thousands of pain&suffering hours put into theirs are the group that should do it.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: GunCar Gary
There has to be some sort of track and field benefit to doing that because Sha'Carri Richardson and Florence Griffith-Joyner do that shit and I can't imagine doing it just because...
I don't think there is a benefit, Sha'Carri just likes to stick out and be remembered. Personally, I find her crazy outfits and stuff kind of charming. Like she is fully aware she looks flamboyant, she does it on purpose.

Another reason I like Sha'Carri Richardson is because she made leftists seethe with her outspoken praise of God and being a proud American.
 
“If you showed this outfit to someone from the W.N.B.A. or women’s soccer, they would laugh in your face,” she said. “We shouldn’t have to normalize it for track and field anymore. Time’s up on that.”
Nobody gives a shit about the WNBA or women's soccer, lol. The only explanation I can think of for the WNBA's continued existence is money laundering.
 
For starters, these track outfits are hardly any different than what's been worn for literal decades.

Two pictures from the 1948 Olympics

1000003030.jpg


1000003033.jpg


Pretty damn skimpy.

I wouldn't wear shorts that short today, much less in the 40s.

I didn't do track and field or swimming because I preferred to be in the sports my friends were in, but it's a well known thing in both that you're trying to get faster times and your clothes/body hair contribute to that.

Am I missing something here? I thought clothes were more skin tight and revealing so they could move better?

Also, it seems there's a variety of choices, are they mandated to wear specific ones?

I can't believe these faggots have me defending Nike.

Edit because I reread the article:

They do get a choice. They have 50 fucking choices. They just didn't show all of them.
 
Last edited:
Back