Jared Goff, one of the world’s most famous athletes, refused to wear Nike Pride-themed products in an advertising campaign, citing his belief that sports should be for competition only. , not for political or social statements. The incident caused great controversy and is said to have cost Nike up to $100 million, as a wave of protest spread in both the sports and marketing world.

The incident happened during a photo shoot for Nike’s latest advertising campaign, which was designed to promote its Pride collection. This collection, which celebrates the rights and inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community, is a key part of Nike’s broader marketing strategy, in line with the company’s commitment to diversity and activism. society. However, when it came time for Goff to wear Pride products, he refused, saying “the field is for competition, not for displays of awakened pride.”

Goff’s stance has generated both support and opposition, reflecting deep divisions over the issue of “woke pride” in sports. Some fans and athletes have praised Goff for taking a neutral and non-political stance on the field. They believe athletes should focus on their performance and not use their platforms for political or social causes. On the contrary, many have condemned Goff for their perceived rejection of inclusion and rights for the LGBTQ+ community, something Nike has advocated for throughout its brand campaign.

Nike, known for its social activism and support of social causes such as Pride, Black Lives Matter and gender equality, is currently facing a backlash. The company’s stock fell in the wake of the controversy, and estimates suggest the company lost about $100 million in market value, mainly due to lost sales of Pride products. Analysts point out that Nike’s Pride products have been heavily promoted as part of the brand’s larger diversity campaign, and that Goff’s rejection of the initiative has damaged its image. company photo.

Nike has long been an advocate for LGBTQ+ rights and has used its platform to promote inclusion. Previous campaigns, including partnerships with athletes like Colin Kaepernick and sponsorship of LGBTQ+ events, aimed to build relationships with young, socially conscious customers. The decision to include Pride products in this campaign is seen as part of Nike’s broader mission, as the company looks to build connections with young, socially diverse consumers.

However, Goff’s decision to decline to participate in a particular aspect of this campaign has created a gap, especially considering his reputation as one of the most commercially valuable athletes world’s best. With this rejection, Nike is faced with a dilemma: how to balance commitment to progressive causes while maintaining relationships with top athletes who may not share the same opinion.

The case also highlights a larger trend in the world of sports and advertising, as the mixing of politics and business becomes increasingly common. In recent years, more and more athletes and companies have used their platforms to support social and political movements, whether it’s LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice or environmental causes. school. While these initiatives have been widely praised, they have also faced opposition from conservative groups and a segment of the public who believe politics should not be present in sports and entertainment.

Goff, who has spent more than two decades in the public eye, is no stranger to controversy. However, his decision on the matter has prompted questions from the industry, especially considering his valuable sponsorship deals with major brands like Nike. It’s unclear how the incident will affect Goff’s relationship with the company, and whether other athletes will follow his example in refusing to participate in political campaigns.

The financial impact on Nike is not small. The loss of $100 million was not only due to decreased sales of Pride products, but also from being denied in the media, harming the company’s image in the short term. Analysts say the decision to partner with Goff on this campaign may have been a mistake, as his stance on Pride products created a disconnect between Nike’s marketing message and its strategies. public promotion.

Nike may need to adjust its strategy in the future. On the one hand, the company’s commitment to inclusion and social activism has helped Nike gain a loyal fan base, especially among youth and socially conscious consumers. On the other hand, the company also risks offending a large segment of conservative customers,