H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°Millions of years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, it was a much simpler time for fashion. Tony T-Rex and Donald Diplodocus would just get up and go around munching on leaves or each other, with minimal regard to their outer garments, or lack thereof.
Even early man — Adam notwithstanding — in bison skin togas and loincloths probably didn't give too much thought to his wardrobe beyond whether to go with the single- or dual-shoulder-strap look. I mean, you never saw Fred Flintstone or Barney Rubble ever give his garb a first thought, much less a second.
Fast-forward to today, and the University of Wisconsin finds itself in a major wardrobe malfunction with Adidas, the worldwide footwear and athletic wear conglomerate.
Despite what the band Korn might say, Adidas' main focus for UW is to provide the school's athletic gear for all sports teams while also owning the rights to sell Badger apparel.
The problem: Several groups are accusing Adidas of unfair labor practices that include allegations of sweatshops and underage workers.
Thus far, there has been no definitive answer as to the validity of these allegations, and Adidas has been cooperative in inquires and investigations in their factories, a sign they have nothing to hide, so I won't waste your time and mine hunting and pecking my way toward supporting or bashing the brand with the three stripes.
However, I do have a message for those who are calling for UW Chancellor John Wiley to cancel the contract that UW currently has with Adidas.
Be careful what you wish for.
Two words of caution to those who want nothing more than to see a new company represent Badger athletics: Oregon Ducks.
The University of Oregon is represented by Nike, and in recent years, the Duck football team has looked part horrendous and part Richard Simmons. No, there haven't been leg warmers and excessive use of multicolored spandex, but it has been close. The Oregon uniforms have included such design elements as plated steel indentations and have incorporated colors that are not part of the Flying V's color palette, such as black and silver.
The Fowl currently have more than 150 uniform combinations. To put it bluntly, if college football were a giant episode of "Project Runway," you could expect to see Oregon eliminated roughly by the time the opening credits finished running — or whenever Heidi Klum got knocked up again, whichever comes first.
Nike hasn't only offended the irises of the non-colorblind in the Beaver State either. In fact, they have caused fashion nightmares in the already unsightly locales of Gainesville, Fla. (University of Florida) and Blacksburg, Va. (Virginia Tech), giving the schools jerseys that had one sleeve colored differently than the other, as if the teams were throwing gang signs out on the field. The one-rolled-up-pant-leg uniform is almost certainly in the works.
Wisconsin fans don't want their team to be the guinea pig team that is forced to wear it once Nike completes it, do they?
This leads us to the crux of the problem: Is there really a better alternative to Adidas? The Evil Empire of footwear — let's call them Air Vader — would be the obvious choice and could even give UW a better marketing base than las tres rayas. However, the otherwise lovely Madison environment would find itself polluted by the school's athletic teams' radioactive color combinations.
However, Nike has had more sweatshop allegations than J-Lo has had husbands, so there seems to be no advantage to changing from Adidas to Nike sponsorship.
Sure, there are other alternatives besides Nike, but they are all a step down from Adidas, at least in the resources and marketability the company can offer. Plus, they all have strong downsides, too.
For example, other athletic sponsor alternatives include And1; do you really want the Badgers becoming part of the And1 Mix Tape with a DJ on the field for all events? What about Under Armour — while protecting this house is nice, the catchphrase would get old faster than McCulley Culkin — and how about Russell Athletic — who likes Kurt Russell anyway? And last, Bike Athletic — if you had an old-school coach or a semi-athletic father, you've seen Bike shorts and know why this is simply unacceptable.
If it becomes fact that Adidas is truly exploiting workers, UW management will have some serious decisions to make. However, to prematurely cancel a relationship with the apparel provider will have dire consequences. If they do, the new most important piece of equipment will become sunglasses.
Dave McGrath ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in journalism and English. He is also the sports editor of The Badger Herald.
IP hash: 74dd0677
dude, the kids in SLAC are the types who wish we didn’t have sports at UW because it reinforces gender inequality
IP hash: df37b8ba
Puma would be cool.
IP hash: d9257cb0
Dave, stick to something you’re good at: sports.
IP hash: d9257cb0
2:05—
As a “kid in SLAC”, I’ve had season tickets for football for three years, hockey for one, and basketball for one.
Also, licensing revenue provides scholarships, giving working class kids the chance to go to college. Thus we recognize the value of high licensing revenue.
But we want to be proud of not just the logo on the shirts we wear on game days, but also of the conditions in which they were made. And we believe that high revenue and good conditions aren’t mutually exclusive.
IP hash: 21354664
Were this writer trying to be funny, or trying to make a serious point? Either way, he failed miserably.
IP hash: 1ff573aa
Dave, before there was the exclusive adidas contract, there was a patchwork of individual contracts for each team. For example, rowing could hypothetically source their uniforms from Nike, basketball from adidas, football from Reebok. Every misconstrued Badger Herald editorial has chosen to ignore this historical fact. So when you say, what alternative is there? This is the alternative, and in fact, a more beneficial choice. Individual teams can choose the brand that is best established to supply them—surely adidas cannot be the best supplier of ALL uniforms. This gives the football team the opportunity to avoid the fate of the Oregon teams, by being able to pick and choose. And for activists and concerned administrators (there are many, by the way), because even “good” manufacturers have a handfull of bad apple factories, and because “bad” manufacturers still have a few good ones, this selectivity enables the university to source from only good factories, where labor rights and even domestic and ILO/UN laws are followed.
Another of your claims is categorically untrue: “Thus far, there has been no definitive answer as to the validity of these allegations, and Adidas has been cooperative in inquires and investigations in their factories, a sign they have nothing to hide, so I won't waste your time and mine hunting and pecking my way toward supporting or bashing the brand with the three stripes.”
The principal “allegation” is that the factory managers embezzled the workers’ social security and severance pay at the Hermosa factory in El Salvador, after adidas cut orders from the factory and in effect closed it. This cutting and running is due to the workers’ attempts at forming a union. After the factory was closed, the workers were blacklisted—that is, they are unable to find jobs because of their history of union activity. The Salvadoran courts have supported the claims of the workers and have recognized this blacklisting. This is recognized internationally as a violation of both human rights and labor law. But more importantly, this is an explicit violation of UW’s licensing Code of Conduct. On top of this, Georgetown University is also making strides to reprimand or cut adidas. Thus, these “allegations” are not only supported by the Salvadoran courts as being true, they are also contrary to the university’s expectations of adidas. So yes, in fact there has been a “definitive answer as to the validity of these allegations.”
As for adidas’ cooperation, that can also be called into question. While the claim can be made that adidas is following the letter of the law (this is adidas’ defense, that they aren’t responsible for their subcontractors), there is insurmountable evidence that they are not following its spirit. Take, for example, it’s response to the $800,000 owed in back wages, benefits, and severance to the workers: nothing. A corporate assistance fund was created, which donated about $30,000 to the cause. adidas likely contributed some of this, but won’t admit to it because it would establish a precedent for corporate responsibility to its subcontracted employees.
Then take it’s response to requests from numerous parties that it rehire the laid off workers at its sister factory in the same city: “we can’t hire them because they are unqualified.” While one made a certain type of clothing, another made a different type. adidas isn’t requiring a B.A. from Hermosa workers and a Ph.D. from the other group — industry training takes at most a week, and this is an industry whose primary employees are young women who supposedly have no other marketable skills and are easy to train (this is an industry claim). So this can only be seen as stubbornness on the part of adidas to really ameliorate the situation.
What isn’t yet certain is whether adidas materially breached the terms of the exclusivity agreement. Jane Collins and Dennis Dresang, professors appointed to the UW’s Labor Licensing Policy Committee, experts in international labor and government respectively, along with the other 6 voting members agreed that there was in fact such a breach. The Chancellor’s staff has been indecisive, but will make a formal conclusion following a visit to El Salvador by Dawn Crim, an assistant to Wiley. But do not be surprised when conclusive evidence is established.
IP hash: a9b3a62a
Yea, I don’t get it. It was really trying hard, I almost pity laughed in the middle a few times. What category of writing style would this come under?
IP hash: 74dd0677
the responses here only go to show how out of touch SLAC is with the UW student body. this was a joke piece and UW students would laugh at it.
As for the slac member with sports tickets: dude, inequality man. Don’t you realize how bad we treat workers at the Kohl center? How about the oppressive nature of the homophobic culture of NCAA athletics? You all are so funny with your contradictions.
IP hash: e314cbe3
Those of you who don’t get the humor, obviously haven’t read enough of Dave’s columns. Dave is an excellent satirical writer; it’s hard to say his true stance on UW and Adidas here, but that’s not the point of this column. It’s taking a lighthearted approach to a very controversial subject and offering a funny perspective on the matter.
That said, I agree with the first post. I can’t honestly look at an SLAC member who supports this drive against Adidas and really take them seriously as a sports fan. You like Capital One Bowl bids? You like 30-win seasons and national championships? Adidas is a big part of that. Don’t mess it up. And as for the suggestion to let each team make their own choice of apparel; yeah, that’ll get a lot done. It’s easier to stick with the gear you’ve been wearing, why change now just because some group won’t shut up about workers in El Salvador…even about a month after Wiley all but dismissed the case?
I’m not condoning what Adidas “allegedly” did. But my guess is they wouldn’t be the first or the last company to have similar problems. It’s silly to outcast Adidas when Nike or Under Armour or other clothing lines have imperfect manufacturing systems as well.
Let it go, SLAC. Let it go. It may sound insensitive to you, but in life there are bigger fish to fry than this confusing and unnecessary battle.