Discussion

• mprentiss :

  Just do it.

  In concept, I agree with the sentiment that Michael Vick should be afforded the same due process as anyone else, but profiting from his celebrity status at this time in unacceptable and Nike must be held accountable as a brand that stands for heroic accomplishments. Nike has tremendous influence in endorsing professional athletes' behavior and image, and to me, it just seems like good business to distance themselves from Vick during this time to send a strong message that their values will never be compromised. Not doing do is a serious affront to consumers' trust and confidence.

  Posted on July 27, 2007 10:52 AM

• b99ruce :

  I'm shocked that it has not occurred to Working Assets to remember that there is a thing in this country called the Constitution. In the United States we operate under the rule of law.

  Whatever you think he has done, Mr. Vick is innocent until proven guilty. Any action by Nike or the NFL before Mr. Vick is convicted would place Nike and the NFL in violation of contract. Allegations are just that--unproven. Mr Vick will suffer enough AFTER he is convicted--IF he is actually convicted. Let the system work.

  Posted on July 27, 2007 2:36 PM

• bbond :

  see updated entry: Nike has responded to pressure from over 15,000 ActForChange activists and suspended Michael Vick's contract.

  Posted on July 27, 2007 2:52 PM

• gargoyle collector :

  b99ruce -

  You're absolutely correct - we do operate under the rule of law.

  However, in this country there's also a thing they call a morality clause - which I'm sure Nike has in its contract with Vick. If he is drawing negative publicity to the company, or if he cannot be used effectively to market their products, there is no reason for them to keep paying him. The precedent has already been set - Latrell Sprewell and Kobe Bryant were both relieved of their contracts, even though neither was convicted of a crime.

  Posted on July 27, 2007 3:31 PM

• vanyel :

  It is a sad day when the lynch mob wins. It's this sort of guilty until proven innocent mentality that destroyed lives in the Mccarthy era, and many other times as well. If we don't stand up for rule of law and justice (and for that matter freedom itself, though that's not an issue in this specific instance) here in America, who will?

  Posted on July 27, 2007 3:37 PM

• DrRock :

  I have to say that I am usually on board with most of the causes that Working Assets supports. I believe in this instance however, that the gun has been jumped. As has been stated before, Mr. Vick is entitled to stand trial for these accusations, and not be subjected to a trial by the media.

  I saw some of the coverage yesterday of Mr. Vick's court appearance, and I shook my head at the protestors on both sides of the argument.

  Certainly those individuals have a right to have their voice heard on the matter, but who among them has even a shred of information regarding it other than that which the media has chosen to exploit for ratings?

  Am I the only one one who finds it ironic that not too long ago, Working Assets took a stand in favor of protecting Habeus Corpus, and now they are asking people to act as judge, jury and executioner in this case?

  As a dog owner, I can certainly understand the emotion that fuels this case, and if the truth in this case eventually does implicate Mr. Vick, then I believe that he should be punished. Consequently, he will suffer from his actions. I don't think a multi-billion corporation like Nike needs to be told that having a dog killer as a spokesman is a bad idea.

  But instead of asking Nike to stop giving millions of dollars to an athlete who is merely accused of a crime, why don't we instead hold their feet to the flames on their history of human rights violations when it comes to the way they manufacture their shoes?

  I think that might be a better use of Working Assets' time and resources.

  Posted on July 27, 2007 4:25 PM

• bbond :

  thanks for your thoughtful comment.

  the working assets political department has spent most of its week working to end the war, to plan our 2008 voter registration campaign and to stop the california legislature from approving $1 billion in tax cuts for corporations. however, we did decide to address Nike about the michael vick case - but not because it's more important than other pressing political concerns. you and i both know that the war, global warming, the suspension of habeas corpus are all crises of quite another order of magnitude.

  as a company that stands for a more just, humane and sustainable world, we are in a unique position to say to another company that says it is trying to grow a culture of corporate responsibility that it is wrong in this case and should change course.

  nike said publicly that it had no plans to drop vick's contract. of course we would never ask people to be judge, jury or certainly not executioner of michael vick. and we would never advocate for vick to be jailed without a trial. as you note we have been a leader in the fight to restore habeas corpus. but while there used to be a constitutional right to habeas corpus (and we are working hard to restore it), there is not a constitutional right to a lucrative endorsement contract.

  if a company suggests it has a policy of corporate responsibility - which Nike asserts - then we must hold them to it. and that's what over 15,000 people did in this case. they called Nike on its rhetoric. Nike, listening to the people raise their voice, reversed itself and adopted the position it should have taken from the beginning.

  we agree that spending time and money on fighting for human rights is a worthy task for working assets. and indeed that is what we do. in fact, this year we're funding groups like the Global Fund for Women and Human Rights Watch who help fight sweatshops. and while they are not on the ballot this year, when i met the executive director of sweatshop watch in dc a couple of years ago she thanked working assets for being one of the earliest and biggest contributors to her organization.

  our sustained funding and efforts will always go to projects like fixing our broken electoral system, achieving environmental sustainability, and promoting economic justice. but every once in a while we will raise our voice when an issue comes up where we can make a difference quickly. we did that today with nike, and we are pleased with the result.

  Posted on July 27, 2007 5:33 PM