Wrong color. Wrong timing. Make-shift jerseys assembled on game day. The GUIDON unravels the sponsorship that just didn’t do it.

It was his fault. Because of him, everyone wanted to fly. Because of him, taking off from the free-throw line wasn’t that absurd of an idea anymore.

More than anything though, because of Michael Jordan and his shoes, Nike made a killing at the market. Not long after, the Swoosh was synonymous with success and greatness. If you wanted to be the best, chances are, you’d be wearing a pair of Nike’s. Who could ask for a better brand?

In March 2010, the University Athletics Office (UAO) revealed that seven long years of partnership with Adidas would be terminated in favor of a more flexible deal with Nike. From Adidas’ classic three stripes, Ateneo athletes would be sporting the Swoosh beginning UAAP Season 73, with the contract inked for the next three years.

Says Emmanuel Fernandez, Assistant Director of the UAO, “It was a win-win for us because it was picking one number one brand over another number one brand.”

The launch of Nike’s “New Breed, New Game, New Legacy” campaign  featuring FEU’s Aldrech Ramos, San Beda’s Borgy Hermida, and Ateneo’s own Nico Salva came at the heels of its then-recently announced sponsorship of the Blue and White, and came full circle during the peak of the collegiate basketball season.

Fashionably late

The Nike sponsorship, just like a good letdown novel, proved anticlimactic. After the initial excitement had died down, the hyped-up deal slowly revealed gaping holes in its execution.

“We’re still waiting for our jerseys and shorts,” confirms a Lady Batter. The uniforms, which should have been worn as their official attire for the duration of the UAAP, still haven’t arrived. What’s more, they received their spikes from Nike just before their final game of the season, rendering the shoes virtually useless.

Meanwhile, at the Track and Field Championships opening ceremony, the Blue and Lady Tracksters stood next to the DLSU contingent, clad in matching velour tracksuits. In contrast, the Tracksters were dressed with rubber shoes and apparel which apparently lacked a cohesive theme.

“Frankly, we looked kawawa (pitiful) and non-intimidating. Our rubber shoes did not match. We didn’t get our spikes. Everything was just make-do,” shares Lady Trackster Ally Lim.

“We also received some of our gear late,” striker Anton Amistoso says. The Blue Booters received two pairs of cleats, a gym bag, a jacket, and their jerseys―minus the Nike Swoosh. “You’d think they would go all out because it’s their first year [as sponsors], but they’re leaving a bad impression,” he continues.

The examples don’t end there. Ari Salud and the Blue Rowers received their Nike jackets in early March, well after any meet they had to compete in. If the rationale for having jackets is to wear them for school representation during competitions, it seems as though Nike had no sense of logistical timing.

Quality merchandise

Paddlers Mihali Crisostomo, Nicole Taleon and Rhome Yu were assured by the UAO at the beginning of the year that the table tennis teams, as well as their coaches, would receive uniforms and equipment from Nike. And they did―except that the jackets and uniforms, which again, came without Nike logos, were “sticky and itchy.”

Worse even was that none of their coaches received anything, and were forced to wear the Adidas apparel from the previous years. Shares one of the athletes, “[The players] all chipped in to buy our coach a Nike jacket.”

The Blue and Lady Judokas likewise were promised uniforms early on but later only received jackets. To make matters worse, the team was advised to reuse their Adidas uniforms from last season, and was asked to just “cover the Adidas stripes.”

“In our case, they simply pulled out merchandise available from their store and made us stamp the Ateneo and UAAP seals on them. They didn’t really consider the image we would project,” continues Ally Lim. “It looked so make-shift.”

While the sponsorship deal concedes that Nike cannot supply every single item for every single team, the contract states that Nike must shoulder costs for equipment that they are unable to provide. So what happened? When the athletes themselves have to chip in to buy their coach a jacket, something just isn’t right.

Athletes sound out

The general consensus among most athletes not affiliated with the Men’s Basketball program is that, quite bluntly, the Nike sponsorship was poorly executed. According to one athlete, “They were a bad sponsor because they did not follow through.”

Other athletes feel that the UAO should have taken into account what Nike could not offer. “To be honest, we weren’t really expecting much from Nike since they no longer carry swimming apparel,” says Blue Tanker Mike Contreras.

Given that the Tankers have been supplied by either Speedo or Arena throughout the years—as Adidas also does not carry swimming apparel—perhaps they are not in the best position to judge, but their voice also matters especially because the swimming teams represent the many other squads that Nike isn’t exactly suited to outfit.

“Adidas was better since all the things we received—the jackets and the bags—were unique and really custom-made for each team and varsity. Adidas really gave the whole package in terms of recognizing all varsity teams,” Contreras continues.

“No offense [to] Nike, but [Adidas] is better with distinction,” Women’s Swimming team captain Paui Peña remarks.

A Blue Booter who preferred not to be named admits, “The previous sponsorship was so much better. Our jerseys this season were not Nike, but they should have been. It’s [just] not up to par with the Adidas sponsorship.”

Hindsight is 20/20

A substantial number of athletes agree that, although attire will never be an excuse for mediocre performance on the field or on the courts, what they wear plays a crucial role in their being able to walk their talk.

“We don’t care about the brand, as long as we have something to carry our school’s name to victory. It’s the athlete that brings home the win, not the attire,” according to track and field star Soy Soriano. “But if competition is drawing nearer and the athlete has to worry about the risk of disqualification because the sponsor fails to deliver, then it’s unfair to the athlete who trained for the whole year.”

In a world where nothing ever seems to be enough, satisfaction is a luxury few get to savor. Although it may seem that athletes keep on asking for extra gear and privileges incessantly, the Nike sponsorship and all that it entails have been nothing short of a disappointment.

Athletes are tasked to toil day in and day out, and the least that could have been done was to fix the bare essentials, like having a legitimate jersey instead of a generic one with an Ateneo label ironed on.

Team Ateneo was better off with the stripes. The Adidas contract may have been stricter, but it was definitely better.

In the meantime, Nike has a lot of explaining to do.

MEMO: The GUIDON presented what athletes thought about the Nike sponsorship deal, in “Bring Back the Stripes” Stay tuned for the second part, where Nike and the UAO’s side will be disclosed.