I remember watching the video of A. Montaño participating in the 2014 US athletics championships and finishing her 800 m race in an amazing 2:32.13 while 8-months pregnant.
(And she did it again in 2017 while 5-months pregnant, running in 2:21.40).
At the time I was thinking (quite naïvely, I admit) that she did it just to show that it can be done. Well, the story is quite different. When Montaño told Nike she was pregnant, they told her they would pause her sponsorship contract and stop paying her.
And, of course, A. Montaño (a world bronze medalist) was not the only elite female runner who had had problems with her sponsor because she decided to become a mother. World vice-champion, K. Goucher recently decided to break her nondisclosure agreement with Nike in order to make a public statement concerning the treatment the company reserved to future moms. But although both Montaño and Goucher are great champions they pale when compared to multiple World and Olympic champion A. Felix. One would have thought that Felix would have been pampered by Nike. Nothing is farthest from the truth.
When A. Felix decided to have a baby she knew that she was taking a risk. Felix gave birth having to undergo an emergency C-section at 32 weeks because of severe pre-eclampsia and then Nike pressured her to return to training as soon as possible while deciding to pay her 70 percent less than before. And the funny thing is that A. Felix had decided to join Nike because of their initiative called the Girl Effect that promoted adolescent girls as the key to improving societies around the globe. Of course Nike keeps pretending they are promoting gender equality and claiming to elevate female athletes.
In order to fully grasp the problem one must understand that the economics of athletics are different form those of other professional sports where athletes receive a salary. In athletics the athletes' income comes almost exclusively from sponsorship deals inked with apparel companies. Of course, the absolute best athletes supplement this income with prize money from winning races, but most must contend themselves with the sponsoring money which just allows them to earn a decent living: they do not get rich but the get to do what they love.
After the New York Times published the results of their investigation with interviews of several champion moms, Nike could no more ignore the chorus of critics and keep pretending that all was fine. In an official statement they acknowledged that "as is common practice in our industry, our agreements do include performance-based payment reductions. Historically, a few female athletes had performance-based reductions applied.” In a memo addressed to Nike employees, A. Montagne, a company vice president, referred to Ms Montano and Ms Felix and wrote that she was “saddened” to hear of Ms Felix’s experience with the company. Ms Montagne wrote that Nike realised last year that performance obligations had a disproportionate effect on female athletes who became pregnant and that the company began creating an official maternity policy. But, she wrote, the company had not informed its sponsored athletes of that effort. (Does anybody have trouble believing this? Well, I do).
All is well that ends well? Not so fast! The N.Y. Times report that a 2019 track and field Nike sponsorship contract still includes a clause that says Nike can cut sponsorship pay when athletes don’t meet their performance goals “for any reason.”
Moreover, when asked if Nike would be awarding back pay to female athletes who had been penalised in the past, the spokesperson did not respond.
Of course Nike is not the only villain in this story. The same policy prevails in most apparel companies. And, in fact, following the Nike debacle several brands came forward to announce new contractual guarantees for women who have children while being supported by their sponsorships.
But wait, there's more (although this is a US-specific thing). The american elite athletes receive health insurance from the U.S. Olympic Committee and U.S.A. Track & Field. But that insurance can vanish if women don’t place in the top tier of the nation’s most competitive races. In fact K. Goucher and A. Montaño both lost their health insurance because they were unable to compete at that level while having their children. US indoor champion P. Wright had some very apt remarks concerning athletics and motherhood. She dubbed pregnancy "the kiss of death" for an athlete's career and went on to point out that “some people think women are racing pregnant for themselves. It sometimes is, but it’s also because there’s a baby to feed”.
Montaño running while 8-months pregnant
At the time I was thinking (quite naïvely, I admit) that she did it just to show that it can be done. Well, the story is quite different. When Montaño told Nike she was pregnant, they told her they would pause her sponsorship contract and stop paying her.
and again when 5-months pregnant
A. Felix and her new-born daughter
In order to fully grasp the problem one must understand that the economics of athletics are different form those of other professional sports where athletes receive a salary. In athletics the athletes' income comes almost exclusively from sponsorship deals inked with apparel companies. Of course, the absolute best athletes supplement this income with prize money from winning races, but most must contend themselves with the sponsoring money which just allows them to earn a decent living: they do not get rich but the get to do what they love.
After the New York Times published the results of their investigation with interviews of several champion moms, Nike could no more ignore the chorus of critics and keep pretending that all was fine. In an official statement they acknowledged that "as is common practice in our industry, our agreements do include performance-based payment reductions. Historically, a few female athletes had performance-based reductions applied.” In a memo addressed to Nike employees, A. Montagne, a company vice president, referred to Ms Montano and Ms Felix and wrote that she was “saddened” to hear of Ms Felix’s experience with the company. Ms Montagne wrote that Nike realised last year that performance obligations had a disproportionate effect on female athletes who became pregnant and that the company began creating an official maternity policy. But, she wrote, the company had not informed its sponsored athletes of that effort. (Does anybody have trouble believing this? Well, I do).
K. Goucher and her son
Moreover, when asked if Nike would be awarding back pay to female athletes who had been penalised in the past, the spokesperson did not respond.
Of course Nike is not the only villain in this story. The same policy prevails in most apparel companies. And, in fact, following the Nike debacle several brands came forward to announce new contractual guarantees for women who have children while being supported by their sponsorships.
But wait, there's more (although this is a US-specific thing). The american elite athletes receive health insurance from the U.S. Olympic Committee and U.S.A. Track & Field. But that insurance can vanish if women don’t place in the top tier of the nation’s most competitive races. In fact K. Goucher and A. Montaño both lost their health insurance because they were unable to compete at that level while having their children. US indoor champion P. Wright had some very apt remarks concerning athletics and motherhood. She dubbed pregnancy "the kiss of death" for an athlete's career and went on to point out that “some people think women are racing pregnant for themselves. It sometimes is, but it’s also because there’s a baby to feed”.
No comments:
Post a Comment