Given the significant financial power that a retailer and sponsor like Nike can

Question

Given the significant financial power that a retailer and sponsor like Nike can have in the sports world, does it have any obligation to use that power to do good in connection with its particular industry? A 2006 New York Times article 28 suggested that “(m)ore than television packages, more than attendance at the gate, track and field is driven by shoe company dough. Nike could, if it chose, threaten to pull its financial support from the coaches and trainers of athletes who are barred for doping violations. For years, the caretakers of the athletes have also been suspected as the doping pushers. Curiously, Nike hasn’t fallen in line with everyone else calling for strict liability among coaches, trainers and athletes.” The article instead suggests that Nike does not benefit when a star falls from glory so it tends to shy away from this area of oversight. In fact, it goes so far as to say that “Nike is the doping society’s enabler.” Can you make the argument that Nike has an obligation to intervene? Or, if you do not agree with an argument for its responsibility to do good, could you instead make an economic argument in favor of intervention?

Explanation / Answer

This is a concern for CSR i.e. corporate Social Responsibility. Any socially responsible corporate feels obligation to serve the society atleast in ethical, legal and social matters. Now Nike is one of the biggest sponsor as it has lot of financial power and influence on the game so any decision taken by this firm has a lot of impact on social and ethical structuring of the game. Now Nike's Oregon project coach Alberto Salazar is a recent case of encouraging team runner's to dope inorder to improve team performance. Though Nike says that they do not condone the use of performance enhancing drugs but is has been seen that they have a repution of not being strict on these cases.

So if Nike starts actually by maintaining distance from those who are involved in doping, to which it also has social and ethical obligation, will have a good economic effect also. Now players with natural capabilities will move ahead in the race which was initially generating economic inequality. People may loose interest in the game if they find that results are not just.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse G
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.