In a sports story today, the NFL has apparently fined Robert
Griffin III $10,000 for wearing “unauthorized apparel” (in the form of an
Adidas-branded clothing item) during a post-game interview. Then the story goes on to say: “Call us crazy,
but we get the impression that this is brand awareness Adidas isn’t entirely
unhappy with.” You think so?
Yes, this is an instance of the proverbial: “You can’t buy publicity like that!” Yes, apparently RG III would
rather pay $10,000 to wear something by Adidas, rather than wear something by
Nike. And this is a big embarrassment for the NFL and Nike. Of course it couldn’t happen if they weren’t trying to dictate everyone’s personal clothing choices. And this makes it look like people have to be forced into wearing Nike stuff: nice move, NFL. (I was unaware the NFL had the power to compel everyone to dress as they demand even after the games are over. This seems a bit repressive to me. Could they make them all wear dresses too? A dress code is one thing, but a mandatorily-branded dress code? Seems silly. Must they all also only eat Papa John's Pizza and drink Bud Light at home? And do special spies/enforcers see to it that they all obey?)
Part of the problem here is that I don’t believe the NFL has
the right to enforce its brand tyranny during a post-game interview. Isn’t that
after the game? And isn’t what RG III
chooses to wear then his own free expression? And isn’t freedom of expression
constitutionally protected? I think RG III might want to see a constitutional
lawyer to find out. Under the current makeup of the Supreme Court, they might
side with the NFL (because conservatives always seem to side with big business
regardless of morality, legality, constitutionality, etc.), but if he presses this as an issue of freedom of expression
outside of the playing of a football game, maybe he could win and liberate everyone
to do as they please when it comes to clothing. And that might open up more
sponsorship deals that could help football players earn a bit more advertising
dollars just in case they get injured, or at the very least they could choose their own comfy clothes for after the tough game. (Or he could get benched for his efforts to challenge NFL policy: who knows? But the fans would be very upset if he didn’t play due to NFL marketing politics, I can tell you!)
And that brings me to this idea for an Adidas ad based upon
this fine. They could show RG III wearing his NFL uniform with the Nike logo
defaced, and have him narrate: “When I’m on the field, I have to wear what they tell me; but when the game’s over, I’ve got to wear my Adidas! I’d rather pay a
$10,000 fine than wear any other brand!” And then they could show him looking
snappy in some Adidas outfit, and then they could write his name, and have the
‘III’ look like the Adidas trademark triple stripe, and say: “RG III and
Adidas: Made for each other.” (It could join the long line of strife-based
loyalty ads, like the “I’d rather fight than switch” Tareyton cigarette ads
from the 1960s and ‘70s.)
Here is the Adidas-aware Yahoo! Sports article:
And this is the old Tareyton ad campaign:
