Nike Goes Full Gen Z Zoolander – Commits Cultural Suicide

This is republished with permission by the author. The original can be found at House of Strauss, “Nike’s Terrible NBA Jerseys Show They’re Still Fighting the Customer,” here.

***

House of Strauss has followed the Fall of Nike since its inception, and it’s a rich topic because there are so many components. The more politically-oriented tend to see this crash as cultural in nature (“wokeness,” according to some), whereas the more business-minded focus on Nike’s disastrous “direct-to-consumer” rejection of retailers.

The failed DTC bid is the more tangible wound for Nike and thus more directly explanatory. I think it can be too tempting for some financial pundits though, especially among the controversy-avoidant, to wholly lean on this functional mistake. It’s a huge reason for Nike’s fall, obviously, but there’s clearly something wrong with that company’s corporate culture beyond nuts and bolts strategic choices. This week’s release of Nike’s widely panned Specter Edition NBA uniforms is yet another indicator of the company’s cultural rot. The people running this place just refuse to accept that sports fans like what they like. They keep trying to appoint a new customer rather than bend to the customer’s preference.

Just look at these terrible uniforms, in a now long line of terrible uniforms foisted on NBA teams. I lack the aesthetic vocabulary to completely convey the appearance of these dark designs, but they remind me of this Fantasy Football league I played in years ago, on a now antiquated website, where our teams were given blandly unaffiliated uniforms. The best way I can describe the jerseys is that it’s like if a movie from three decades ago imagined what players would wear in some fictional future league. The team logos are so deemphasized that they almost convey the appearance of a filmmaker sidestepping copyright infringement concerns. Had Space Jam dressed Michael Jordan in this, it would have tracked, but also looked worse than what was actually chosen.

Nike’s Specter Edition uniforms for the 2026-27 season “reimagine team identity for the league’s oldest franchises through their history, culture and the energy of today’s game.” I don’t believe fans were necessarily clamoring for their team’s identity to get “reimagined.” Nike explains the origin of creation with:

The collection was created to revolutionize the look of the NBA for the next generation, strengthening the connection between what athletes wear on court and how fans express their team devotion.

“Revolutionize”? Why? This is the exact sort of situation for which the cliché phrase, “you don’t need to reinvent the wheel,” exists. The value proposition of uniforms is that they are uniform. Fans have an emotional, Pavlovian attachment to a team’s classic jerseys. The notion that “next generation” demands a change falls into my Rule of Corporate Slop:

A trend is bad when even its defenders can’t defend it on merit, but instead only speculate that hypothetical kids must like it.

You can see what Nike’s going for in their photos of the apparel launch: Young, diverse models of varying hairstyles, glumly sporting this supposed garb of the future. There’s nothing wrong with the kids in the pictures, other than how they’re posed and what they’re wearing. This is not what actual sports fans at a sports corporation would produce. It’s giving supercilious Gen Z Zoolander. This isn’t clothing for happy jocks. This is attire for sullen fashionista catwalks.

As I’ve mentioned, anecdotally, the most commonly-worn uniform I see at my kid’s school is the classic, standard Steph Curry. Because why wouldn’t it be? The common blue and gold Warriors jersey is a minimalist beauty. They’re also the uniforms one envisions when thinking about “Steph Curry.” What’s with this concept that the kids instead cry out for this darkened shimmery nonsense, connected to nothing?

I’m also skeptical that this overkill is all done to appease children, who just love novelty so much. Many parents in the Bay Area have had the experience of buying their child a Steph Curry jersey. Very few Bay Area parents have had the experience of a kid being disappointed that the uniform just so happens to be classic blue-and-yellow Warriors colors. To have a problem with this would be like being mad that daddy bought you a dapple-gray pony instead of a chestnut pony. But more to the point, blue and yellow are the colors Steph Curry is most associated with. Anecdotally, when you see kids wearing a Steph jersey, it’s almost always one of these two options.

You might assume that the NBA teams are in league with Nike in this project, and that all parties are eager to sell newfangled products. This is incorrect. The team people I talk to are sick of Nike’s constant tinkering and demands that their teams sport increasingly bizarre designs. To be blunt, the sources I have are tired of Nike’s idiocy being transposed onto brands they’re trying to protect. They’re also weary of the confusing protocols involved in all this:

In theory, Nike engages in a back-and-forth with NBA teams where design ideas are exchanged. In practice, from what teams tell me, the result is a lot of confusing Nike rules and dictation regarding which jerseys and when. NBA franchises must manage being managed by Nike. The league office doesn’t appear to care about the aggravations and brand issues so long as the sponsorship checks clear.

As recently as April, I wrote about a UBS report that theorized Nike had been hurt by a decline in NBA star power. While that’s a plausible interpretation of the recent past, following a boffo NBA Finals, Adam Silver’s league looks to be in far better health than its major partner. It’s now dysfunctional Nike that’s arguably the millstone (literally?) around the NBA’s neck. The NBA can brag about currently commanding a TV rights price that embarrasses the NFL. Nike can boast about once having been listed in the S&P 100.

More to the point of this article, Nike’s DTC failure has arguably little to do with its struggles on this crazy NBA uniform front. This is a cultural disconnect that, if we’re being taboo, could be downstream from gender-informed shakeups at the company. Quoting me:

In 2018, a New York Times article detailed the middle-up “revolt” within Nike, driven by women who had enough of an “environment that had turned toxic.” According to the report, the Nike company culture wasn’t so far from that of the locker room, which will run you into some problems when your locker room employs 75,000 people, with both sexes included. Even if Nike had thrived over the decades, its ways didn’t seem sustainable in the modern world. Finally, a concerted push from middle class female employees led to multiple high-profile male ousters, including the aforementioned Trevor Edwards.

Trevor Edwards was CEO heir-apparent but got undone by his #MeToo transgressions. I’m not defending whatever Edwards did. I’m instead observing that Nike, shocked by the scandal, made a guilt-ridden effort to change course with new management hires. The attempt to excise the bad appears to have been a botched surgery. Nike ceased to be a male-oriented sports company. They shifted into becoming a fashion company. Sports fans like sports. They don’t necessarily like “fashion” for its own sake.

***

Ethan Strauss is the creator of the Substack House of Strauss. He is a former NBA PR gopher, basketblogger, and NBA beat writer.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org