Gilleran isn't alone in wondering whether restrictions in the contract could lead to pressure to make medical decisions based on the school's obligations to a shoe supplier. "Why should we be surprised that there's all these detailed contracts involving spatting?" "We're calling Oregon the University of Nike, and we're accepting of that," he said of the Ducks' close ties to the shoe giant. "The red flag for me is anytime you put economic incentive potentially balanced against health and welfare of the student-athlete," said Mike Gilleran, executive director of the Santa Clara University Institute of Sports Law and Ethics. With shoe companies financing contracts for the exposure that outfitting a major program can provide with 12 regular-season TV appearances, their best interest is to have the logos on their shoes visible. Schools receive millions in rights fees, compensation for coaches and administrators as well as apparel and equipment for these deals, but it's not as simple as lacing up the cleats. And that's what our medical staff is there to opine on." "But there's also no doubt that there are times that it's requested that it may not have been a medical or a health protection basis. "First and foremost, the issue is going to be about student health and student welfare and safety and medical protection," she said. Representatives for Nike did not respond to multiple requests for an interview or to e-mailed questions.īut Barbour told USA TODAY Sports that when she sent that e-mail last year, she was seeking to bring new staff members up to date on the school's obligations. With the NCAA battling multiple lawsuits regarding players' inability to profit off their likenesses and the long-term health effects from football, the ankle joint becomes where commercial and medical interests can be at odds.Īdidas and Under Armour declined comment, and a number of universities did not make their athletic trainers available. It also raises questions about the release of players' private health information and calls attention to the players' lack of control over their own bodies. That those agreements inhibit the taping of ankles, including financial penalties on multimillion dollar contracts, illustrates what is seen as the ever-expanding influence of shoe companies in collegiate sports. (Per state public records laws, Penn State and Pittsburgh were not required to supply contracts.) Of those contracts, 22 did not allow spatting and 32 provided for it in cases where it is medically necessary. USA TODAY Sports obtained the apparel contracts for 54 public schools that were in the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Southeastern Conference last season. In fact, the school's apparel contract does restrict spatting as it does for virtually every school with contracts with the biggest shoe suppliers - Nike, Adidas and Under Armour. "I believe that even in the case of injury, we are limited in the number of shoes that may be 'spatted' for any given game," she wrote. In Cal's case, Barbour asked Moosman and Cobb to review the terms of the school's Nike contract. That's where it becomes a source of conflict in college football among universities, players and shoe companies. The telltale sign is an ankle with tape over the sock, shoe and - most important - the shoe's logo. Spatting is a common practice in football, especially in the NFL where about half of players do it on a weekly basis for additional support, to restrict motion in the ankle and prevent sprains - or just as a fashion statement. Two days after a victory at Washington State moved the Golden Bears to 3-4, Barbour e-mailed equipment manager Dave Moosman and head athletic trainer Ryan Cobb about several players having their ankles spatted during the game. As the University of California's football team suffered through a dismal 3-9 season last year, athletics director Sandy Barbour had another concern - ankle tape.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |