January 12th, 2010
Team Sweat:
Check out the article below about the 8-year endorsement deal Maria Sharapova just extended with Nike. She get’s $70,000,000.00 and the factory workers that make the gear that she wears and promotes continue to live in poverty.
You can contact Ms. Sharapova on Facebook by clicking TELL MARIA TO SUPPORT NIKE’S WORKERS. Just become a fan of her page and start posting.
Peace, Jim Keady
Sharapova nets $75m Nike deal
The Sydney Morning Herald
January 12, 2010
Former Wimbledon champion Maria Sharapova extended her sponsorship agreement with Nike by eight years for $US70 million ($75 million), just days before the start of the Australian Open.
The deal takes effect this month said a person with knowledge of the contract and includes a line of dresses designed by the former top-ranked tennis player.
The 22-year-old will also get a percentage of sales, said the source who asked not to be identified because the terms are private. Nike spokesman Derek Kent declined to comment.
Nike is the world’s largest athletic-shoe maker, and has worked with the Russian for 11 years. Since winning Wimbledon in 2004 at the age of 17, Sharapova has become one of the biggest draws on the WTA Tour and the world’s best-paid female athlete. She has also won the Australian and US Opens.
”Sharapova is one of those stars whose name transcends sports, similar to David Beckham,” said Stefan Szymanski, an economics professor at the Cass Business School in London. ”She’s become an international celebrity first, and an athlete second.”
Sharapova is the fourth favourite to win the Australian Open, which starts on Monday. Kim Clijsters and Serena Williams are co-favourites at 3-1, ahead of Justine Henin at 4-1, said British bookmaker Ladbrokes. Sharapova is 8-1, the gambling site said.
Sharapova makes close to $US22 million a year in prize money and from endorsing companies including Tiffany & Co, Sony Ericsson and Canon, Sports Illustrated has reported. She was the only woman in the magazine’s July list of the top 20 highest-earning non-US athletes.
Nike ‘family’
”She’s very happy to stay with Nike, to stay with the family she’s been with since she was 11,” Max Eisenbud, Sharapova’s agent at IMG Tennis, said in a telephone interview from Coral Gables, Florida.
Venus Williams extended an agreement with Reebok in 2000 that the clothing maker said at the time was ”the most lucrative for a female athlete”. The five-year contract was worth about $US45 million, the player’s family attorney said at the time.
Sharapova, who has nine sponsors, might drop some endorsements in favour of agreements that give her a percentage of sales, Eisenbud said in an interview in September.
”She has wealth,” Eisenbud said at the US Open in New York. ”She wants to focus on deals where she has equity, where she helps designing, gets a percentage of the sales.”
Sharapova already had an equity agreement in place with Cole Haan, a wholly owned Nike subsidiary and US clothing, shoe, handbag and accessory designer.
Shoulder injury
The extension of the Nike deal comes less than a year after Sharapova returned from a right-shoulder injury that sidelined her for nine months and forced her to undergo surgery.
The injury led her to miss the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2008 US Open and the 2009 Australian Open. Ranked outside the top 100, Sharapova returned to the WTA Tour in May.
She made the quarter-finals of the French Open - the only major she has yet to win - and then lost early at both Wimbledon and the US Open. Her play improved late in the year, when she won her 20th Tour title in Tokyo and ended the season ranked No. 14.
Bloomberg News
January 12th, 2010
By Nina Shapiro in Business, Education
Seattle Weekly
Tuesday, Jan. 5 2010
UW Provost, Phyllis Wise
It’s clearer than ever that University of Washington Provost Phyllis Wise stepped into a minefield when she accepted a seat on Nike’s board of directors.
The faculty association yesterday issued a statement calling on Wise to give the position up. Although individual professors had previously griped about the Nike affiliation, which pays up to $200,000 a year, this is the first time the faculty has formally objected to it.
Meanwhile UW President Mark Emmert has written to Nike warning that the company’s relationship with the school–which includes a $35 million contract that makes Nike the exclusive supplier of Husky sportswear–is at risk.
Much of the controversy surrounds treatment of workers at two Nike factories in Honduras run by subcontractors. According to Emmert’s letter, the factories closed after they were unionized, and workers were denied severance pay.
In a statement by the UW branch of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), faculty say that Wise’s presence on the Nike board creates a conflict of interest, given the university’s efforts to ensure that its sweatshirts and other apparel conform to fair labor practices.
The faculty group also claims that Wise’s Nike connection undermines academic freedom by discouraging faculty from speaking out about Nike’s labor practices. “It may not be Provost Wise’s intention to silence criticism from labor experts,” the statement acknowledges. “But when faculty report to a provost who is on Nike’s payroll, institutional incentives favor tolerance for sweatshop abuses.”
Emmert is seemingly trying to show that no such tolerance exists in his letter to Nike (see pdf), which he wrote right before Christmas. Much of the letter is fairly tame, asking for the company’s “perspective” on the Honduran situation and “information on the remediation” due workers there. It stops short of putting the company on “notice” for labor violations, as recommended by his faculty and student Advisory Committee on Trademarks and Licensing.
However, he ends by saying that “a continued relationship between the University of Washington and Nike is very much contingent on your appropriate resolution of this matter.”
Because of this implied threat, Margaret Levi, a political science professor who co-chairs the advisory committee, calls it “a very strong letter.” The question is whether the university will follow through on this threat–despite Wise’s foot in both camps.
Nike spokesperson Kate Meyers says the company is in “close consultation” with the university. In an e-mail sent to the Weekly through a university spokesperson, Wise avoids responding directly to the AAUP’s complaints but says that university leaders can serve on corporate boards in “ethically responsible ways.”
January 12th, 2010
By Pete Jackson
Originally published at crosscut.com
UW Provost, Phyllis Wise
The saga over University of Washington Provost Phyllis Wise’s November 19 appointment as a paid director at Nike took another twist Monday, as the UW chapter of the American Association of University Professors(AAUP) issued a formal statement calling for Wise to step down from the board of the Oregon corporation.
The AAUP announcement comes exactly one week before the start of the 2010 legislative session and a machete-knife budget that could compromise the university’s standing as a top-tier school.
“In my view it is simply inappropriate for a full time, highly paid public servant to personally benefit so handsomely from a corporate board position that she unquestionably gained because of her leadership of one of the most prestigious public universities in the world, “Rep. Reuven Carlyle said Monday. “While I certainly respect her right to privacy, surely she realizes that she is a public official by the very nature of her public role, position, and salary, and her fiduciary obligation is therefore to the people of Washington.”
“I have talented high school seniors in my Seattle district graduating with 3.5, 3.6 grade point averages who can’t get slots at UW,” Carlyle continued, “and their parents are justifiably resentful about that lack of access. That is the real higher education issue, and we need to refocus attention back on what’s important for real people living real lives.”
Opposition to Wise’s appointment largely revolves around the directorship’s annual six-figure compensation, the university’s public image, and Nike’s pattern of bullying universities affiliated with the Workers Rights Consortium and anti-sweatshop activism.
In addition, the University of Washington’s Advisory Committee on Trademarks and Licensing voted last month to put Nike on notice for disregarding the university’s code of conduct. Violations include Nike’s various failures to abide by mandated disclosure standards as well as its refusal to pay severance to workers at two Honduran factories.
The committee’s December 3 recommendation prompted UW President Mark Emmert to notify Nike poobahs that, “The failure of NIKE to properly respond to these current issues will inevitably jeopardize our business relationship.”
In a strongly worded letter written on Dec. 23 but just released, Emmert wrote, “I believe it is important to take this opportunity to underscore the importance of the Code of Conduct and emphasize NIKE’s obligation to fully comply with it. I value the University’s relationship with NIKE, but I also value highly the rights of laborers in NIKE’s manufacturing plants.”
The following is an excerpt from the AAUP statement:
Phyllis Wise clearly was not simply plucked from obscurity as a “private individual” by the Nike Corporation. Nor is it clear why she or President Emmert, both of whom are also members of the UW faculty, should be any more free to act “as a private individual” outside the existing regulations than any other member of the faculty. Since Phyllis Wise is a member of the faculty, her consideration of a position on Nike’s board should be subject to the same mechanisms already in place, for review and approval of the outside activities of faculty members, including service on corporate boards.
When companies seek to work with university faculty, however, it is generally on the basis of the faculty’s expertise in particular areas of research relevant to the company’s activities. It is difficult to see what special interest the Nike Corporation could possibly have in Phyllis Wise’s research expertise in obstetrics and gynecology. Rather, it seems clear that, as the Seattle Times suggests, it is “in her capacity as Provost” that she is being offered this position and is accepting it. In other words, the specialized knowledge and insight that Phyllis Wise has to offer to the Nike Corporation is not her research expertise, but rather her knowledge of (and association with) the University. The Provost’s decision may have been reviewed by legal experts and deemed legally permissible, but it is clearly not in accord with established governance mechanisms, nor is it the right thing to do.
AAUP-UW submits that it is not in the interest of the University for its top administrators to offer up knowledge about the institution, gained in the course of serving in a leadership position within it, to the Nike Corporation or any other private company in the form of a consultancy or service on a corporate board — especially when income from that consultancy goes not to the university itself but into the pocket of the administrator. This holds not only for the Provost but for the President as well.
The University spends a significant amount of money to pay its top administrators, and it is only fair for the University to expect that the individuals receiving that compensation act on behalf of the University and avoid even the appearance of conflicts. In this respect, the salaries of UW’s top administrators might be understood in terms of the argument made regarding police, legislators, and public servants more generally: that they must be compensated fairly in order to avoid creating conditions conducive to corruption. The obligation that this places upon such public servants is crystal clear: they must not enter into any agreement or accept any position that creates even the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest.
Pete Jackson, a former gubernatorial speechwriter, lives in Everett, Wash. You can reach him in care of editor@crosscut.com.
January 12th, 2010
Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) - Portland, Ore. Business Journal
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
An organization of professors at the University of Washington has asked Provost Phyllis Wise to step down from her recent appointment to Nike Inc.’s board of directors.
In a statement issued Monday, the Seattle university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors said Wise’s position on the Nike board is rife with conflicts of interest.
“I understand that reasonable people hold differing views on whether university administrators should serve on corporate boards,” Wise said in a statement published Tuesday by The Seattle Times. “I believe universities and corporations have much to learn from each other. Corporate leaders serving on university boards of trustees and regents and university leaders serving on corporate boards can benefit both and can do so in ethically responsible ways.”
The faculty cited several conflicts of interest, including the Beaverton, Ore.-based sportswear company’s (NYSE: NKE) $35 million deal to outfit the university’s athletic department.
But they seem more riled about the direct association between the university’s second-in-command and a corporation tied to claims of unfair labor practices.
A university committee on trademarks and licensing recently voted that Nike was in violation of the university’s code of conduct. The committee said Nike failed to take effective action after two contractors in Honduras closed factories a year ago without paying workers after they unionized.
Nike issued a statement Tuesday saying the contractors, VisionTex and Hugger, were forced to close due to insolvency. Regardless, the company said it has been working to resolve the issue regarding severance for the employees.
“Nike believes that factories which directly employ workers are responsible for ensuring that their employees receive their correct entitlements,” the company said.
Nike announced Wise’s board appointment in November. Nike Chairman Phil Knight at the time said her experience as a respected leader and administrator of a multibillion-dollar budget “is a rare combination that makes her an ideal addition to our board.”
The faculty also stated concerns about academic freedom on a campus where students and faculty have openly criticized Nike’s labor practices.
“It may not be Provost Wise’s intention to silence criticism from labor rights experts. But when faculty report to a provost who is on Nike’s payroll, institutional incentives favor tolerance for sweatshop abuses,” the faculty wrote. “This is not in the best interests of academic freedom nor of the university.”
January 12th, 2010
Jim Keady speaking at Willamette University (WA)
Team Sweat:
I am writing to let you know that my speaking tour calendar is filing up for the spring semester. I am currently booked to speak in Washington, Arizona, Missouri, New Jersey, Indiana, New York, and Florida. I am also in discussions with schools in Rhode Island, Maryland, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana.
If you are interested in bringing “Behind the Swoosh: Sweatshops and Social Justice” to your campus, please email me at jim@educatingforjustice.org or call me at 732.988.7322.
I hope to hear from you soon!
Happy New Year!
Peace, Jim Keady
January 12th, 2010
UF Students get a glimpse of new Gator football uniforms
By Nathan Crabbe
Staff writer
The Gainesville Sun
www.gainsville.com
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
University of Florida students gathered Tuesday to get a glimpse at new Gator football uniforms, but some questioned whether such clothing was being produced in sweatshops.
Nike displayed its new Pro Combat jerseys and related “Finish the Mission” merchandise on campus. The alternate uniforms, which are lighter and have different colors and designs than the typical Gator uniforms, will be worn by the team for the first time during Saturday’s game against Florida State.
While students lined up to win free shirts and see the uniforms, few expressed interest in buying the $80 jerseys and $24 T-shirts.
“For a regular college student, a lot of it is too expensive,” said Alex Mollengarden, a 19-year-old engineering major.
Students with UF Amnesty International expressed quite a different concern — that UF merchandise might be made with cheap labor in poor working conditions. Group President Emily Flynn called for UF to join the Worker Rights Consortium, an independent group that monitors conditions at factories making merchandise.
“UF would be taking a stand for human rights,” she said.
UF athletic association spokesman Steve McClain pointed out the fact that UF is a member of the Fair Labor Association, another monitoring group.
“The FLA works closely with apparel companies and factories to ensure that workers’ rights are protected,” he said in an e-mail.
But some — including the group United Students Against Sweatshops, which is affiliated with Amnesty’s campaign — have accused the Fair Labor Association of being beholden to industry. Flynn noted that a Nike executive is part of the association’s board.
“Nike is on the board of an organization that monitors Nike,” she said.
A Nike representative did not return calls seeking comment. Fair Labor Association Executive Director Jorge Perez-Lopez said his group’s board includes industry representatives as well as university and non-governmental organization representatives.
“It has companies because we think companies are the ones that can fix things,” he said.
He said the association rigorously monitors factories through about 150 random audits each year and also responds to complaints. But Flynn questioned the transparency of the association’s audits, which lack information such as the names of the factories.
She said her group’s campaign was not calling upon UF to drop Nike, although it included the “Finish the Mission” slogan in fliers questioning whether UF merchandise was made using sweatshop labors.
While students readily took the fliers, most proceeded to a line where they were given a chance to win shirts and see the uniforms.
Students were given a code that they used to open a vault. Only certain codes opened the door to reveal a complete uniform on display.
Some students said they liked changes such as a white helmet, although a common complaint was the stitching on the jersey’s shoulders that looked like wings.
“I like the helmet, but the shoulder pads seem out of place,” said Paul Turner, a 19-year-old computer engineering major.
While several agreed with concerns about sweatshops, more students said their bigger concern was the cost of the clothing.
Public relations major Alex Glover, 19, said he would consider whether a clothing item was made in a sweatshop but might still buy it if another item was pricier.
“I hate to say it, but in the end, I’ll probably go with the cheaper shirt,” he said.
Contact Nathan Crabbe at 338-3176 or nathan.crabbe@gvillesun.com.
January 12th, 2010
by Todd Finkelmeyer
The Capital Times (Madison)
December 8, 2009
University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Biddy Martin has decided to
give Nike four months to clear up problems of reported workers’ rights
abuses at two factories that the sports apparel giant subcontracts with in
Honduras.
If the situation isn’t remedied, the university could end its apparel
contract with Nike — a deal which brings the university nearly $50,000
per year.
Martin said Monday that she hopes to build a coalition of interested
schools from the Big Ten Conference and other peer institutions to put
pressure on Nike. The success of these attempts may go a long way in
determining whether Nike is brought to its proverbial knees — or
continues with business as usual.
“I think in order to be effective it’s necessary to get other schools
involved, and I know there are other campuses considering and researching
what’s going on,” Martin said following a Faculty Senate meeting at Bascom
Hall.
Dawn Crim, a special assistant to the chancellor for community relations,
said that in discussions with Nike it has “become clear” the company is
working to rectify the situation.
“But we wanted to nail down a time frame,” Crim said Monday. “These issues
do take time, and the chancellor thought 120 days was reasonable. If, in
fact, (Nike) is working to solve problems, that’s enough time — but it’s
not open ended.”
The university first made the announcement about Martin’s message to Nike
in this press release.
If you think getting an apparel giant to stop its alleged anti-sweatshop
practices is simply a pipe dream, you haven’t been paying attention.
UW-Madison and student activists on campus played a key role in persuading
Russell Athletic — one of the nation’s leading sportswear companies — on
Nov. 17 to rehire 1,200 workers in Honduras who had lost their jobs when
Russell shuttered its factory shortly after workers unionized. In that
instance, UW-Madison was one of nearly 100 colleges and universities which
ended apparel deals with Russell — forcing the company to change its ways
if it wanted to get back into the profitable collegiate apparel-making
business. For more on that story, click here.
According to an October report produced by the Worker Rights Consortium,
two factories Nike subcontracts with in Honduras — Vision Tex and Hugger
de Honduras — closed in January without paying more than $2 million in
legally mandated severance and back pay to 1,800 workers. As a licensee of
UW-Madison apparel, Nike is bound by a university code of conduct for
producers that require payment of these legally mandated wages and other
benefits.
Martin first wrote a letter to Nike on Nov. 3 expressing concerns about
the allegations and asking the company to “provide us with detailed
information about your company’s remediation plans” by Nov. 11. According
to University Communications, Martin was the first college president to
write Nike to ask for a detailed remediation plan.
On Nov. 10, Nike sent a generic letter to all universities that had been
asking about the situation, stating the company is “deeply concerned about
the issues raised by the Worker Rights Consortium ….”
That letter also states: “It is important to note that, to the best of our
knowledge, none of the products manufactured for Nike at either Hugger or
Vision Tex was collegiate licensed apparel, aside from a one-time order of
800 units in 2007 for one university partner.”
UW-Madison administrators, however, were not satisfied with that blanket
response.
Crim said Nike has “since apologized for not getting back to us quicker
and now they say they’re glad to be working with us on this.”
UW-Madison’s Labor Licensing Policy Committee voted 7-2 on Nov. 13 to
recommend that Chancellor Martin start taking steps to end the
university’s apparel contract with Nike. (For a story on this, click
here.) The committee’s vote, however, is strictly advisory.
Late last week, Martin wrote to members of the committee to notify them
that she believes Nike is working in good faith toward a resolution.
Therefore, Martin plans to give Nike four months to solve the issue, make
“satisfactory, demonstrable progress,” or allow the company’s relationship
with the university to lapse.
But not everyone is happy with Martin’s timeline.
Jan Van Tol, a UW-Madison senior and a member of both the Labor Licensing
Policy Committee and the Student Labor Action Coalition, said: “We are
very disappointed with the Chancellor’s response. Not only has she given
Nike an absurdly long timeline, but she’s also set the bar very low. Let’s
be clear: Nike could pay its debts tomorrow — it simply doesn’t want to.
That’s why giving them four months just to make `progress’ is so bizarre.”
Adds Van Tol, who graduates later this month:
“Nike has been given ample opportunity to pay its workers, but continues
to stall. Giving them more time, after they’ve already had eleven months,
is simply irresponsible and is not an effective way to enforce the code of
conduct.”
January 12th, 2010
By: fflambeau
Originally Posted on www.firedoglake.com
Wednesday December 9, 2009 8:45 pm
Nike is one of the largest sports apparel companies in the world with most of its apparel being made in 3rd world countries for a song and then sold in the 1st world for huge mark-ups.
Recently, the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Carolyn “Biddy” Martin put Nike on notice giving it 4 months to clear up problems of reported worker rights abuses at subcontractor factories in Honduras.
From a press release issued by the university:
At issue is the treatment of workers at two apparel factories, Hugger de Honduras and Vision Tex. Both factories, at which it is believed that collegiately licensed apparel was produced, were shut down without notice in January.
Since then, their owners have allegedly failed to pay workers a combined total of more than $2 million in legally mandated severance and back wages. Nike is a UW-Madison licensee.
Employees are reportedly owed an average of $1,000 per person, a significant sum in the country, according to the Workers Rights Consortium, the university’s independent labor monitoring organization.
To begin to address the issue, on Nov. 3, Martin was the first college president to write to the corporation asking for a detailed remediation plan.
Nike is a university licensee with sales generating almost $50,000 a year in income to U.W-Madison. Nike, when it entered into the licensee agreement, agreed to a code of conduct that stipulated its responsibilities in dealing with workers, factories, subcontractors and suppliers.
The Workers Rights Consortium in October, 2009 issued more details on the Honduran plants and Nike’s role in them:
The WRC found that both Hugger and Vision Tex shut down on January 19, 2009 without prior warning and did not pay workers legally mandated terminal compensation. In the case of Vision Tex, additionally we found that employees were not paid for their last week of work. The total amount owed to the workers of Hugger at the time of closure was $2,030,359.85, while the total amount owed to the employees of Vision Tex was $571,895.62. The workers of the two plants have since been able to generate fifteen percent and twenty-one percent, respectively, of the compensation owed to them through the liquidation of the physical assets of the factories. That liquidation process is now effectively over. The workers of Hugger are still owed $1,725,805.87; the workers of Vision Tex are still owed $450,459.49.
…WRC has recommended to Nike that it ask its contractors – which were the factories’ primary direct buyers prior to their closure – to provide the funds necessary to make the workers whole. The contractors are New Holland Lingerie (at Vision Tex) and Anvil Knitwear and Haddad Apparel Group (at Hugger). All three companies are based in the United States.
Nike is obligated under university codes of conduct to ensure that labor rights violations by its contractors are remedied.
…Nike has indicated that it has discussed the matter with its business partners. However, this has not led to progress on remediation; the violations remain outstanding. It bears noting that in communications with the WRC and at least one affiliate university, Nike has downplayed its role in the facilities, suggesting that its production was not substantial in either plant and that its responsibility for addressing the violations is therefore diminished. As detailed herein, the WRC has found, contrary to Nike’s assertions, that Nike was the dominant brand produced for a substantial period of time at both facilities.
Perhaps even more troubling to Nike is the information that Chancellor Martin is seeking to build a coalition of other Big 10 universities and peer institutions as well as the Workers Rights Consortium and the Collegiate Licensing Company on workers rights issues. Says Chancellor Martin:
“I think in order to be effective, it’s necessary to get other schools involved, and I know there are other campuses considering and researching what’s going on.”
Wisconsin-Madison alone has more than 40,000 students and with the other 10 Big Ten schools, mostly mega-land grant institutions (the conference actually has 11 schools) the numbers are large enough to put big pressure on companies like Nike: over 350,000 students who are lifelong consumers of athletic products.
Such tactics have worked in the past:
UW-Madison and student activists on campus played a key role in persuading Russell Athletic–one of the nation’s leading sportswear companies–on Nov. 17 to rehire 1,200 workers in Honduras who had lost their jobs when Russell shuttered its factory shortly after workers unionized. In that instance, UW-Madison was one of nearly 100 colleges and universities which ended apparel deals with Russell–forcing the company to change its ways if it wanted to get back into profitable collegiate apparel-making business.
Dawn Crim, a special assistant to Chancellor Martin, believes that it has “become clear” that Nike is working to resolve the situation. But not all are convinced or happy with the 4 month deadline. Jan Van Tol, a UW-Madison senior and member of the university’s Labor Licensing Committee said:
“We are very disappointed with the Chancellor’s response. Not only has she given Nike an absurdly long timeline, but she’s also set the bar very low. Let’s be clear: Nike could pay its debts tomorrow–it simply doesn’t want to. That’s why giving them four months just to ‘make’ progress is so bizarre.”
Van Tol also pointed out Nike already has had 11 months to clean up its act.
January 12th, 2010
By Jeff Ballinger
“On the Media” with Brooke Gladstone in the anchor chair at NPR is always a good deal more than a diversion while cleaning the garage or running week-end errands; she explores many topics that you won’t see covered, or didn’t even appear to one as problems, opportunities, etc. But, when you do an interview with someone like Nick Kristof – whose audience dwarfs your own – you ought to be especially prepared to “afflict the comfortable.” She needn’t have searched too long to find controversy in this man’s last decade of columns and, no, it is not because he practices “advocacy journalism” unless – and here’s the point – he’s advocating for sweatshops.
He “flinches” when he hears his work called advocacy (I believe that he meant “wince” or “cringe” but, hey, who gets the big bucks for putting words together?); she countered by pointing out that he often directs readers to his favorite charities when riding his Sudan hobby-horse. This is certainly not to say that we hear enough about Darfur or even to denigrate the notion of journalist-as-advocate, but there is a back-story here.
The brutality of the global, outsource-everything economy was being covered very well by Kristof’s colleague, Bob Herbert. In nearly ten searing anti-sweatshop columns in the mid-Nineties, he captured Americans’ disquietude about corporate-led globalization while pointing out the tone-deaf callousness of Bill Clinton’s team; the latter was summed up nicely by James Carville when asked about his Nike deal (by another journalist, not Herbert): he berated the reporter for deigning to ask, snarling, “I own stock in Royal Dutch Shell, too.”
This was just like saying that any Democrat who was internationalist and concerned with human rights ought to just get with the program; just go get “yours” and don’t worry about the other guy. Carville dismissed concern about abused workers as “protectionist.”
So, it was clear that Herbert was out of step — especially the trenchant truth-telling which left the named shoe and toy brands with nowhere to hide. When Phil Knight (Nike’s prickly CEO, at the time) asked for a meeting with the New York Times’ editorial board in 1998, the multi-billionaire was accommodated. Herbert never wrote another anti-sweatshop column and Nick Kristof reformulated the Times’ editorial page position to “pro-sweatshop.”
What do you think would happen if a consumer or anti-sweatshop group would demand a meeting with the Times’ editorial board to complain about Nick? This is the type of question one might ask to get down to the nitty-gritty (which OtM usually does). An additional quibble: Kristof explains his work as “reporting” and he is not challenged on it. In fact, he is an opinion-monger — with no need to apologize for advocacy, quite the opposite!
Jeff Ballinger is completing a Laborers-funded doctorate fellowship at McMaster University near Toronto. He can be reached at: jeffreyd@mindspring.com
January 12th, 2010
By Brent Hunsberger, The Oregonian
December 30, 2009, 8:56PM
NIKE FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, PHIL KNIGHT
Phil Knight, two months shy of 72, has kicked into serious estate-planning mode, tapping a good friend and former University of Oregon athletic director to help out.
In his largest stock move to date, Nike’s chairman and co-founder on Wednesday gave 20 million shares of his company’s stock, worth about $1.32 billion, to three trusts in his name. Nike disclosed the move in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The person overseeing the trusts, according to the filing: Pat Kilkenny, who served as UO’s top athletics official when Knight donated $100 million to the department.
The filing does not say who ultimately will benefit from the trusts. But estate-planning attorneys say the move is a common way wealthy individuals pass on their fortunes to heirs while reducing their tax liability and still earning income from the assets.
Knight has two children, Travis and Christina. A second son, Matthew, died in 2004 and is survived by a wife and two sons.
Nike spokespeople did not return messages seeking comment Wednesday.
Knight has sold Nike stock on a fairly regular basis in the past, including about 5 million shares in October. But this is his largest single move, representing nearly one-quarter of his stake in the world’s largest sportswear company.
He still owns 65 million shares worth about $4.3 billion, the filing shows. Nike shares closed Wednesday at $66.14 on the New York Stock Exchange, just 29 cents off a 52-week high. The stock has gained 30 percent year-to-date.
Knight split the shares among three grantor retained annuity trusts. The so-called GRATs pay an annuity at a fixed annual rate, most likely, in this case, to Knight. The trusts can be set up for any amount of time or for the rest of Knight’s life.
When the trust ends, any remaining amount would be passed on to beneficiaries tax-free. And if Nike’s stock grows in value as it should, plenty should be left. Knight will pay taxes this year on the gifts but generally at less cost than if he waited or held on to the stock until death, attorneys say.
Knight’s choice of Kilkenny as trustee illustrates the close relationship between the Oregon alumni and Ducks donors. Attorneys generally discourage naming family members or employees as trustees and often appoint professionals or institutions.
Kilkenny, a former insurance company executive who presumably has little experience overseeing trusts, could not be reached for comment.
“If you have a really good friend that you trust, that’s the person you want as your trustee,” said Jonathan D. Mishkin, an estate-planning and tax attorney at Harrang Long Gary Rudnick in Portland. He also teaches at Oregon law school.
Kilkenny also gets the duty of accounting for trust income and deciding when to unload stock.
“He has to decide when to hold and when to fold,” said Kay Abramowitz, an estate-planning attorney at Ater Wynne in Portland.
Knight’s Nike shares give him authority to pick nine of 12 Nike board members. But he converted his Class A shares to Class B shares, which lack the same appointment authority, before donating the stock to the trusts.
Visit Team Sweat on Facebook!
Visit Team Sweat on MySpace!
Visit Team Sweat on Twitter!