nike

The campaign is genius when it comes to commerce, but commodifying rebellion contains pitfalls about which Kaepernick and his legions of admirers should be aware.

The corporation projecting Kaepernick's voice, after his studious avoidance of interviews and sound bites, has a decades-long record of taking rebel athletes, marketing their appeal, but stripping their rebellion of all content.

In the 1980s, Nike took a young filmmaker named Spike Lee and used his filmmaking prowess to project Michael Jordan's new line of Air Jordan sneakers. Nike told us that John McEnroe was a Rebel With a Cause, without ever telling us exactly what that cause happened to be. Nike gave us Tiger Woods as some kind of political trailblazer, even though the actual Tiger Woods wanted no part of the political responsibility that came with his politicized brand.

When you watch Kaepernick's Nike commercial, hear his voice and words, it is bracing. He has said so little recently, beyond the occasional tweet, even as President Trump and his minions used the Kaepernick protest--NFL players kneeling when "The Star Spangled Banner" was sung on game days--as a punching bag. While others appeared on CNN and the Sunday news shows to defend the right to protest, he remained silent, content to pursue a lawsuit against the NFL for collusion.

But now we are hearing him through Nike's corporate messaging, expressing words someone wrote--was it Kaepernick?--about believing in yourself, pursuing a passion. That's a beautiful message but not altogether different from what any athlete might say. There is nothing in the ad about police violence or systemic racism or any of the issues that animated Kaepernick's actions in the first place.

Nike is appealing to a restive, even radical youth market far more likely to see athletes like LeBron James, Serena Williams, and Kaepernick as heroes than villains. Nike calculates that it doesn't need older football fans who think Kaepernick is un-American. It knows it can profit on its stars' role in the zeitgeist, their edginess. But there is a pernicious motive behind the radical chic.

Women who worked at Nike have described an internal sexist atmosphere that was "toxic." In April, the New York Times published an expose and high-profile executives exited.

Nike founder Phil Knight underwrites candidates from the very Republican Party that has been demonizing Colin Kaepernick.

In addition to delivering a stirring message, Nike is using the man and the voice, his charitable giving and admirable works as a fig leaf for its own malfeasance.

None of this is to criticize Kaepernick for taking Nike's money. He has every right to earn a living, especially since the NFL, whether it's collusion or not, hasn't allowed him to pursue his craft.

Nike's co-opting of Kaepernick's "resistance" may broaden its appeal, but his testimony shouldn't get lost in a sea of commerce. Otherwise, the message will get strangled by the same swoosh that's bringing Kaepernick's voice back to life.