By A. Faulkner
So. I didn’t know anything about Manny Pacquiao. Before this past week the only thing I’d ever even heard was that he liked pistachios (or at least he was paid to imply he did). I can’t link you to an official YouTube video of the commercial via Wonderful Pistachios though because, mysteriously, this video is missing on their channel. Yes. Even the pistachios are abandoning Manny Pacquiao, who has suddenly burst into our collective consciousness this week thanks to an anti-homosexual comment he made while apparently running for a public office in the Philippines.
Thanks to that ten-second sound bite, I now know a number of things about Manny Pacquiao:
- He’s a boxer, apparently a pretty good one. (Most of you probably already knew this. I could have guessed from the pistachio commercial, but it has since been confirmed for me.)
- He had what was probably a very lucrative endorsement deal with Nike.
- He’s currently running for Senator in the Philippines.
- He believes homosexuality is morally wrong, based apparently on his strong religious convictions.
- He no longer has that nice Nike endorsement deal.
So I’ve actually learned a surprisingly lot in a very short time period. Questions remain, however:
- Why did Manny lose his Nike deal?
- Should Manny have lost his Nike deal?
There are a lot of people making it sound like the answers to both of those questions are patently obvious, but a little digging leads me to believe it’s a bit more complicated than: “Because… controversy!” And: “Yes.”
A number of articles commenting on the Nike drop have pointed out that Nike has a checkered history when it comes to dropping other athletes during times of controversy. They dropped Lance Armstrong, Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson and Oscar Pistorius when these athletes faced controversy regarding performance-enhancing drugs, domestic violence and murder. But the company stood by Tiger Woods, Wayne Rooney and Kobe Bryant when they were publicly embroiled in issues of infidelity and sexual assault. (If you want to know who did what, you can Google it, or read this nice summary article I found: http://www.spin.ph/boxing/manny-pacquiao/special-reports/nike-manny-pacquiao-controversy-endorsement.)
But despite the outcry regarding Nike’s apparent double-standards in standing by some athletes and dropping others, I don’t think Nike dropping Pacquiao has anything to do with Nike truly feeling that his comments are ‘abhorrent’. (Not to mention Pacquiao’s view on same-sex relationships has apparently been consistent and openly acknowledged for years: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-rosenthal-pacquiao-nike-gay-marriage-0221-biz-20160219-column.html.) I don’t think any of these decisions have anything to do with Nike taking a moral stance on this, that, or any issue. We can’t look at these decisions and conclude Nike thinks infidelity and sexual assault are OK, but they draw the line at performance enhancing drugs, domestic violence, murder and… homophobia? Because that just sounds silly. Don’t get me wrong, I think Pacquiao’s comments about homosexuals are offensive, but I don’t think we can put them in the same moral boat with murder. This is, quite simply, not about what is or is not ‘abhorrent’. It’s about money. More specifically Nike’s money and… your money. And in a really strange way, that gives me hope.
The answer to Question 1 is: Because Nike thinks standing by Manny Pacquiao will lose them money. Your money. Nike thinks its customers will buy less Nike products if they’re associated with homophobia. And isn’t that actually a little awesome? (It’s less awesome if we continue this reasoning to the point of wondering why Nike didn’t think it would lose them money to stand by an adulterer or alleged sexual assailants. But we’ll hold onto whatever hope for humanity we can find in this story.)
The answer to Question 2 is actually as simple as: “Yes.” I’m not saying Manny Pacquiao doesn’t have every right to say what he said. I think his phrasing was idiotic in light of clear public sentiment in the US; if he had thought through his statement at all he would have realized comparing homosexuals to animals and saying the animals come out the moral victors was bound to cause a bit of a kerfuffle… But he has a right to say anything at all that he wants to say. He has a right to believe it.
But Nike, as was no doubt painfully articulated in some sort of morality clause, has the right to cut ties as soon as they think Manny’s public statements might cut into their bottom line. It’s not personal for Nike. It’s business. What’s awesome is that it is apparently personal for us, Nike’s customers. If Nike didn’t think we were going to express our personal displeasure with our piggy banks, they wouldn’t be cutting Pacquiao.
So I say to you, “Behold… the power of your piggy bank.” Even an $86 billion company will listen to what we think, and how we feel, and our morals, if they think there are enough piggy banks talking. Something to think about.