First it was New Era. Then it was Russell. And this past Friday, Chancellor Biddy Martin decided to drop yet another contract with an athletic apparel company—Nike. The reason: Nike neglected to reimburse Honduran factory workers for $2 million in unpaid wages. The hope: By dropping the contract, UW-Madison will force Nike to reconsider its abhorrent labor practices. However, no matter how much financial weight UW-Madison may carry, it is nowhere near close enough to effect real change in Nike's labor policies.
In January 2008, UW-Madison ended its contract with the New Era Cap Company, citing the company's refusal to allow a labor rights group to enter its factories. In February 2009, the university ended its contract with Russell Athletics for closing one of its factories in Honduras after its employees tried to unionize. After multiple universities dropped their contracts with Russell, the company eventually hired its employees back and recognized their union. This showed that, when joined by a coalition of other universities, UW-Madison can hold companies accountable to the violations of their workers' human rights.
For this reason, Martin and the rest of the UW-Madison administration should consider their political—not financial—power to be the university's greatest asset in this case. In the international community, it often takes binding agreements among powerful entities to enforce any real human rights protection. UW-Madison's decision to drop Nike's contract was neither collaborative nor binding.
Some Labor Licensing Policy Committee members have already reached out to other universities, asking them to drop their contracts with Nike as well. Georgetown, the University of Montana and the University of Washington have all expressed interest in dropping the contract. Still, these universities aren't enough to form a powerful coalition. If UW-Madison could successfully network with other Big Ten schools to end their contracts as well, Nike would have little choice but to take notice. Michigan would be an especially valuable partner, given its history of exclusive partnership with Nike. Only Purdue has definitively refused to end its contract with Nike, to which we can only say, in true Wisconsin athletics fashion, ""You fucked up.""
Even in her statement to the university's LLPC, Martin was wishy-washy. ""We have decided to end our relationship for now."" Note ""for now."" Martin does not stipulate whether UW-Madison's relationship with Nike is contingent on its labor policy. In fact, she does not stipulate that Nike has to do anything differently to win back its contract with UW-Madison. Putting such a binding provision into writing is a small but pragmatic way UW-Madison can express commitment to its principles.
Further, losing the UW contract is a drop in the bucket for Nike. In 2009, UW-Madison earned $49,000 in royalties from Nike. In return, UW spokesperson John Lucas speculated Nike made around $490,000 from its partnership with the university. This clearly shows the David-Goliath predicament UW has entered into here. However, with the help of other universities, UW can join forces to form a type of academic alliance and defeat its nefarious foe.
