Skip to content

Nike dropped Fujita for taping over his Swoosh

Saints linebacker Scott Fujita kept a diary of his week at the Super Bowl for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, and it contains a few interesting nuggets from the perspective of an NFL player.

Here’s what might be the most interesting nugget: Fujita used to have an endorsement deal with Nike, but the shoe company dropped him because he likes to tape his ankles over his shoes, and that meant covering the Swoosh logo.

Writes Fujita, “I was endorsed by Nike for seven years, but they voided my contract (after several warnings) for ‘spatting’ my cleats on game-days. Some of us spat, or put tape around our cleats, to keep them tight. Nike, apparently, doesn’t like that their precious Swoosh gets covered up.”

It’s probably safe to say that the NFL’s uniform police would fine a player for drawing a swoosh on his tape. Players spatting their cleats has led to some shoe companies putting their logos in places where tape wouldn’t cover.

But for Fujita, apparently his preferred method of taping covered the logo, and the lesson from Fujita’s diary is that when you’re watching football and you see a player with tape obscuring the logos on his shoes, that player either doesn’t have a shoe contract or is at risk of losing one.

Permalink 44 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New Orleans Saints, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
44 Responses to “Nike dropped Fujita for taping over his Swoosh”
  1. WarrenMoonGOAT says: Feb 8, 2010 7:21 PM

    what the hell? i don’t think anyone but u knew he was sponsored by nike, i don’t even think Fujitas wife knew.
    hell i don’t even think nike knew until they saw him wearing their cleats.

  2. JimmyY says: Feb 8, 2010 7:23 PM

    I guess having the endorsement from like 52 out of the 53, or however many, suited up players on a team isn’t enough. And its not like their not overexposed or anything either.

  3. HereThere says: Feb 8, 2010 7:25 PM

    “Nike, apparently, doesn’t like that their precious Swoosh gets covered up.”
    No, they don’t. And they don’t like paying players to cover their logo up, princess. Grow up. Too bad you aren’t as concerned about Nike’s overseas employment practices as you are lining your pockets. Jerk.

  4. shawnc16 says: Feb 8, 2010 7:25 PM

    Can’t blame Nike for this one. If they are paying a player to show off their shoes on the field and no one can see what shoes he’s wearing thank to him why should they pay him. They warned him before so he couldn’t have been suprised.

  5. sevenwords says: Feb 8, 2010 7:29 PM

    Does anyone even notice shoes unless they are neon green? Same thing with women painting their toe nails.

  6. phillybird says: Feb 8, 2010 7:31 PM

    Maybe they can use him money to pay the little kids some more money for making the shoes
    don’t have to worry about wearing them

  7. eagleindallas says: Feb 8, 2010 7:35 PM

    Does anyone really pay attention to a players shoes during a football game?? (with the exception of ochocinco, and some outspoken players)

  8. Drat says: Feb 8, 2010 7:41 PM

    Nike is an evil empire. I remember in the Olympics more than a decade ago when an American runner favored for a medal had his Nikes shred apart during the race! Cost him all his dreams and his potential endorsements. Most of Nike’s money goes into endorsements, not shoes, not employees. Nike hires cheap labor in Indonesia rather than put Americans to work. You buy Nike, and you’re dropping coins into the pockets of already rich athletes, and paying poor 14-yr-old girls a few cents per hour. Go Nike!

  9. FireJerryJones says: Feb 8, 2010 7:42 PM

    Why doesn’t Nike make tape with their logo?

  10. leatherneck says: Feb 8, 2010 7:47 PM

    News you need to know. From PFT direct to your desktop.

  11. stnmmc says: Feb 8, 2010 7:51 PM

    Not a shock. Nike has a history of meddling in sports.
    World CUp 98, Ronaldo of Brazil was hospitalized hours before the game. Nike essentially forced him to play, and he was crap.
    For those of you who are not familiar with soccer, this was not the Ronaldo who is popular today. In football terms he would have been Adrian Peterson, a big physical specimen who had been on the scene for a few years. (as it was soccer his lack of ability to hold a ball did not affect him the way it does AP)

  12. GBP says: Feb 8, 2010 7:58 PM

    When a player gets a deal to wear a company’s product, doesn’t it make sense that the public knows about it? Seven years he had this deal? I’ve never seen Fujita in any sort of advertisement for Nike anywhere. Do they only run the commercials in New Orleans? He should of been kissing Nike’s hairy bean bag for an endorsement deal. It’s not like his name is AP or LeBron.

  13. lololnpnp says: Feb 8, 2010 7:59 PM

    Nike looks really bad in this scenario. Not for dropping the guy for covering the logo, but for even sponsoring this scrub to begin with. How does having Fujita wear your gear make it more marketable? Maybe to the half-Asian football playing demographic, otherwise not so much.

  14. joelvis72 says: Feb 8, 2010 8:05 PM

    You know the Saints have “arrived” when people complain about the sweatshop workers who make their shoes.

  15. God's Own Silver and Blue says: Feb 8, 2010 8:09 PM

    Next week: The NFL Return of Billy “Nike Shoes” Johnson.

  16. AcidSoda says: Feb 8, 2010 8:13 PM

    At sevenwords,
    That’s what I’m saying. Who notices a player’s shoes during a football game? Unbelievable. At first I thought it might be swoosh that football jerseys have on the upper front shoulder, and that Fujita had some vendetta against Nike, but his actual shoe? chile, please!

  17. johnnydom says: Feb 8, 2010 8:15 PM

    Hey why does Nike need Fujita when they have that pilar of moral values, Tiger Woods on their roster.

  18. foxylettuce says: Feb 8, 2010 8:23 PM

    I almost bought apair of Nike’s today, but I remember seeing Fujita wearing a pair of shoes that were all white, with no markings on them.
    I’m going out to pick up a pair of K-Swiss.

  19. DonTerrelli says: Feb 8, 2010 8:24 PM

    Who the hell is FUjita?

  20. grimsleeper78 says: Feb 8, 2010 8:24 PM

    Nike makes football shoes??

  21. packerfanfornot4life says: Feb 8, 2010 8:26 PM

    i bet everyone whining about Nike and who makes them own something Nike. Which makes everyone of u hypocrits

  22. God's Own Silver and Blue says: Feb 8, 2010 8:33 PM

    “Nike hires cheap labor in Indonesia rather than put Americans to work.”
    Actually, Nike apparently makes a lot of their shoes in South Korea as well. I smuggled 50 pairs of factory second Air Jordans in various sizes out of Osan a couple of years back, and made a killing with them when I got them back home. (I’ve always found it weird to the extreme that an item that costs all of $4.00 to make in one place can retail for two bills in yet another. God bless capitalism.)

  23. joelvis72 says: Feb 8, 2010 8:37 PM

    packerfanfornot4life is the winner!

  24. WashingtonRedstorms says: Feb 8, 2010 9:02 PM

    Nike drops Fujita but not Tiger???
    Tape over swoosh = explusion
    Married Man turned womanizer= not explusion

  25. mulletious says: Feb 8, 2010 9:03 PM

    while its true people don’t consciously notice shoes during games, those shoes and logos are there and are being viewed by millions. it is brilliant marketing since these images stick with people for when they go to actually purchase an item or feel the “need” to purchase something, yet dont know why…

  26. DocBG says: Feb 8, 2010 10:13 PM

    “You buy Nike, and you’re dropping coins into the pockets of already rich athletes, and paying poor 14-yr-old girls a few cents per hour. Go Nike!”
    Are you dumb? I suppose you think cleaning your plate still helps the starving kids in china right?
    The kid working in the nike factory has a better living then most of their countrymen, has a clean safe work enviorment, and makes more than most of the kids in that part of the world. Its not something that Americans would neccesarily endorse happening here, but for those folks, its normal. they’d look at your big car, big yard, and boat as a complete waste of money, so whats your problem? Get off your high horse and stop telling people how to live their lives you over-zealous douchbag.

  27. WashingtonRedstorms says: Feb 8, 2010 10:33 PM

    Well, for Fujita and the children. A boycott of Nike is in order.
    No more Nike……

  28. mcarey032 says: Feb 8, 2010 10:38 PM

    You know it has to be slow when this type of news hits on the day after the Super Bowl is won by team from New Orleans. You would have expected something like rioting in the streets or something like that. Instead we get Scott Fujita is dropped from Nike because he taped over his cleats. Wow I feel ten times dumber for having clicked on this story.

  29. .VoxVeritas says: Feb 9, 2010 12:33 AM

    Cuttng Fujita and not Tiger is like cutting Baskett and not Rice.

  30. Great Smoky says: Feb 9, 2010 1:23 AM

    Hmm, by the late 1970′s Walter Payton was using tape with the Kangaroos logo printed on it. 30 years later the geniuses running (and participating in) the Nike sports marketing program can’t figure that out?

  31. ThheVet700 says: Feb 9, 2010 1:53 AM

    So a player has to put tape over his shoes for better ankle support and Nike is upset because of it. Maybe if their shoes offered better support a player would not have to do it. Or Maybe the Nike empire and all of their $ could do some R&D and make a clear athletic tape.

  32. aikman8 says: Feb 9, 2010 1:57 AM

    have watched thousands of games since the mid-70s and not once have i ever noticed, or cared, what shoes a player is wearing. who cares?

  33. patpatriotagain says: Feb 9, 2010 6:02 AM

    you would think nike would make logo’d ankle tape.

  34. mike_311 says: Feb 9, 2010 6:10 AM

    I never understood the bitching about sweatshops.
    14 cents might be a lot of money in that country. not like here where we get thousands of dollars to bitch on a message board all day.

  35. MSWRavens says: Feb 9, 2010 7:02 AM

    Two words: UNDER ARMOUR.
    Screw Nike. UA is much better product anyway. (although their 1st generation of shoes was admittedly not…)

  36. kovvboyzfan says: Feb 9, 2010 7:40 AM

    @HereThere says:
    February 8, 2010 7:25 PM
    “Nike, apparently, doesn’t like that their precious Swoosh gets covered up.”
    No, they don’t. And they don’t like paying players to cover their logo up, princess. Grow up. Too bad you aren’t as concerned about Nike’s overseas employment practices as you are lining your pockets. Jerk.”
    Calm down slim…those kids get a 10 minute coffee break every three days. Besides, it would be in their best interest to not take breaks when they are only making 10 cents a day. I hear they have to clock out when they go on break.

  37. Duck Fallas says: Feb 9, 2010 8:34 AM

    Does it really need to be spelled out?
    Tiger Woods = greatest golfer ever
    Scott Fujita = journeyman LB, no Pro Bowls or other recognitions
    What makes you all think that Nike is the only company running sweatshops? Anyone know where Adidas, Reebok and Under Armour factories are located?

  38. Howie Feltersnatch says: Feb 9, 2010 8:56 AM

    God’s Own Silver and Blue says:
    February 8, 2010 8:09 PM
    Next week: The NFL Return of Billy “Nike Shoes” Johnson.
    Those were Pro Keds or PF Flyers. Did Nike buy those companies or Adidas?
    patpatriotagain says:
    February 9, 2010 6:02 AM
    you would think nike would make logo’d ankle tape.
    They actually make rubberized spatting. My daughters’ soccer team uses them. I guess they didn’t have any Black & Gold coloring left over.
    Maybe I should not submit this and give Phil Knight another idea.
    Wait…Phil can call it the Feltersnatch Spat…
    I WANT MY 2% PHIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  39. GoBrowns19 says: Feb 9, 2010 9:06 AM

    FireJerryJones says:
    February 8, 2010 7:42 PM
    Why doesn’t Nike make tape with their logo?
    —————————————-
    That is how you become a millionaire my friend…

  40. Subpar says: Feb 9, 2010 9:08 AM

    Am I missing something here? The guy is taping it up for better and tighter support right? If any of you say that if Nike came to you and said “we will pay you to wear our shoes” that you would turn them down, you are full of it. The bigger issue here is that a guy lost that endorsement for trying to stay healthy out on the field.

  41. .VoxVeritas says: Feb 9, 2010 9:20 AM

    “So a player has to put tape over his shoes for better ankle support and Nike is upset because of it. Maybe if their shoes offered better support a player would not have to do it.”
    Shoulda gone with high tops if he wanted ankle support. It’s not about support, it’s about keeping them tight on your feet. I mean that’s spelled out in a the article, dude!

  42. .VoxVeritas says: Feb 9, 2010 9:24 AM

    “That is how you become a millionaire my friend…”
    Indeed, but the NFL probably has an agreement with Ace or Kinesio or whatever.

  43. db3300 says: Feb 9, 2010 9:28 AM

    Seriously? Fujita has a deal with Nike?

  44. packerfanfornot4life says: Feb 9, 2010 9:41 AM

    Two words: UNDER ARMOUR.
    Screw Nike. UA is much better product anyway. (although their 1st generation of shoes was admittedly not…)
    i may be wrong but i think UA is owned by nike

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!