Nike’s unveiling of the uniforms for the USA track and field team for the upcoming Paris Olympics has ignited a significant online debate. The designs, particularly the women’s kit, have drawn criticism for being too revealing, while others defend them as offering athletes choice and prioritizing performance.
The controversy erupted after Citius Magazine, a publication dedicated to running, shared the first glimpse of the Nike uniforms intended for Team USA at the Paris 2024 Olympics on social media. The showcased women’s uniform, a red and blue striped leotard emblazoned with “USA,” became the focal point of criticism. Social media users, including prominent athletes, quickly voiced their opinions, with many deeming the design as excessively skimpy.
Olympic pole vaulter Katie Moon and former track and field athlete Lauren Fleshman were among the voices adding to the discussion after the initial post gained traction. A professional runner, Philly Bowden, succinctly captured the sentiment of many critics, commenting, “Take the old USA kit, and make it ✨less✨”. This reaction underscores the core of the debate: are the Nike Us Olympic Uniforms designed for optimal athletic performance, or do they prioritize aesthetics over practicality and athlete comfort?
In response to the growing backlash, Nike directed inquiries towards their official statement published in an article detailing the 2024 national and federation kits. Nike asserts that these uniforms are “the most athlete-informed, data-driven and visually unified the company has ever produced.” They emphasize that each design is meant to reflect the “distinct identities and diverse communities each country and sport represent.”
According to Nike, the primary objective was to empower athletes by providing uniforms that catered to “athletes’ desires for choice, comfort and performance.” John Hoke, Nike’s chief innovation officer, stated in the article that the Paris 2024 track and field kits are designed to offer a wide array of options suitable for different sports, body types, and sizes, with a focus on performance and breathability. The collection boasts nearly 50 unique track and field uniform styles for both men and women, including the now-controversial leotard. Nike highlights that athletes will have the autonomy to select outfits or combinations that best suit their personal preferences and athletic needs.
Track and field athlete Anna Cockrell offered a supportive perspective in a news release, stating, “I’ve had the opportunity to share feedback and insights that helped inform the new USATF Kit. During testing, this fit allowed me to move freely and without distraction, and I love how the look represents Team USA.” This suggests that some athletes were involved in the design process and found the uniforms functional and representative.
However, the comment sections on social media platforms revealed a strong undercurrent of dissent. Queen Harrison Claye, among numerous athletes, injected humor into the conversation, asking on Instagram, “Hi @europeanwax would you like to sponsor Team USA for the upcoming Olympic Games!? Please and thanks.” This comment and others like it highlight concerns about the perceived hyper-sexualization of female athletes in the design.
Jaleen Roberts raised practical concerns about the functionality of the uniform, commenting, “This mannequin is standing still and everything’s showing… imagine MID FLIGHT.” This remark points to worries that the revealing nature of the uniform could be impractical and potentially revealing during athletic activity. Angello Malefakis directly addressed Nike on Instagram, questioning, “Shame, shame, shame Nike in treating women as second class citizens with their Olympic outfits. Is that the best you can do for the ladies?”
Lauren Fleshman further amplified the criticism by reposting the uniform image and questioning the design’s purpose. She drew a comparison to other professional women’s sports leagues, stating, “I’m sorry, but show me one WNBA or NWSL team who would enthusiastically support this kit. This is for Olympic Track and Field.” Fleshman argued that “Women’s kits should be in service to performance, mentally and physically,” and asserted that “If this outfit was truly beneficial to physical performance, men would wear it. This is not an elite athletic kit for track and field. This is a costume born of patriarchal forces that are no longer welcome or needed to get eyes on women’s sports.” Her statement suggests a belief that the design is rooted in outdated, patriarchal views of women’s sports and prioritizes attracting viewers over athlete needs.
Conversely, some athletes have come to the defense of the Nike US Olympic uniforms. Runner Sinclaire Johnson responded to the online commentary by stating, “Lolol these comments have me 💀 but, Nike included a number of us in the kit testing process and I can assure you the bottoms don’t look like this on a real human.” This implies that the presentation of the uniform on a mannequin might be misleading and not fully representative of how it fits and functions on athletes.
Katie Moon also offered a counter-perspective, emphasizing athlete choice. She commented, “I absolutely love people defending women, but we have at least 20 different combinations of a uniform to compete in with all the tops and bottoms available to us. We DO have the men’s option available to us if we want it.” Moon further explained her personal preference for less fabric in hot and sweaty conditions, stating, “I personally like the buns because I want as little fabric clinging to me when I’m hot and sweaty (which I am at 99% of meets I compete in). The point is we DO have the choice of what to wear, and whether we feel the best in a potato sack or a bathing suit during competitions, we should support the autonomy.” Moon’s defense highlights the aspect of athlete agency and the availability of diverse uniform options within the Nike collection.
The Nike US Olympic uniforms for Paris 2024 have undeniably sparked a complex conversation. The debate encompasses issues of athlete choice, performance needs, perceived sexism in sports apparel, and the balance between functionality and aesthetics. As the Paris Olympics approach, this controversy underscores the ongoing dialogue surrounding women’s representation and empowerment in sports.
