UCLA Athletics has a huge decision to make. And it has nothing to do with athletes.
In 2017, the licensing contract between Adidas and UCLA Athletics is set to be renewed or terminated.
Inevitably, speculations will begin to circulate as to whether UCLA will continue its relationship with Adidas or switch to another competing brand. Perhaps we will license Nike and follow in the footsteps of other Pac-12 members. Or maybe, if unexpectedly, Under Armour.
But beneath all of these brands lies the sordid not-so-secret secret of the garment industry: a torrent of labor rights abuses, worker safety violations and infringements on worker freedoms.
This is a widely known reality. And yet it has lost its urgency. UCLA Athletics has a duty to recall the breadth of the violations beneath Adidas – or any major brand it licenses. Athletics should consider a split from Adidas entirely and a jump to Under Armour. If this is impossible, then a renewed contract with Adidas must come with additional bargaining that assesses improved labor conditions over time.
There are few other legitimate alternatives for universities with competitive sports teams. Few, if any, companies are equipped to provide the need for custom uniforms, equipment, mass orders and delivery to schools as large as UCLA.
Which means that economics has become tangled with politics and ethics. So there is a very precarious balance between pushing apparel companies to meet better standards while still maintaining a safe business.
But it’s evident that the imbalance has shifted too far toward the employer. To start, let’s look at Adidas’ recent history.
In late 2010, labor rights violations began to worsen at the PT Kizone factory in Indonesia. In April 2011, the owner fled and the factory closed without paying an estimated $1.8 million in severance pay to 2,800 workers. Adidas reportedly produced through PT Kizone throughout this time.
The incident was assessed by the Worker Rights Consortium – the major independent monitoring organization that investigates and reports on labor rights at factories producing for global collegiate apparel brands. Adidas refused to financially contribute a cent of due severance. Nike paid $500,000.
Then, things got awkward for Adidas in 2012 when a number of new violations came to light.
In April, near the London Olympic Games, allegations flew that the Great Britain team uniforms manufactured by Adidas came from sweatshops.
In July, four more incidents erupted in the media.
More than a thousand workers were fired after going on strike at the PT Panarub Industry factory in Indonesia. The company was the main global manufacturer of Adidas soccer cleats.
More than a hundred workers contracted occupational diseases from unsafe working conditions at Dynamica Casting in Guangzhou, China. The company produced golf clubs for Adidas’ TaylorMade Golf Company.
Workers suffering from occupational benzene poisoning demanded medical attention and compensation at the Xingang Shoe Company in Dongguan, China. Benzene is a carcinogen found in glues used for shoe manufacturing. This company produced footwear for Adidas.
Simultaneous protests also took place in four Central American countries and Caribbean islands over labor rights violations toward Gildan Activewear. Gildan Activewear was Adidas and Nike’s biggest supplier in the Western Hemisphere.
By then some U.S. universities began to question their relationship with Adidas. Cornell University cut ties completely.
And during this time, United Students Against Sweatshops was conducting a “Badidas” campaign to force Adidas to compensate the workers of PT Kizone. Amid international pressure, the campaign ended in victory.
Adidas has a fresh history of failing to defend its workers overseas. These workers are not guaranteed a living wage, safe working conditions, the right to organize or bargain nor due severance or compensation.
So would Nike be the lesser of the two evils? Think again.
Nike has a notorious sweatshop image that stretches back to the 1990s. I will not go into detail here about its history because UCLA Athletics does not license Nike. But take it as an assertion that Nike seems no better than Adidas. Issues of low wages, forced over-time and verbal and physical abuse return throughout the years. USAS ran a successful campaign against Nike in 2010 for failing to pay severance to workers in Honduras.
The only claim that Nike could possibly make over Adidas is greater transparency. In the past decade Nike has disclosed its overseas factories, acknowledged issues with labor safety and worked with organizations like the WRC to improve worker conditions.
That is, until now.
In November, Nike informed the WRC that it will no longer allow them to independently monitor their factories that produce collegiate apparel. This was reaffirmed in December when Nike communicated to universities that the WRC was not allowed to access or assess their supplier factories. Only organizations approved by Nike itself, such as the Fair Labor Association, are entitled to such privileges.
Nike is a giant. If it is allowed to keep this decision, it will encourage other companies to do the same. Supporting or licensing Nike at this time is to all but endorse labor rights violations.
Which leaves us with Under Armour.
I could not find a single article detailing labor rights abuses at factories for Under Armour.
However, that doesn’t mean Under Armour has no violations. It is a younger company and may possibly not be subject to the same scrutiny. And, more importantly, many companies produce through the same factories or regions.
“Because most brands rely on a globalized model of manufacturing, the odds are that one [brand’s production] isn’t better than the other,” said Morgan Currier, a national organizer for USAS.
Universities are fighting against the shared and far-reaching power of sports apparel companies. And while UCLA holds itself to higher standards, it is difficult to coerce companies to do the same.
“The problem is within the entire market for, say, Adidas, the college market is small. And within the college market, the UCLA market is even smaller,” said Patrick Healey, the ASUCLA director of apparel and accessories. “We prefer to maintain our relationships with these companies so that we can still work on these issues.”
Healey also said that there is movement toward better accountability though the process is moving slowly. And this process goes back to a question of balance. The ultimate goal is to hold apparel companies to better standards, but this goal comes with a trade-off. Sometimes it is better to cut ties with a company. Other times it is more worthwhile to continue a loyal relationship and build incremental change. And this trade-off is a balance of ethical, professional, economic and political interests.
Alone, the most UCLA can do is push for better accountability from companies at a glacial pace. It will take united momentum from student campaigns, economic alternatives and multiple universities – no small feats in themselves. But this begins with smaller efforts from UCLA Athletics. It is not enough for one party to care – we have to care together.
But even if they care, UCLA Athletics must be more transparent in their calculation of interests. When asked about future licenses, they released this statement: “UCLA Athletics is currently in a long-term, multi-sport shoe and apparel contract with Adidas, and discussing industry competitors would be inappropriate.” Without transparency, we cannot know the degree to which ethical interests and standards are represented.
As for the immediate future of the sports contract, Under Armour is our best bet for a more ethical licensee. While the company probably has labor issues, it does not have the history of abuse or negligence like Nike or Adidas. They may even be more amenable to improvement.
Do not dare do business with Nike at this time. If UCLA licenses the company, then we are all but endorsing labor rights violations. If we must do business, then Nike must allow the WRC access to Nike’s suppliers.
If there are no other options then, for now, license Adidas. But do so with the understanding that the company must work to fit UCLA’s commitment to higher standards of accountability.
It is never easy, but UCLA must continue to uphold its standards, values and code of conduct. And while UCLA is trying diligently, we cannot let these issues fade into a monotonous background. We have to revisit the history of these issues again year after year to assess what has changed. If we teach accountability, we must practice it too. And that responsibility only grows with this school.