March 21, 2007
LeBron James
Cleveland Cavaliers
Dear Mr. James:
Congratulations on your continued success as one of the NBA’s elite players. Perhaps basketball fans across the world will be able to watch you and the Cavs in the Finals very soon.
As someone who participates in many generous charitable activities, we hope you will be responsive to this appeal.
When last we wrote you in December, 2003 regarding your relationship with Nike and with the workers who produce the Nike products you endorse, you were just one month into your rookie season and six months into your reported 7 year, $90 million contract with Nike. Neither you nor your agent replied to our letter.
Since that time, Nike has admitted, through self-monitoring, that its contracted factories are places where extraordinarily low wages, physical and sexual abuse, restrictions of bathroom use and other human rights abuses take place. Finally acknowledging problems that worker’s rights advocates have been exposing for well over a decade is a responsible step for Nike, as is its important disclosure of factory locations. But this acknowledgment and disclosure does not mean the problems are being addressed.
As we expressed in our previous letter, Nike products are synonymous with sweatshops in developing nations, and the company still chooses to maximize profits on the backs of workers who live in poverty and whose human rights are unprotected. We ask that you support justice for these people.
Mr. James, pro athletes are not unlike most people in this country who tend not to believe that they have the power to influence change. Some, however, know they have the power but are afraid that speaking out publicly could disrupt their positions personally, professionally, commercially, or in the media.
But there are others. For example, athletes like Etan Thomas, Steve Nash, Carlos Delgado, Martina Navratilova, Adonal Foyle, Adalius Thomas, Josh Howard, Adam Morrison and others have all raised their voices against the war and occupation of Iraq.
Stephon Marbury has spoken out in a different way. Through direct action, Marbury has launched his own basketball sneaker, which retails for about $15. He has challenged the entire basketball sneaker industry, in part, to present inner-city kids with an affordable (yet still stylish and well-made) alternative to the $150 shoes that you and others endorse. That Marbury’s shoes, produced by Steve and Barry’s, are made in China suggests it is likely they are manufactured under sweatshop factory conditions, given that independent trade unions are illegal in China. Hopefully Marbury’s efforts toward positive change will soon lead him to address worker’s rights as well.
Mr. James, as someone who enjoys unsurpassed commercial influence and with it, great negotiating power, you are in a unique position to stand up for the people who make the products you endorse. We urge you to let Nike know that you support the rights of those workers by demanding that:
- Nike insist its contractors pay a living wage, under safe working conditions, that allows workers to meet their basic needs, and that Nike pay contractors enough to do this;
- Nike insist its contractors recognize independent unions and that factory management collectively bargain with these unions in good faith; and
- Nike agree to a program of factory monitoring through international unions and human rights organizations that are credible and completely independent of Nike.
You have a chance to make an impact around the world not just with your basketball playing ability, but for your generosity as a human being in helping to improve working conditions for hundreds of thousands of workers.
We look forward to your response. Should you or your agent require more than a letter to respond, we can arrange for two of the workers from Nike factories overseas to travel to the U.S. and meet with you personally so they can convey their eyewitness accounts. Please let us know by April 16, 2007.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Washington, DC
Shawn McCarthy
League of Fans
Washington, DC
A few things jump out at me:
1) They give Bronny a deadline. They do it in a polite tone, but they straight up give him a deadline. What are they gonna do when he ignores this? Send Code Pink after him? Maybe Nader could arrange for Cindy Sheehan to brow beat James into submission.
2) These strike me as the kind of fantasy delusions people without money have about people with money. They think LeBron, being a multi-multi-millionaire, would be happy to pass on more millions at their behest. I used to write letters to Bill Gates all the time asking if I could borrow like 100 grand, which proportionally would be like someone asking me to borrow a penny. You may not be shocked to find that Gates never sent me any checks. I hope Nader isn't shocked when Bronny doesn't either.
3) They ask LeBron to use his "unsurpassed influence," and "great negotiating power," to sway Nike to change the world. I think they're underestimating Nike's business savvy. First off, LeBron is in his contract, and won't be re-negotiating for a few years, so I'm not sure what kind of leverage they think he has. Second, Nike has sunk 90Million into just signing Bron, that doesn't count the additional millions they'll spend in marketing/advertising campaigns with him. That means before they even get to production costs and paying the cut that goes to the re-sellers, their profit margin is not looking that big. See where I'm going with this? By the time LeBron is asking them shell out (considerably) more money without taking it out of his paycheck, it starts to become more reasonable for Nike to tell the King to go take a powder. Let me put it this way, LeBron, Kobe, Amare, MJ, Nash, Pierce, Paul, Parker and others all have lucrative deals, and that's just the basketball end of things. As monstrously huge as LeBron is worldwide, if they have to choose between him and profitability, I have a feeling they'll choose profits.
4) Not to belabor the point, but what Nader is exhibiting here is a dearth of business sense. He applauds Marbury's magical $15 "well made" shoe for the streets. And then criticizes the use of Chinese sweat shops. Am I the only to whom it's occurring that a $15 well made shoe is pretty much an impossibility without sweatshops? If they pay people a decent wage to make the shoes, do they not understand that the ballooning in price is not going to be eaten by the manufacturer? It will be taken on by the consumer. You have Starbury's shoes made in LA by minimum wage employees, and that shoe is gonna cost $75. Which is fine, but knock off the wide eyed wonder of a 6 year old. Why can't they just make the shoe and not make a profit? Why can't the government not go to war for oil? Why can't it rain doughnuts instead of polluted water?
Essentially my point is this: Nader's goals are not just admirable, they're laudable and beautiful. I wish the world could work that way. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world that cannot sustain the population it already has, let alone the massive exponential growth of that population. Does he think if he stops sweatshop labor that those employees are suddenly gonna get 401Ks and benefits? While the sweatshop may be hellish, it's better than starving to death because you have no job. This isn't an argument in favor of sweatshops, it's an argument in favor of realism. Until we've found a viable alternative to this economic model, we cannot just kill the model. If Nike has to pay a decent wage, which American workers don't even get, to workers in Malaysia, why the hell have it made in Malaysia? The reality is their options are sweatshop jobs, or no jobs. It's the same as people who are scared of global warming wanting to tax the shit out car makers, as if those car makers aren't going to pass along the losses by laying off workers. Those workers may want their grandchildren's grandchildren to have a beautiful earth to live on 150 years from now, but they also want their own children to have something to eat tonight. Bottom line is either LeBron and Nike both just give away millions (maybe billions) or nothing. There is no middle ground and acting like LeBron need not make a huge sacrifice, only apply pressure, is disingenuous, at best. At worst Nader is pulling a PR stunt to corner LeBron and somehow embarrass Nike into changing. It won't work, and Nike would rather have rotten tomatoes hurled at them from Nader 'til the sky falls than piss away billions. It sucks, it's sad, it's unfortunate, it's called planet Earth. Welcome.
Thanks to TrueHoop for the heads up.
