PAris has long been known for its avant-garde fashion. Still, it would be difficult for the couture scene to produce something as confusing and controversial as the Team USA athletic uniforms unveiled last week in the City of Light.
There was nothing to see when it came to Team USA’s men’s training uniforms: standard shorts and a tank top. But when it came to their female counterparts, it was everything to see, especially in the lower regions.
While reigning Olympic 800-meter champion and Nike athlete Athing Mu modeled the US team’s briefs (colleague Sha’Carri Richardson opted for shorts), the scene brought back memories of the Rio Games: the new US uniforms would be ideal for a Brazilian beach. Citrus Magazine further highlighted the design flaw when it tweeted an image of a mannequin wearing the uniform and suffering from a large camel toe.
The uniforms are a step backwards on several levels. Fashion-wise, they’re a hybrid of the tights worn by aerobics addicts of the 1980s and the costumes for Baywatch in the 1990s. Only the tracksuits were worn with tights and Baywatch was watered down porn.
When it comes to the evolution of women’s sports, it’s once again one step forward and two steps back. A commenter on X said it best: “Men may worry about their athletic performance, while women have to worry about chafing, keeping their genitals from falling out, and waxing their bikini line. Definitely equal opportunities eh”
Nike defended itself by noting that Team USA athletes not only have a choice of briefs and shorts, but also a wide variety of other outfit combinations. And reigning Olympic pole vault champion Katie Moon criticized the idea that the uniforms are sexist. “Whether we feel best in a potato sack or a swimsuit during competitions, we must support autonomy,” Moon, who is sponsored by Nike, wrote on Instagram.
But there was no shortage of Olympic athletes who were shocked or dismayed by the cut of the slip, with long jumper Tara Davis-Woodhall memorably commenting that “my hoo haa is going out.”
The controversy comes at a fascinating time in the evolution of women’s sports. The presentation of the Nike uniforms took place a few days after the NCAA basketball tournament, a major event on the American sports calendar, when the women’s final attracted more TV viewers than the men’s. The standout star of that final, Iowa’s Caitlin Clark, made an appearance this weekend Saturday Night Live to reprimand cast member Michael Che for his history of misogynistic jokes about women’s basketball. There was no need to explain who she was, as may have been the case with women’s basketball stars in the past: Clark is currently perhaps second only to LeBron James when it comes to basketball star power. And her mockery of Che gave her fans a sense of empowerment.
after newsletter promotion
But empowerment isn’t the first word that comes to mind when you look at those Nike briefs. If some track and field athletes really feel more comfortable with the cut, more power to them. Wear them during the Olympic Games. But it is difficult for Nike to promote the bikini bottom and not just the shorts. Young female athletes who look up to these Olympians are already dealing with body stereotypes and self-esteem issues. Then their menstrual cycle begins and they have to deal with all kinds of hormones and moments of self-consciousness. There’s a reason girls are more than twice as likely as boys to stop playing sports at the age of 14. The last thing they need is to feel like an athletic uniform like Nike’s is the ideal.
There have been many inspiring developments in women’s athletics, particularly in football, where clubs around the world are doing away with white shorts. Coincidentally, Nike is one of those offering clothing with built-in period protection. The Olympic platform would have been great for an extension of Nike’s One Leak Protection line. Instead we got bikini bottoms. Sigh.
Did Nike even present this athletic uniform to a focus group? The release followed another issue surrounding Nike. The company’s MLB uniforms have been a complete disaster this season. Pants and jerseys are different shades, the fonts are too small, and despite all of Nike’s fancy tech, the MLB uniforms seem to lack basic sweat-resistant materials.
However, these are two separate issues. One seems to be rooted in incompetence, the other in sexism. Both are easily soluble, especially for a company valued at $138 billion. But maybe Nike doesn’t care. Maybe all those financial landings mean it can take extra risks. And in the end, despite the missteps, the extra publicity means Nike wins. Whether the U.S. Olympians can perform in the new uniforms without their hoo-haas sticking out remains to be seen.