The new Nike ad (“Winning isn’t for everyone”, made by the agency Wieden+Kennedy) seems to stir a lot of reactions in anyone who sees it once.
The full text of the voice-over in the video:
“Am I a bad person?
Tell me. Am I?
I’m single minded.
I’m deceptive.
I’m obsessive.
I’m selfish.
Does that make me a bad person? Am I a bad person? Am I?
I have no empathy.
I don’t respect you.
I’m never satisfied.
I have an obsession with power.
I’m irrational.
I have zero remorse.
I have no sense of compassion.
I’m delusional. I’m maniacal.
You think I’m a bad person?
Tell me. Tell me. Tell me. Tell me. Am I?
I think I’m better than everyone else.
I want to take what’s yours and never give it back.
What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.
Am I a bad person?
Tell me. Am I?
Does that make me a bad person?”
The YouTube video has quite a few comments under it that disagree with a few words used in the ad. Like ‘I’m deceptive’, ‘I’m selfish’, I have no empathy’, ‘I don’t respect you’, ‘I have zero remorse’, ‘I have no sense of compassion’, ‘I want to take what’s yours and never give it back’, and ‘What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine’… are some of the sentiments expressed in the ad, by a well-known ‘villainous’ actor no less (Willem Dafoe), that seem to have touched a raw nerve of many people who vehemently disagree that this is not in the spirit of sportsmanship, and robs the games (Olympics, in context; and broadly about sports and games too) of all grace.
Here is a snapshot of some of the comments that disagree with this ad’s line of thought, from the comments under my LinkedIn post (I am quoting them verbatim, without any names/attribution, because the people who made them are not the point; only what they said matters in the context of this post):
“I am concerned that a brand like Nike chose to normalise statements like “I have zero remorse”, “I have no respect, empathy, compassion …”
“Don’t really appreciate Nike’s perspective here. Sports is a celebration of grit, perseverance, belief in self, commitment and ultimate surrender to excellence and through the pursuit of the same it leads one to self actualisation. But sports most importantly also teaches us sportsman’s spirit which stands for respect not just for self and the game but more importantly for the opponents. Winning with grace isn’t for everyone!”
“I differ here i guess, truly in every sense is a bad person, i wouldn’t want my children to become such bad persons!”
“Don’t know if a lack of empathy or respect or compassion is something to aspire to. Pretty sure all the real MVPs featured in the spot would disagree.”
“Doesn’t necessarily make you bad but it does make you a dick.”
“Thought-provoking but misses the point of Sportsmanship by a long yard as per my view. Winning is not for everyone but at the same time Sports is not only about winning. It is also about fighting valiantly.”
“May I politely disagree. I can’t relate to this ad as I have never found words like deceptive, selfish, no empathy, don’t respect, no sense of compassion, zero remorse, take what’s yours, etc- practised by the greatest sportspersons of the world. In fact- my personal experiences have been totally the opposite – kindness, humility, gratitude, teamspirit, discipline, extraordinary respect for others, etc.”
“It’s a sport. Not War. Virat Kohli, Neeraj Sharma wins and continuously.. and are still not “bad” persons. It’s the attitude, self believe, diligence, discipline and commitment to the sports that matter.”
“This is a copywriters ad. Not a copywriter who necessarily understands the spirit of sportsmanship.”
“This means you can do literally anything for the sake of sports! What’s a sportsman spirit? Never heard about it. Shame!”
While I did engage with quite a few of those comments in good faith, most did not engage with me in return beyond moving to a ‘agree to disagree’ zone.
So, allow me to add to my earlier post with more context, and some of the more pointed criticism of the ad.
1. Where is the ad situated?
The entire ad is situated in the world of (highly) competitive sports. The context is the Olympics, and the ad features top-rated athletes like Giannis Antetokounmpo, Kobe Bryant, Ixhelt Gonzalez, Jakob Ingebrigtsen, Sabrina Ionescu, LeBron James, Eliud Kipchoge, Kylian Mbappé, Alexia Putellas, Sha’Carri Richardson, Cristiano Ronaldo, Sophia Smith, Vini Jr., Bebe Vio, Victor Wembanyama, Serena Williams, A’ja Wilson, and Qinwen Zheng.
The ad does not offer a way of life. It simply echoes the traits needed to win in the highly competitive nature of sports, particularly Olympics. The entire point of ‘winning isn’t for everyone’ echoes the zero-sum nature of competitive sports, meaning someone has to lose for someone else to win. We (the society) have normalized and legitimized zero-sum outcomes only in sports, for our entertainment.
2. The timing for respect, empathy, compassion
This is the nub of the most vocal criticism – that even while playing against an opponent, good (the opposite of bad, expressed in the ad so often) sportspersons have respect, empathy, and compassion for those playing against them.
Now, allow me to highlight one aspect of that statement: “even while playing against an opponent”.
The question is: if a player displays ‘respect, empathy, and compassion’ while playing, would that allow her to win? Or should she succumb to the tenets of ‘respect, empathy, and compassion’ and let the other person win?
This dilemma may seem very similar to many Indians. In fact, the entire premise of using the question, ‘Am I a bad person?’ may seem familiar too.
In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna asks Krishna, “How shall I strike my grandfather, my guru, and all other relatives, who are worthy of my respect, with arrows in battle, O Krishna?”.
While Krishna’s response is beyond the purview of this post or sports, Arjuna’s question could also be interpreted, in context to sports, as, ‘If I hold my opponents in high esteem, with respect, empathy, and compassion, would it not impede my desire to win over them?’. (Please do not drag the analogy beyond this, by pointing out that sports is not war. I’m aware it is not. See the last paragraph in this point).
So, consider the timing of when a sportsperson (a ‘good’ one, at that) needs to showcase traits like respect, empathy, and compassion. It could be after winning, by not gloating over the win, by not putting down the one who lost, and by genuinely appreciating the loser for putting up a good fight, the winner can showcase the traits. And that’s what we see too in great sportspersons like Rahul Dravid or Roger Federer.
A sportsperson can also demonstrate ‘respect’ during a game by not responding to abrasive or foul tactics of an opponent with something similar, and just focus on playing her own game. This is ‘respect’ to the game’s sanctity, and not ‘respect’ for the opponent. This is the real spirit of sports.
It is very easy to mix/confuse the timing, and presume that there is a need to showcase ‘respect, empathy, and compassion’ to the opponent while the fight is on (in which only one can win), without considering the fact that those very traits may weaken your fighting spirit.
Beyond sports, this is also the jungle rule – kill, or be killed. If an animal shows ‘respect, empathy, and compassion’ for another animal that intends to kill it, then it will be killed.
Sports is not equal to jungle. But while jungle’s zero-sum outcome is a force of nature, sports’ zero-sum game is man-made.
Sports is not war either. People die in wars. People merely ‘lose’ a game in sports. There is life after losing in sports. War need not have a zero-sum outcome either. Peace talks are a real possibility if the concerned people consider the destruction of life and property, and avoid a war via a compromise.
3. Expressed vs. Internal monologue
The Nike ad’s narration is the internal monologue of a sportsperson. It is not meant to be heard as a view expressed in public. It is the equivalent of a top sportsperson telling herself, insider her head, “I’m the best! I will win this game! I will beat that opponent, no matter how good she is, or how valiantly she plays against me. I will!!”.
If we hear these words expressed aloud, we may tend to consider this sportsperson as “bad”. After all, she is expressing the line from the ad: I want to take what’s yours and never give it back. What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.” in different words, isn’t it?
Most sportspersons playing in the ruthless world of competitive sports say to themselves things like ‘I have no empathy. I need to win this! I have zero remorse. I need to win!’. If we hear them, we will judge them as ‘bad’ persons. But most great sportspersons keep these self-motivating pep-talks to themselves, as an internal monologue. In fact, quite a few teams have mid-game pep-up sessions where they utter highly charged statements together, to up the enthusiasm and killer instinct. If we heard them while they are being shouted in the dressing room, we would judge them as ‘bad’.
Nike amplified an internal monologue, a mind-voice, to make a larger point. But just because we overheard an internal monologue, it doesn’t mean they are bad. They are just ‘in the game’, in a bid to win.
4. The rules of the game
One persistent line of thought offered as criticism is about ‘This means you can do literally anything for the sake of sports’. That is, such unabashed ‘need’ for win drives sportspersons to break rules to win. This may be accentuated by the line, ‘I am deceptive’ expressed in the ad.
But that is not the case at all. Olympics (or any large sporting events) is watched by millions of people across the world and the organizers go to great lengths to ensure the sanctity of the games by investing heavily in the best of umpires, referees, cameras (to capture multiple angles, beyond doubt).
So, there is no implication whatsoever of breaking the rules to win. Being ruthless in life means breaking or bending the law and do something ‘at any cost’. But the Nike ad is NOT about life. It’s about organized sports where rules are guarded and enforced stringently.
To extend the logic of ‘at any cost’ from sports to life, and then blaming the ad for perpetuating such a thought even though it is talking only about sports, is being unfair to both the ad and to logic.
Coming to the word ‘deceptive’, while the general meaning of the word, in life, is completely negative, aren’t there instances of justifiable deceptiveness in sports? If a boxer makes the action of beginning to move her right fist in one direction but moves in another direction at the last second to land a punch, that IS deception. But that is not ‘wrong’ deception. It is a deception allowed in sports. Similarly, spin bowling in cricket is a legitimized deceptive technique where the person batting may be deceived of the trajectory of the ball. You can make a move in chess to make the opponent assume that you are playing a particular line of attack, but you may have thought of 3-4 moves in advance and are intentionally deceiving the opponent. Almost all sports involve some form of deception like this, and these are legitimate parts of gameplay and strategy.
So, if you think about it, deception is legitimized within the rules of sports. Not in life, but in sports. I need to reiterate this context again and again because it is very easy to be overpowered by our sense of revulsion to just the basic word, ‘deceptive’.
5. Perspective: audience/viewer/spectator vs. opponent
When someone says, “I have never found words like deceptive, selfish, no empathy, don’t respect, no sense of compassion, zero remorse, take what’s yours, etc- practised by the greatest sportspersons of the world”, whose perspective is that? Is that yours, sitting the audience and watching two sportspersons fighting to win? Or is that the opponent’s?
It’s very easy to sit in the audience and want ‘sportsmanship spirit’, ‘grace’, and ‘respect’ during a game. But when two people are playing, and only one can win, they are ‘fighting to win’.
The opponent would love to see the one she is fighting against to have ‘respect, compassion, and empathy’ so that she can dump those traits herself and just aim to win. Inside the arena of sports ‘respect, compassion, and empathy’ and ‘winning’ are mutually exclusive. As I mentioned above, there is a time and place to demonstrate ‘respect, compassion, and empathy’ and during the play, towards your opponent, is not one of them.
Where the ad stays in the grey zone, according to me, is while contextualizing traits like ‘single-minded’, ‘deceptive’, ‘respect’, ’empathy’, ‘compassion’, among others, within the ambit of a team.
Inside a team, all playing together against a common, opposing team, there needs to be complete respect for each other. There needs to be compassion for a relatively weaker teammate in one area (who may be excellent in another area). There is a need not to be deceptive within a team. The ‘single-mindedness’, inside a team, should be the team’s single-mindedness, not of an individual’s.
This is, I believe, understood, in the ad. But the ad also shows team sports (like basketball) where many of the ‘bad’ traits can be corrosive inside a team (not ‘against’ an opposing team, though).
While the counterpoints and criticism do not distinguish between individual sports and team sports, I do believe that not addressing this element adds a layer of potential to misunderstand the ad.
Overall, though, if many (which I cannot quantify with data beyond a cursory glance at comments on YouTube and under my own post praising the ad, on LinkedIn) people feel offended that the ad goes against established and accepted practices of dignity and grace in sports, then the ad makers need to take some of the flak for not making it unambiguously clear.
I believe the ad has an incredibly powerful line of thought that is totally legitimate. But because we, as a society, are so tuned to think of words and phrases like deceptive, obsessive, selfish, ruthless, obsession with power, zero remorse, no compassion, among others are blanket negatives because of the instances in which they are used—almost all of them are negative, in real life, removed from sports—it is very difficult for most people to isolate themselves from those often-used context, to sports, where these words acquire a different meaning and dimension because zero-sum outcomes are not only legitimized but also expected and awarded.
Add to that, Nike got an actor known for his negative roles in movies to utter these words with such villainous glee!
I believe that one of the crucial reasons why many viewers of the ad were unable to disassociate other contexts (like life, business, war, etc.) and see those negative words only via the lens of sports alone is because of the framing in the script.
The framing in the ad goes, “Am I a bad person?”. Person. Not a sportsman, sportsperson, opponent, etc. terms that are decidedly more sports-oriented or can become sports-oriented along with the visual cueing. The visual cueing is already all pervasive in the ad, but when people hear ‘person’, they mix the sports context with other contexts like normal life. Perhaps the writers could have put in more thought in considering words other than ‘person’ to combine with bad, so that there is an unambiguous connection with sports—and sports alone—as context. That may make people reconsider their blanket views about those otherwise-negative phrases and words, and see them in a new light (sports).
I was able to distinguish the context of those negative words and phrases, and many others did too (under my LinkedIn post, where I explained, to some extent, my line of thought; as also under the YouTube video). But, if there are still a lot of negative views because many others were not able to make that distinction, the role of the script is worth pointing fingers at.