Now this may or may not have existed when I ws a kid, but today there are exclusive soccer academies for youth players, boys and girls.  I was talking to a parent of one of a player in one of these elite programs last week, and fascinated by all the expenses.  Monthly dues for coaches salaries, several hundred dollars for travel, and sveral hundred dollars for a complete kit.

Furthermore, don’t even think about showing up onany field with your team in anything other than Nike.  Let’s say by chance, as you are putting your socks on, you rip a giant hole in the heel and toe.  So mom runs down to the local sporting good store to get you some new socks.  If they don’t have Nike socks, you will not get to play that day.  That goes for games and PRACTICE. No Nike, no play.  (Thankfully, for safety reasons, shoes are a player’s personal preference.)

Now, I get what Nike is doing.  They must provide some equipment or something to the program, and in return, this academy becomes a running, shooting, tackling billboard all over the state.  But I have to wonder if it’s effective.  If kids see Nike as a "uniform" that they have to wear (and buy), is it the same as "choosing" to wear something?  When they get older, will they choose Nike because it is ubiquitous in their mind with "Soccer gear" or will they choose another brand that represents "going against the grain" and "not what your mom made you wear for soccer."  And the other teams, the ones who get beat 8-0 but this Nike wearing machine, does that leave them with a feeling that they want to wear Nike as well?  Or does it make them mad that Nike is sponsoring kids that aren’t them.  

I’d love to see research into this.