The only right anyone should have to complain about it like that writer is if they themselves have had a child in that situation and turned an offer like that down.
The woman's a lunatic. The money in this situation came at the price of Adu leaving his home. This way, he gets a cool million not having played a single game. For Nike, it is an investment before the fact, not a paycheck after. And what culture does Nancy Clark live in? We spend insane amounts of money at the box office to see movies with child stars all the time. It's not like we don't have preteen millionaires in this country.
Just to keep going on about it, do you want a member of the media to tell you what kind of childhood you're supposed to have?
All I can say, is now young kids will give more serious thought to becoming pro soccer players, and that can't be a bad thing.
This is really iritating. Interesting topic. Too bad she offers nothing of value. You asked for it, Nike. Your company may consider its $1 million deal with 13-year-old soccer prodigy Freddy Adu a marketing coup, but it sure won't score any points with the youth sports movement. If you mean that the politicians who rule youth sports don't want their monopoly on players ended, you may have a point. Do you really want to taint kids' sports with financial rewards? As if they weren't already tainted by diplomas for kids who can't read, fanatical parents assaulting each other, or coaches who make 6-7 figure salaries due to their 'amateur' players' hard work. Do you really want to dangle big, flashy dollar signs in front of parents who are already unrealistically optimistic about their child's athletic potential? No, Nike wants to dangle dollar signs in front of parents of kids with unworldly talent. It's your precious 'youth sports movement' who wants parents to be unrealistically optimistic so that they will pay the travel team fees. Do you really want to subject children - and coaches - to that kind of pressure? Poor Freddy and Mrs. Adu. Their financial future is all but assured while Freddy gets a top-notch academic and professional education with all expenses paid plus a huge stipend. How dare Nike? How dare they?? And the punch line: Nike is the bad guy! But not Adidas or Inter Milan? How nice for sanctimonius twit opinion columnists to have a such a convenient punching bag as the Evil Nikester.
I think I disagree with this. I think that Adu was more like Alex Rodriguez. ARod got a a 252 Million dollar deal two years ago. Yet I can almost guarentee you that the next best player in Baseball, Vladimir Guererro, won't get even close to that much. Like ARod, Adu's situation is a once in a decade kind of thing. And parents who think this is a viable goal for their child, probably shouldn't be having children. EDIT: I just realized the mistake in my thinking here. You were talking about children, and I was thinking that Parents have the control. Your right actually, Little kids will see "Nike" atttached to a 14 year old and think, I can do that! Its part of being a little kid to dream. I grew dreaming that I'd be winning Super Bowl's for the Buffalo Bills
I think the point is, this deal got national head lines, not something soccer tends to do very often. They see that it is possible to make money playing soccer, which most kids do not know, I remember only a few years ago the people who we would play with in club/highschool soccer never thought of it as being a possible career, even the very top players thought they might be able to get a small scholarship to play at college and that was about it. However, if you talk to kids playing baseball, football, or basketball when they're a young kid they always talk about how when they "grow up" they'd love to be a major league base ball player, or in the NBA or a Quarterback in the NFL. If this is a lead in, where some parents say hey, it is possible for my kid to make money at soccer, maybe I won't push them to try other sports, or just treat it as a purley fun thing (although I think that it should be treated as fun first, lets face it without adults pushing kids (for whatever reasons), lots of talent would go down the drain), i'll actively encourage them to dream about playing for the Galaxy, or scoring a winning goal in the world cup. Sure this one in a million, flash in the pan type pay out isn't going to change everything, but it's a marathon not a sprint, so any step in the right direction is a Good Thing.
I have no problem with people expressing their opinions, even when they're misinformed and ignorant. But when she tries to be "witty and biting" with her gay little "I know a girl who's really good at soccer, why don't you sign her, Nike?" speil, it just pisses me off.
i couldn't agree more. maybe i'm naive, but i also buy into the notion that this deal really relieves the financial pressure from Freddy rather than increase it. sure, his "childhood" is going to be different from mine, and that of most "ordinary" kids. but that was a line that was crossed a long time ago. by not going "pro" thus far, his childhood has been extended in many ways, albeit in a strange form, and this security allows that to continue for another year. nike wasn't being generous when they did this. they see it as an investment in their future, and a relatively cheap one at that at only $1 million. but maybe there really is such a thing as a win-win situation.
I sent her an email, telling her to sign up and defend herself, with the link to this thread. I'm with you SAbuff... She makes a point against what she's arguing against without even (apparently) realizing it as well. By stating that Ms. Adu refused HUGE sums of money, she shows that Freddie's got what so many talented athletes in professional sports don't have: a good parent / someone who's going to tell them 'NO'. And that accepting this money was obviously a well thought-out decision. The NBA is the first thing that comes to mind. Look at the stars who have problems and the ones that don't and you'll see the correlation. Of course they're are exceptions, but let's compare AI and Kobe. One is always in trouble, has always been in trouble, and the other is the model of class. Difference - upbringing.
I had read the article in the DM Register. My thought was that, "Wow, Nancy Clark knows Freddy Adu exists." There are several other Register writers that cover Menace and high school soccer; this was her first coverage of soccer that I can recall. Though I didn't agree with her concerns for the selling of Freddy, it was great to see another sports writer acknowleding soccer.
It is ridiculously inhuman to turn the body of a 13-year-old boy into a marketing cog in the Nike machine, but around here, the only thing people care about is the Holy Grail of Soccer Being Taken Seriously. Freddy Adu should be able to enjoy his adolescence like any other kid, but now he's a paid icon of the most famous sporting-goods brand in the world; he's been forced into the adult world of image and exploitation when he's barely out of middle school, and everyone around here cheers because yay, the Des Moines Register is noticing soccer. If she'd written the same column about a 13-year-old basketball star, most of you would be agreeing with her. Why is it that we deplore money in sports when LeBron James gets his millions, but cheer Freddy Adu?
Go look at Freddy and then come back and post. Have you ever seen this kid? He has danced around older players. This kid could be a sub in MLS THIS SEASON. That's how much ability he has. And his body is stouter than DaMarcus Beasley's! So you tell me that he's being exploited? His mom turned down Inter Milan, and she decided to later accept the Nike offer. Poor exploited kid, he gets to play the game HE loves so much for money. Freddy DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE A REGULAR ADOLESCENCE LIKE OTHER KIDS! Comparing him to a 13 year old basketball player is a poor comparison, because Freddy's body is stronger than Beasley's.
I am interested to hear what opponents of the Adu Nike deal think about child actors (Reohl Sybing's point). They are used to hawk pretty much every consumer good.
Like what Wanderer said, it's not like Freddy is being forced to do all this against his will. The kid WANTS to be a pro. He realizes the kind of potential he has and he wants to exploit it. He knows he and his entire family won't have to work another day in their lives if he goes ahead with this. Why do you think he's going into advanced high school courses? To get into a good college? Fvck no. So he can get out of the academy and start playing right away? You bet. If Freddy was a kid who just wanted to be left alone, he'd still be living in Baltimore with his mom. To say he's some innocent kid who wants no part in this is total and utter bullshit.
One of the zillion Adu articles (I'll try to find it) made the point that this deal actually helps keep Adu's life saner now (it's not a lump sum payment), because he doesn't have to sell himself to a big club, he can stay close to his family in the United States, and he has an insurance against injury. How is he being exploited? The problem I have with Lebron isn't that he's getting paid -- it's just 90 million for one person is too extreme, IMO.
If this deal was with anyone else but Nike, it would have barely registered on the radar. But because its nike, well, the devil must be invoved. All the bashers out there probably cheer for the 13 year who wins the gold in gymnastics at the olypmics and then go out and by the weaties. They probably cheered for Capriati when she made the semi finals at the french open. They probably went to see Home Alone 6 times, and still watch Different Strokes reruns. They pile plaudits on that pompous little kid who just graduated college at 13 and want 4 PhD's and they listen to Mozart.
WEBSITE RESPONSE TO MS. DAVIS Response that I sent to Ms. Davis: Dear Ms. Clark, I don't see how Freddie Adu's advertising contract with Nike "taints" kids' sports. Are you as vocal against gymnastic youngsters training and living at a gymnastics academy? I see the contract as an insurance policy in case he suffers a serious injury that ends his young soccer career. I see the contract as a "foot in the door" by Nike that will benefit them further down the road. I doubt Freddie will be exploited by Nike, or made to do endless promotions. Freddie's mother seems to be looking out for the best interest of her son. A playing contract at such a young age would have put him at the mercy of a club team. He has not given up his childhood by simply signing the Nike contract. The Bradenton Soccer Academy is a quality organization from all that I have read about it and heard about it from former student/soccer players. Freddie is a very good student and will do well both in class and on the field at Bradenton. He is pursuing his dreams of being a better soccer player and being the best he can at the sport he loves. Regards, Kevin Etzel
I'm against the Des Moines Register exploiting immature and unpolished columnists just get national attention in non-caucus years. Let the columnist get an education and enjoy adolescence like other kids. Shame on you, Register.
I thought part of the reason Ms Adu signed the contract was so that she could spend more time with him. Wouldn't that make it easier for Freddy to have a childhood by spending more time with his family? This kid has a very good head on his shoulders. He knows what is going on. I'd bet the reason he thinks it's crazy there is so much attention on him is that that he is very humble and is just out there playing to have fun. I understand Ms. Clark's concern. It should be a concern for the average child. But kids with exceptional skill don't live ordinary lives. Exceptional people live exceptional lives. That's what makes them special. That's why they are our heroes and make us dream that we can be better. Unlike other sports in this nation, Soccer still has the concern to help with the development of it's youth. Freddy is living with other gifted kids with similar interests. Playing soccer is what he loves to do. I don't know about you all, but I think that is damn good childhood. Not only does Freddy get to have good role models around him, positive influences from friends that want the same thing as him, and a home in a safe environment, he gets to spend more time with his mother, courtesy of Nike. And, thanks to Nike, he can help develop interest for Soccer in the US which will help him and his young friends financially in the future. Ms. Clark's angst towart Nike, is misdirected in this article. There are several other areas that can be exploited, but this is not one of them. Nike made an arangement that is benificial to all parties involved. If it was one way, like Inter Milan, Ms. Adu would not have entertained the offer.
Look, my point is not that Freddy Adu himself is going to turn out to be a lesser human being. It seems, as people have said, that the Adus have their heads on straight. So fine. What I object to is the general idea that it's okay to take a child and turn him or her into a marketing force. This goes for athletes and actors--I've known a couple of child actors and they are way too often screwed-up human beings as a direct result of being forced to think about adult things too soon. And God knows the tribulations of young female athletes like gymnasts and figure skaters are well-documented (anybody ever read a book called Little Girls in Pretty Boxes, or something like that?). Freddy Adu wants to make money, fine. Who am I to say that he shouldn't take a million dollars if it's offered to him? My point is that there should be some kind of ethical restraint on throwing that kind of money at kids. Of course he'll take the money if it's offered; who wouldn't? The question nobody's willing to ask is: should it be offered in the first place? Bottom line: kids should not be commodities.