Nike wanted its grand return to Super Bowl advertising to be a moment. Instead, it turned into a mess.
The 60-second spot, which aired during Super Bowl LIX, featured track star Sha’Carri Richardson, WNBA sensation Caitlin Clark, and rapper Doechii, set to the unmistakable riff of Led Zeppelin’s Whole Lotta Love.
The ad leaned into an empowerment narrative—Nike celebrating female athletes who have had to fight for their place in sports. The problem? No one’s buying it.
On social media, reactions ranged from critical to outright hostile.
The right saw it as another example of Nike’s supposed “woke pandering,” while those more aligned with progressive ideals accused the brand of cashing in on a movement it has, at times, actively undermined.
The irony of Nike championing women’s rights when it has a documented history of gender discrimination and abuse allegations didn’t go unnoticed.
Nike’s Checkered History With Women
If Nike wants to position itself as a corporate feminist, it has some explaining to do.
Let’s start with Alberto Salazar.
The former head of Nike’s Oregon Project—a now-defunct elite running group—was permanently banned from coaching in 2021 after multiple allegations of emotional and sexual misconduct.
One of his athletes, Mary Cain, revealed in 2019 that she was physically and emotionally abused under Nike’s program, forced to lose dangerous amounts of weight while being berated by coaches. Cain later sued Nike and Salazar for $20 million, a case that was quietly settled in 2023.
And Salazar’s sins aren’t isolated. Nike’s broader corporate culture has been problematic for years.
Nike has a history of sweeping abuse of women under the rug, penalizing them for getting pregnant, & more
— Steve Magness (@stevemagness) February 10, 2025
If you want to support women, start with apologizing to those women who you wronged & take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again
This is just appearance BS. Not substance https://t.co/axbb5v556P
In 2018, a group of female employees conducted an internal survey revealing systemic sexual harassment and gender discrimination within the company. The fallout led to the departure of several high-ranking executives, including former CEO Mark Parker.
Yet, despite public statements about improving workplace culture, Nike has continued to face accusations of fostering a toxic environment for women.
Given this history, watching Nike position itself as a champion for female athletes feels, at best, opportunistic and, at worst, deeply hypocritical.
A Soundtrack That Didn’t Help
Then there’s the choice of Led Zeppelin’s Whole Lotta Love—a song made by a band that, by today’s standards, would likely be “canceled.”
For those unfamiliar, Led Zeppelin has long been dogged by allegations of mistreating women. Stories about the band’s treatment of young female groupies in the 1970s range from disturbing to outright criminal.
In 2025, aligning with that history while simultaneously trying to market women’s empowerment is a bizarre decision.
Nike should know – they are one of the worst. #hypocrites
— MaryAnne (@Carroll18537862) February 10, 2025
Nike Returns to the Super Bowl
This was Nike’s first Super Bowl ad since 1998, making it a big moment for the brand.
But they weren’t the only running shoe company on display during the broadcast. Both On and Skechers also ran Super Bowl ads, showing that Nike’s dominance in the footwear world is no longer guaranteed.
On’s ad, which featured early investor and tennis legend Roger Federer chatting with none other than Elmo from Sesame Street, leaned into a lighthearted, family-friendly approach.
Skechers, meanwhile, took a more traditional sports marketing route and targeted its main consumer demographic, leveraging Kansas City Chiefs head coach Andy Reid—who’s team was going for a Super Bowl three-peat—to sell slip-on shoes.
With a 60-second Super Bowl ad costing at least $8 million on Fox, these brands aren’t just playing around—they’re making serious moves to claim market share.
Once upon a time, Nike wouldn’t have had to fight for attention. Now, it’s just one of several players in a crowded field.
The Sha’Carri Richardson Factor
Now, Nike wisely included Sha’Carri Richardson in the ad—one of the few redeeming elements of the campaign.
The sprinter, who was controversially banned from the 2021 Tokyo Olympics for testing positive for marijuana, has since rebounded with a world championship 100m win and a redemption arc that fits Nike’s classic mold of defiant, comeback-driven storytelling.
But even here, Nike’s commitment to its athletes feels inconsistent. Richardson is an easy choice because she’s polarizing in a way that Nike can profit from, but the brand has also distanced itself from athletes who challenge it too much.
When former Nike runner Alysia Montaño called out the company for financially punishing pregnant athletes in 2019, Nike only updated its maternity policies after public backlash.
Nike’s Struggles and the Desperate Play for Relevance
Nike’s stock has been in decline, and sales in its running shoe category have taken a hit.
The brand’s cultural dominance in sportswear is waning as competitors like Asics, Brooks, On, Hoka, and even Lululemon make significant gains in the performance shoe market.
Nike’s once-unshakable grip on the running world is perhaps slipping, and this ad—part of a broader attempt to reestablish its relevance—was supposed to be a turning point.
Nike even brought in a new CEO, Elliott Hill, in 2024 to turn things around. His challenge? Balancing Nike’s progressive branding with an increasingly divided consumer base, all while trying to restore the company’s financial standing.
To make things even more complicated, this ad landed at a politically fraught time in the debate over women’s sports.
Just days before the Super Bowl, the Trump administration effectively banned transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports in the U.S. Nike, a brand that has been vocal on other political issues (such as racial justice with the Colin Kaepernick campaign in 2018), has remained mostly silent on this.
That silence makes this empowerment-focused ad feel especially hollow.
To make matters worse, conservative groups online blasted Nike for “pushing an agenda,” while progressive voices criticized the company for failing to meaningfully engage with the complex realities of gender in sports.
In the end, Nike found itself alienating both sides.
This was supposed to be a comeback moment for Nike’s marketing. Instead, it became a case study in corporate miscalculation.
The ad tried to capitalize on female empowerment while ignoring Nike’s own problematic history. It tried to strike a cultural nerve but misread the room entirely. It wanted to be bold but ended up just being awkward.
That message is confusion. It sounds like they're trying to be Woke and not Woke at the same time.
— KlickcilK (@klickcilK) February 10, 2025
It doesn't really vibe very well.
