The CAA Indoor Track & Field Championships in Virginia Beach ended in controversy last week when two runners from Northeastern University were disqualified for wearing illegal shoes during the 5,000m race.
The athletes, Azza Borovicka-Swanson and Vivian McMachaon, were found to be wearing Nike’s new Streakfly 2, a carbon-plated racing shoe with a 27 mm stack height, exceeding the 25 mm limit set by the NCAA and World Athletics.
One athlete initially finished fifth with a massive personal best of 16:27, improving by 24 seconds, while the other placed 13th with a time of 17:43. However, their achievements were short-lived as meet officials notified them of their disqualification after the race. The disqualification not only erased their performances from the meet but also sparked a debate about who should bear responsibility for the incident.
The Rules and Regulations
World Athletics, the governing body for track and field, implemented regulations on competition shoes in 2021 to ensure fairness and integrity in the sport.
These rules were primarily focused on limiting technological advantages provided by certain footwear, including restrictions on the shoe’s stack height and the inclusion of carbon plates.
The NCAA followed suit in August 2024, mandating the same regulations for collegiate competitions. According to these rules, shoes used in track events must not exceed a 25 mm stack height, with the aim of standardizing competition and preventing unfair advantages.
At sanctioned meets like the CAA Indoor Championships, officials and coaches are responsible for ensuring all athletes comply with footwear regulations.
Despite this, the illegal Nike Streakfly 2 shoes worn by the Northeastern runners slipped through the pre-race checks, leading to the post-race disqualification.
Why Do Brands Make Shoes That Aren’t Allowed in Races?
It might seem strange that a company like Nike—or any other major brand—would design shoes that athletes can’t legally wear in certain competitions. But there’s actually a method to the madness.
Sports footwear companies are in a constant arms race, each trying to create the next big breakthrough that will give athletes an edge. Whether it’s improved cushioning, carbon plates, or enhanced grip, these innovations are often pushed to the limits of what’s allowed.
One big reason is the broader market.
While elite track competitions have strict rules, the average consumer isn’t bound by those same restrictions. Recreational runners, marathoners, and fitness enthusiasts want the best technology in their shoes, and they make up a huge part of the market. When companies like Nike, Adidas, and Asics innovate, they’re often thinking beyond just elite runners.
Nike isn’t alone in this.
For example, Adidas has also pushed boundaries with their Adizero Prime X, which boasts a stack height over 50 mm—double the track limit (and beyond the road limit)—making it another ‘illegal‘ option for many competitions.
These shoes aren’t necessarily breaking the rules; they just aren’t designed for every setting.
From a brand’s perspective, the benefits outweigh the risks.
Developing a shoe that’s faster, more comfortable, or offers more support can generate buzz, boost sales, and enhance a brand’s image. Even if a particular model is banned in track races, it still has a place on the shelves for everyday runners and other types of races.
This strategy also allows brands to showcase their technological prowess, which can trickle down to more widely-used and legal models.
