T.O. Player Exclusive Retro III Cleats (Ebay)

Originally Posted by bundy9

lol....reebok is being a cry baby....they have a large contractual agreement for unis and accessories...they're worried about logos on shoes!? thats the most ridiculous thing i've heard. and the nfl agreed to that clause? call me childish, but thats ridiculous. imagine the nba doin that!
indifferent.gif


i noticed those "logo-less" j's and also wondered, thanks 4 clearin that up.

(after yrs of membership mainly as a spectator, finally up to 500
happy.gif
...but for an issue like this!..
laugh.gif
.)
Click to expand...
its a marketing scheme. The more people see of one logo, the more they will buy that logo.
 
THERE IS A NIKE SWOOSH ON THE BACK!!!

hypebeasts will start popping up all over.... OMG NIKE AIR !!!!!

oh i see one. two three. they already spread over to iss and hypebeast....
 
Jordan 3s are quickly climbing to the top of my list. These p.e.'s just show how versatile they can be. And JB, no stupid ugly unnescessary colorways nexttime you retro them, please.
 
Originally Posted by Jordan23 4xL

Originally Posted by NY GIANTS 11

Makes no sense about the logo - I see swooshes and Under Armor logos on NFL players cleats in EVERY game.
Click to expand...
yea i see the Nike check on gloves all the time also see Brandon Jacobs Under Armour logo on his cleats every game....
Click to expand...

I agree and there is Nike checks on these. Which would lead me to believe they are not TO cleats. I swear Jason Taylor's 3 cleats have a Jumpman logo.
 
Originally Posted by osubass1

Originally Posted by Jordan23 4xL

eek.gif
..but i wonder why no Jumpman
Click to expand...

if i understand correctly, since Jordan Brand is not an officially licensed NFL supplier, they cannot use the Jumpman or they would face a fine.
Click to expand...


WOW. i never heard that. i don't play football by the way
laugh.gif
 
I agree and there is Nike checks on these. Which would lead me to believe they are not TO cleats. I swear Jason Taylor's 3 cleats have a Jumpman logo.
Proof is in the pudding, I swear they DO NOT have a jumpman on them and the only way they would have a jumpman logo is if they were baseballcleats which of course they are not
happy.gif
.
Click to expand...
 
dukeunc wrote:
Referring back to the 2 posts above about Reebok being a big crybaby & LT wearing a giant swoosh on his shoes... Each company (Nike, adidas, Under Amrour,etc) has to pay an enormous amout of money for a licensing fee just for players to be allowed to wear their logo visible on their shoes. If I recall it is something like $50 million just for the right to have their logo visible on players shoes in an NFL game. adidas used to be allowed to have players wear their shoes in games, but the 3 stripes were not allowed to be visible. That is when the players would spat (put tape) their shoes for ankle support, & would conveniently cover the adidas logo. I don't think the NFL allows that any longer. The only NFL licensed footwear brands in the NFL are Reebok, Nike, adidas, & Under Armour. Since Nike & Brand Jordan are recognized as "separate" brands & have different logos, they would be forced to pay an additional licensing fee to have the Jumpman visible on players shoes in an NFL game. Not sure why the league allows them to wear Brand Jordan cleats on field, but I would guess that not putting the logo on the shoes has alot to do with it. I am sure they somehow spin it that they are part of Nike, therefore allowing the JB shoes on field under the Nike licensing agreement. The NFL is by far the most lacrative sporting league in the world, & this is exactly why.
Click to expand...


considerin ur eloquent explanation i get the picture clearer now, makes sense....and i guess that quietens my curiosity on that issue for so many yrs.....
Originally Posted by bundy9

lol....reebok is being a cry baby....they have a large contractual agreement for unis and accessories...they're worried about logos on shoes!? thats the most ridiculous thing i've heard. and the nfl agreed to that clause? call me childish, but thats ridiculous. imagine the nba doin that!
indifferent.gif


i noticed those "logo-less" j's and also wondered, thanks 4 clearin that up.

(after yrs of membership mainly as a spectator, finally up to 500
happy.gif
...but for an issue like this!..
laugh.gif
.)
Click to expand...
vick619 wrote:

its a marketing scheme. The more people see of one logo, the more they will buy that logo
.
^ yes thats understood, but i think ppl realised that rbk was not goin to be a player in branding as much when the Iverson line died after the answer 5's and when adidas turned up the afterburner....yes true im maybe being slightly bball biased, but that outright brand censorship in my mind will not illuminate reebok anymore than they are in teh market now
Click to expand...
 
those are soooo sick... but not as sick as the marvin harrison low XIII cleats.. those were amazinggggg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom