Nike Is Making Trans Study Funding Story Worse By Not Commenting, Crisis Management Expert Says

Nike's virtual silence on whether the athletic apparel maker funded a study on trans adolescents is keeping the issue alive and making the situation worse, according to a leading crisis management expert. 

Lee Carter, the president and partner of Maslansky+Partners, detailed in an interview how Nike's silence only leads to more questions and the public taking full control of the narrative.

"All the language that they've used is ambiguous. It can be interpreted in any number of different ways," Carter said. "It's like Bill Clinton stating, 'I never had sexual relations with that woman.' What do those words mean? What are you trying to say? Anything that's left ambiguous is going to be interpreted negatively when you have questions." 

It's been more than two weeks since the New York Times published a lengthy story on transgender San Jose State volleyball player Blaire Fleming which included the detail that Nike was helping to fund a study on transgender youth athletes to measure the effects of hormone therapy, gender-affirming care and medical transitioning. Aside from a Nike executive reaching out days later to say the study "was never initialized" and "is not moving forward," Nike hasn't said a word despite multiple and repeated requests for further comment. 

Nike has continued to be virtually silent about its alleged funding a trans youth athlete study. (Photo by Li Hongbo/VCG via Getty Images)

"The question I think most people have, when you look at this is, what are you hiding? Or what's at stake? What's really going on?," Carter said.  "[Nike] might have good reasons that they're not sharing the findings…Absent them saying anything, we're left to interpret the story how we see it, and that means that the story is going to spiral in this way, and they're going to lose control over the narrative, and that seems to be what's happened here." 

Nike Has A History Of Driving An Agenda

What can't be lost in this is Nike's recent history, both in terms of internal shakeups and the brand's clear agenda to become an influence in the political and social justice worlds. 

Elliott Hill is Nike's current president and CEO. He retired from the company when John Donahoe was appointed chief executive in 2020, but was reappointed as CEO in September 2024. In a significant shakeup earlier this week, Nike announced that it has eliminated its president, consumer, product, and brand roles.

"Nike was at the forefront of being political, and they leaned into it. They decided on Colin Kaepernick," Carter said. "They can debate whether or not that was from a top-down or bottom-up decision, whatever it was, but it was a big stance that they took, plus their stance on Black Lives Matter."

Lee Carter is an author, a regular co-host on 'Mornings with Maria Bartiromo,' and a regular contributor on Fox News and other outlets.

"They've made very deliberate brand moves to support these different causes. And you can't look at any of this situation and think that it's [just] chance, and they've got to know that, because they know their brand. So no matter what, if this is a legacy program, if somebody didn't know it, you've got to look and say, so what is your position on this? And if your position is, you know what, we were going to be an advocacy brand, but now we have a new CEO, and it's a new day, and we're not going to be doing that, and we discontinued all research. That's fine, put it to bed, right?" Carter asked.

"But they're not giving an answer, and I think that's a huge problem for them, especially as we're looking at consumers trying to understand what it means to wear Nike. When I wear that logo, what does it mean? What does it say about me? And people care what it says about them. That's what branding is all about…It seems like they're trying to have it both ways, and I don't think it's possible on this environment to do that," Carter continued.

Nike's Silence Regarding Alleged Trans Study vs. Bud Light And Dylan Mulvaney

Whenever a public relations crisis arises or a questionable decision is made by a brand, Bud Light and its epic disaster in deciding to work with transgender personality Dylan Mulvaney immediately comes to mind. It's no fault of any average American or even a media relations expert to point to the Mulvaney-Bud Light situation as ‘what not to do’ because it was a failure of epic proportions.

Bud Light's issues after teaming up with Dylan Mulvaney were astounding. (Credit: Getty Images)

Carter had an interesting opinion when looking at the Bud Light-Mulvaney situation while comparing it to Nike's current dilemma, as she said it all comes back to values.

"Crises in communications happen when you break with your values. And so when you think about Bud Light breaking in their values, America's spirit suddenly became a ‘trans beer,’ right?" Carter said. "That's a break in values that they needed to address right away." 

"Nike, their initial story on Kaepernick was a big break, because nobody knew that Nike was a social impact brand," Carter said. "At that point, it was Nike bringing out the inner athlete in all of us, whether that was a Republican or a Democrat, or somebody who supported the police or didn't, it wasn't supposed to be that, right? But when they did it the first time, it was a break in what our perceived contract was with Nike."

"Now, I think what they've done since, I think they've leaned into that, and that's part of who they are, and I think that's probably why it's less of a kerfuffle. If it were a different brand that was trying to be 'America's sneaker' or something else, that would be different," Carter explained.

Nike promoted Megan Rapinoe as much as any of its athletes during the final years of her playing career. (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images)

To further prove Carter's point about Nike firmly stepping into the political and certainly social issue worlds, the company has an entire page on its website titled "No Pride, No Sport" dedicated to gender ideology causes. Nike lists on its web page the many different ways the company is pushing the ideas of the radical left.

Nike is very proud of its support and efforts towards the LGBTQIA+ community and has not for one second shied away from the fact that its values align more so with the political left, which brings us back to the same question of why? Why would Nike choose to use the silent treatment when it comes to its alleged involvement in the transgender youth athletes study?

Carter may not know the answer, but she does share the opinion that Nike is actually missing out on an opportunity by staying virtually silent.

"People say that companies have become too political. This is an opportunity, if they've discontinued the alleged study to say it's actually become less political," Carter said of Nike. "Do you, in fact, want to be consistent with their values? And this is their values. It's an opportunity to stand firm on those values and reaffirm them if that's what they believe. But being neither here nor there doesn't help them in either direction."

"Some people would actually say, 'I'd be proud to wear Nike because of what they do,' because there's a huge market in that. And there are people who would say, 'I would never wear it again. But neither side is going to be excited about what Nike is doing here," Carter said. "You're not going to appeal to the LGBTQ community by being ambiguous, by not standing by this, walking away from it, or trying to walk it back. You're not going to appeal to conservatives, so what is Nike trying to do here?"

That's one of the many questions on everyone's mind regarding the company's decision in this situation, and hopefully, we will start hearing some answers sooner rather than later.