The League

Dan Shannon

Dan Shannon

Assistant Director of Campaigns People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

PETA Says No One


If Nike and other companies know what's best for the bottom line, they won't touch Michael Vick with a 10-foot pole.

Teaming up with a convicted dogfighter would be a surefire way to lose customers. Athletes and sports fans love animals, and like compassionate people around the world, they're disgusted by what Vick did--including drowning, hanging, and electrocuting dogs; slamming dogs to the ground to break their backs; and even laughing as he threw his family dogs into the ring to be ripped to shreds by fighting dogs.

Partnering with an animal abuser would also send the dangerous and false message that you can hurt and kill animals and still have companies pay to use your name--if you happen to be rich enough or fast with a football.

It seems that Nike still agrees with this, since, according to a statement released by the company, it has not yet signed an endorsement deal with Vick. In fact, in July 2007, at PETA's urging, Nike dropped its sponsorship contract with Vick in light of the horrible things he did to dogs.

Animal abusers don't deserve to be rewarded with product endorsements or multimillion-dollar contracts. And they certainly don't deserve the privilege of serving as a role model for impressionable kids--a distinction that all professional athletes inevitably receive, whether they want it or not.

If companies are looking for worthy sponsors, they should team up with the many talented athletes out there who are speaking out against cruelty to animals. Los Angeles Lakers forward Ron Artest, mixed martial arts fighter Tito Ortiz, and world welterweight champion "Sugar" Shane Mosley, just to name a few, have all teamed up with PETA to remind fans that dogfighting is cruel and cowardly and that only losers participate in it.

These guys are real men, real athletes, and real role models. They are worthy of endorsements. Animal abusers aren't.

By Dan Shannon  |  October 2, 2009; 4:19 AM ET  | Category:  Michael Vick , Philadelphia Eagles Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Learn From Ray Lewis | Next: Weak Vick Experience


Please email us to report offensive comments.

The man is offensive and prison can not erase his basic core values. His connection with any company would make their products repugnant.

Posted by: scifimom | October 2, 2009 9:10 AM

Vick has proven himself a loser over and over again. He has a long history of bad behavior. He is an evil man with real flaws that can not be changed by good PR.

Posted by: sarahsmile | October 2, 2009 11:34 AM

PETA is really no better than Michael Vick, they support self-promotion over helping animals. You can check out some of their bizarre tactics here:

Moreover, why is Michael Vick any different from people who eat animal products? Sure, he tortures dogs unnecessarily, but anyone who consumes animal products supports the unnecessary torture and eventual killing of animals. We do not need to use animals for food, clothing or entertainment. We can be perfectly healthy as vegans, can make our clothes from plants or synthetics, and clearly do not need to visit the circus. So what is it that differentiates any of you (who I assume are not vegan) from Michael Vick? Gary Francione has posted about this at length:

Posted by: egads1 | October 2, 2009 6:42 PM

Animals are not persons and lack rights. Concerns for animal welfare do not imply a person should face greater punishment than the law provides. Mr. Vick has paid his debt to society for a crime other than a crime against the person. This man should be a spokesperson for any company that wants to use him. Barbaric is the notion that a brand of Cain should be applied for such crimes.

Posted by: Martial | October 2, 2009 7:28 PM

I personally would stop using any product Michael Vick endorses. I sincerely hope that Michael Vick has indeed reformed and repented for his crimes. That does not erase them nor does it bring back the all the animals he cruelly killed. Allowing him to practice his career as a football player is readmitting a potentially reformed abuser into society. Allowing him to make millions endorsing products is offensive. I think most advertisers are acutely aware that Vick is a poison pill to their product.

Posted by: kevnet | October 3, 2009 6:12 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company