Adidas' Plan to Move NBA Jersey Production Overseas

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Worker Blasts Adidas' Plan to Move NBA Jersey Production Overseas
By Joshua Rhett Miller
- FOXNews.com
The lone major sport with its roots in America could soon see its premier players dunking and driving to the hoop wearing uniforms made in Thailand, costing nearly 100 workers their jobs in upstate New York.
The lone major sport with its roots in America could soon see its premier players dunking and driving to the hoop wearing uniforms made in Thailand, costing nearly 100 workers their jobs in upstate New York.
Sports apparel giant Adidas plans to end its contract with Perry, N.Y.-based apparel supplier American Classic Outfitters (ACO), which currently manufactures more than half of the uniforms worn in the National Basketball Association.
And that's downright un-American, says Donna Wampole, who has worked at ACO, outside Buffalo, for 22 years. She says losing Adidas' business will undoubtedly hurt the company and will likely lead to layoffs.
"I think it's horrible," Wampole told FoxNews.com of the impending move. "They're American teams, they should all be wearing American garments."
Wampole, a production supervisor, said the company has been allotting shorter hours to employees in an effort to avoid job losses.
"They're worried, there's a lot of chatter," Wampole said. "We've been trying to shift work around and reduce people's hours to try and keep everybody employed. We're struggling."
New York Sen. Charles Schumer on Tuesday blasted Adidas' move as "short-sighted" and called on the compnay to reverse its decision.
"It is flat wrong for Adidas to move the production of jerseys worn by NBA players outside the United States when there are U.S. companies that have done this work so well and for so long," Schumer said in a statement to FoxNews.com.
"And to do it in this economic climate adds insult to injury. Basketball is a marquee American sport and the NBA is its premier stage."
Rob Knoll, ACO's senior vice president, told FoxNews.com that, barring new customers, 97 employees at the 200,000-square-foot New York plant could lose their jobs once Adidas moves its operations overseas, a decision Knoll said ACO officials learned just six weeks ago.
"We're working diligently with our sales people," Knoll said. "We do not want to close it. Our stance is will we not let this fail."
Knoll said some employees at the plant have nearly 40 years tenure. Nearly all have been "scared to death" since Adidas' plans have become public, he said.
"We're not going to allow this facility to fail," said Knoll, adding "it doesn't look good."
Schumer said ACO obtained a long-term contract with Adidas last year to become its exclusive provider of sports apparel. ACO then invested more than $1 million in facility improvements and equipment to produce NBA jerseys.
"The jerseys the NBA players wear should be made in the U.S.A, plain and simple," Schumer's statement continued. "From outfitting the original Dream Team to LeBron James to the WNBA, the workers right here in New York have produced a first-class product that has been a vital part of the sport's growing popularity."
Calls to the NBA seeking comment were not returned Tuesday. In a statement obtained by FoxNews.com, Adidas said it informed NCO of its decision in August.
"This decision is in line with both the company's product strategy of developing and introducing new, innovative materials and technologies to basketball uniforms, and the company's sourcing strategy of consolidating our supply chain," the statement read. "This decision is in no way a reflection on the capabilities or performance of ACO who has been a great partner for many years. The Adidas Group continues to produce uniforms for professional, college and other amateur teams at more than 30 facilities in North America and will continue to do so moving forward."
Schumer said that moving manufacturing overseas would deprive ACO of $7 million annually.
"To cut them off from the future growth of the sport is flat wrong," Schumer said in his statement. "Adidas must do the right thing and reverse this decision, and continue to produce all these jerseys domestically at ACO. To do anything else is an insult to the American worker and sports fans everywhere in America."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/schumer-blasts-adidas-plan-nba-jersey-production-overseas/

[LAPhil]

Couldn't the NBA use a different company?

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Couldn't the NBA use a different company?There aren't many companies left. Unless you consider American Apparel. Even the upscale designers are manufacturing overseas. That's how really bad it is.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

The only thing that surprises me about this article is to learn that they weren't already being made overseas.

I'm sure this makes absolutely no one feel any better but I've been to Thailand and seen the shape that country is in. Believe me, they can use the work.

[Ayatollahgondola]

The only thing that surprises me about this article is to learn that they weren't already being made overseas.

I'm sure this makes absolutely no one feel any better but I've been to Thailand and seen the shape that country is in. Believe me, they can use the work.

But just how much do the Thai's realize from that work? Isn;t there a huge, huge disparity between wages earned and company profit that dwarfs what goes on here? I know it sounds harsh to calculate whether that's the best scenario in comparison, but it might be best to figure in what the end result is, and that's empowerment of globalist eco-dominance.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Dude, I'm not a fan of our manufacturing businesses going overseas. Further, I'm not going soft and saying, Ah gee, they need it more than we do so let's not get too upset. Additionally, I'm aware that they get paid an hourly wage that makes a churro vendor in TJ look like Bill Gates in comparison.

I'm simply saying, I visited Thailand and saw the poverty and corruption there. Any work brought in by companies from outside that nation, the locals can desperately use.

Believe me, countries like Thailand and Laos (and Mexico to a lesser degree) are the best argument in favor of the notion that imperialism has gotten a bad rap.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Let's ship 'em Mexicans instead. From what I'm told by cabinet level heads in the Obama administration, they're economic stimulators. They seem to think they are better than actual jobs

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Let's ship 'em Mexicans instead. From what I'm told by cabinet level heads in the Obama administration, they're economic stimulators. They seem to think they are better than actual jobs


One of the concerns in my wife's home country is a shrinking population. Japanese are reproducing at an even slower rate than the Spaniards and folks in the Netherlands. In fact, the average married woman in Tokyo has 1.3 children (It is exceptionally rare that a female in that country has a child while unmarried).

I've often times told her that if the country would simply let us ship over all of the non-graduating students from a single senior class at any LAUSD high school of their choosing in the San Fernando Valley, the Japs could sit back and never worry about lack of babies again.

[Twoller]

....

Believe me, countries like Thailand and Laos (and Mexico to a lesser degree) are the best argument in favor of the notion that imperialism has gotten a bad rap.

Please try and remember that the United States was born in a revolution against imperialism. Imperialism is the direct opposite of all of the values represented in everything good about the United States and its constitution. Imperialistic values are an infection on politics in the United States and is a good part of our immigration problems. A good example is our "territories" like Puerto Rico and other corruptions of US citizenship and borders.

One of the concerns in my wife's home country is a shrinking population. Japanese are reproducing at an even slower rate than the Spaniards and folks in the Netherlands. In fact, the average married woman in Tokyo has 1.3 children (It is exceptionally rare that a female in that country has a child while unmarried).

....

Why is it that whenever a people refuse to breed like rodents, they are disparaged as if they are falling down on the job and represent a country in decline? The fact is that the planet and the economies that are necessary for basic human welfare are breaking down because of human over population. Countries that have slowing native population growth represent those countries best prepared for the long term future. Russia is another country that has a slowing native population growth. Social stability is best achieved by little or no population growth, especially since population growth has exploded world wide. We need to value more families who have only one child or none, in some cases. Especially where the parents have two or more siblings. And we need to restrict immigration from countries with high population growth.

[LAPhil]

Why is it that whenever a people refuse to breed like rodents, they are disparaged as if they are falling down on the job and represent a country in decline? The fact is that the planet and the economies that are necessary for basic human welfare are breaking down because of human over population. Countries that have slowing native population growth represent those countries best prepared for the long term future. Russia is another country that has a slowing native population growth. Social stability is best achieved by little or no population growth, especially since population growth has exploded world wide. We need to value more families who have only one child or none, in some cases. Especially where the parents have two or more siblings. And we need to restrict immigration from countries with high population growth.
There's only one problem with that, Twoller. What do you do about the illegals who reproduce at much greater rates than the rest of us and can potentially outpopulate us?

[Jeanfromfillmore]

There's only one problem with that, Twoller. What do you do about the illegals who reproduce at much greater rates than the rest of us and can potentially outpopulate us?You keep them in their own environment and they land up starving to death. That's what nature does to all creatures who over populate and why we don't want more of then migrating here. Just like the garages with 15 people living inside and houses with 25, they damage the sewers and neighborhoods, they eventually destroy the infrastructure. And in time the neighborhood can't support anyone and those there want to leave it.

[Rim05]

So that is why so many water mains are breaking.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

So that is why so many water mains are breaking.Rimo they overuse the infrastructure yet don't contribute enough to maintain it or replace it. Basically whole areas begin to crumble. With the economy as it is and not much relief in sight, we'll see this happening at an alarming rate in the next ten to twenty years.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Please try and remember that the United States was born in a revolution against imperialism. Imperialism is the direct opposite of all of the values represented in everything good about the United States and its constitution. Imperialistic values are an infection on politics in the United States and is a good part of our immigration problems. A good example is our "territories" like Puerto Rico and other corruptions of US citizenship and borders.



I wholeheartedly disagree. There are problems, right now, that could be rectified by making certain countries or areas U.S. territories. There are simply some people/nations that will never conform to our standards and, so long as they continue their current practices, will burden the U.S.

Examples: The Palestinians, the Mexicans and the Afghanis.

Everyone, us and them, would have an improved standard of living if the the people populating those territories were controlled by the U.S.

[Twoller]

I'm sorry, but no matter how useless a people are to themselves or anyone else, being subject to an empire has never been a solution. If you can't understand that part of the promise of our United States as a beacon of hope to anyone, even ourselves, is as a confrontation against empires, then you are unfit to be United States citizen.

Any time our government becomes the open and willing executor of an empire, then that government is capable of treating us, US citizens, as the subjects of an empire. What kind of fool would turn over their system of government to an empire.

What happens to our borders when the US becomes an empire? Look at Great Britain and the commonwealth. It's immigration problems are the consequence of the collapse of Imperial England. That collapse saw its first tremors in our own American Revolution that saw the birth of our own country.

Look at India. It has been the unwilling subject of an Islamic empire and an English empire. Under Ghandi and others, they finally took back most of their own country. They are still coping with the refuse that these empires left behind, although England left the most gracefully. Look at what Vietnam had to go through. Both the French and Catholics in the US said that Vietnam was incapable of governing itself. If they had been left to govern themselves, Vietnam would never have gone communist. But to the Vietnamese, communism was perferable to imperialism.

They were right. Even communism is better than imperialism, especially the filthy and degenerate hand of imperialism that touched Vietnam.

[LAPhil]

I can't believe this. For the first time ever I actually agree with Twoller!

[DerailAmnesty.com]

I'm sorry, but no matter how useless a people are to themselves or anyone else, being subject to an empire has never been a solution. If you can't understand that part of the promise of our United States as a beacon of hope to anyone, even ourselves, is as a confrontation against empires, then you are unfit to be United States citizen.

Any time our government becomes the open and willing executor of an empire, then that government is capable of treating us, US citizens, as the subjects of an empire. What kind of fool would turn over their system of government to an empire.

What happens to our borders when the US becomes an empire? Look at Great Britain and the commonwealth. It's immigration problems are the consequence of the collapse of Imperial England. That collapse saw its first tremors in our own American Revolution that saw the birth of our own country.

Look at India. It has been the unwilling subject of an Islamic empire and an English empire. Under Ghandi and others, they finally took back most of their own country. They are still coping with the refuse that these empires left behind, although England left the most gracefully. Look at what Vietnam had to go through. Both the French and Catholics in the US said that Vietnam was incapable of governing itself. If they had been left to govern themselves, Vietnam would never have gone communist. But to the Vietnamese, communism was perferable to imperialism.

They were right. Even communism is better than imperialism, especially the filthy and degenerate hand of imperialism that touched Vietnam.


Well, I'm afraid you're going to have to revoke my citizenship b/c my position remains unchanged. Most of your observations are simply at odds with reality.

Firstly, the answer to your initial question in the third paragraph is that when the United States extends into what is now Mexico, the desire or need to cross what was the border by hordes of uneducated laborers largely disappears b/c some manner of opportunity exists in their place of birth.

Secondly, insofar as turning over my form of government to an empire, I have no intention of doing so. It is my position that we impose our leadership and control on them ... or perhaps you're under the impression that we'll see an end to Palestinian school children being indoctrinated into suicide terrorist attacks, or witness the enormous growth of a Mexican middle class, sometime during our lives if we don't? Standing around waiting for others to comport themselves to what we consider minimal standards of Western decency? How's it working out for you so far?

Thirdly, you're right. I invite you to look at India and Vietnam. Visit those locations and then come back and tell me with a straight face their populations are better off in the absence of the British and the French. You can add a good chunk of Africa to that list, too.

Earlier you mentioned something about Puerto Rico. Is that intended seriously? Remove the United States from that territory's equation and it is essentially the equivalent of the Dominican Republic or Haiti.

America is good for people everywhere it touches down. Iraq, Japan, Guam, etc., and the idea that large populations in impoverished or corrupt countries are not better off with American values and leadership is tomfoolery.

[Twoller]

The United States is good for the United States and everything that the United States does should be only in the interests of the citizens of the United States. If Puerto Rico is Haiti outside of being a "territory" of the United States, then that's really tough for Puerto Rico, but of no concern to the United States. And its really tough to Haiti and the Dominacan Republic that they will never become "territories" of the United States.

You know, if you want to be serious about the US become a real empire, you ought to think a little straighter than that. A real empire doesn't give a crap about the peoples of their empirial conquests. It goes in, takes what it wants, enslaves the native peoples and if the native's lot accidentally improves, then take credit. The problem with Puerto Rico being the target of imperial ambitiions is that it hasn't got anything worth conquering over and the Puerto Ricans can't do anything that we need doing.

[LAPhil]

DA, I'm rather surprised that you would take this position. It's almost like advocating that America be the policeman of the world, only in this case it's not the policeman but the caretaker. I think Twoller's right, this only leads to trouble and resentment in the long run and has done so in many cases. Look at Vietnam, Iran, China, and Mexico, going back to the last century. We meddled in all those countries either militarily or otherwise and in every case there were some rather bad consequences.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

The United States is good for the United States and everything that the United States does should be only in the interests of the citizens of the United States. If Puerto Rico is Haiti outside of being a "territory" of the United States, then that's really tough for Puerto Rico, but of no concern to the United States.


Seizing control of Mexico, Iraq and the Gaza Strip is absolutely in the interests of the citizens of the United States. How much money and military power have we burnt through taking constant remedial measures cleaning up the failings of those locations over the past decades? I don't want to make Mexico part of the U.S. b/c I think it has cool beaches, flashing eyed senoritas with curvy figures and natural resources. Nor is it particularly important to me that we provide better lives for our poor southern neighbors (that's just an extra benefit). I want to assert control over Mexico b/c the manner in which that nation conducts itself is killing tens of thousands of Americans, flooding our nation with their uneducated welfare cases and threatening our way of life.

Twoller, are you expecting the authorities that be in Mexico City to get serious about stopping the flood of their poor and desperate into Texas, Arizona and California anytime soon? When do you believe the elite in that country will start to feel pangs of guilt and begin to reorganize the economic structure of Mexico so that there is a larger middle class that present less of a burden upon its immediate neighbor to the north?

You're not dealing in reality, and our inaction results in loss of American lives, degradation of our cities, the disintegration of our public schools and citizen taxpayer exploitation out the wazoo.

And Phil, everybody resents #1. Playing nice or trying to appease folks by showing how swell we are will change none of that.

[Twoller]

... I don't want to make Mexico part of the U.S. [becaues] ... Nor is it particularly important to me that we provide better lives for our poor southern neighbors (that's just an extra benefit). I want to assert control over Mexico [because] ...

Twoller, are you expecting the authorities that be in Mexico City to get serious about stopping the flood of their poor and desperate into Texas, Arizona and California anytime soon? ...

....

You do want to make Mexico a part of the US. This is all the usual NAU crap through some new back door. It is the NAU masquerading as US imperialism.

How can the US become an empire if we can't even expect our own authorities to take our borders seriously? What a joke! Power for the USA to become an empire, even if we had some political infection that was serious about it, would have to start with the proven ability to halt the flow of illegals across our border and additionally, a dramatic reduction in the flow of legals as well. It would have to start with the absolute and unilateral ability to close off our borders. We need that, but we already have a political infection that wants to reduce the US to a welfare state for Mexico and the rest of the planet with open borders. And now we got somebody trying to confuse this with imperialism.

I don't believe you are honestly representing yourself. I don't think you are really thinking about an empire at all.

Save your arguments. As far as I am concern, you are not to be trusted.

[LAPhil]

DA, are you putting us on? I'm not sure, but I think I can see your tongue slightly in your cheek.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

You do want to make Mexico a part of the US. This is all the usual NAU crap through some new back door. It is the NAU masquerading as US imperialism ...

...I don't believe you are honestly representing yourself. I don't think you are really thinking about an empire at all.

Save your arguments. As far as I am concern, you are not to be trusted.

NAU masquerading as U.S. imperialism. Interesting interpretation; I wouldn't have thought of that one.

As to your last two sentences, please spare me. Those are pretty much words commonly voiced by message board drama queens who take all disagreement as a manner of personal attack, and more importantly, are characterized by their conspicuous absences when we rally, hold a demonstration or do something that involves attendance.

I tell you what. Show up in Santa Clarita next month and you have carte blanche to curse me out for the substance of my position and attempt to revoke my citizenship.

---------------

No Phil, I'm not. I'm 46 years old and getting tired of the world not being the way I want it. I don't think there's anything wrong with a little red, white and blue pro-activeness when confronted by nations and clans that are career f ups.

[Twoller]

...

No Phil, I'm not. I'm 46 years old and getting tired of the world not being the way I want it. I don't think there's anything wrong with a little red, white and blue pro-activeness when confronted by nations and clans that are career f ups.

Career f ups? Like Ireland? I would hope that the Republic of Ireland is one of your targets for US colonialism since so many in Northern Ireland evoke the US as a model for their own violence against what they call British Imperialism.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Career f ups? Like Ireland? I would hope that the Republic of Ireland is one of your targets for US colonialism since so many in Northern Ireland evoke the US as a model for their own violence against what they call British Imperialism.

Isn't there more at issue in Ireland than imperialism? I thought there was a religious factional dispute there as well.....catholics and protestants?

[Twoller]

Isn't there more at issue in Ireland than imperialism? I thought there was a religious factional dispute there as well.....catholics and protestants?

The Protestants are "unionists". They maintain loyalty to the United Kingdom and independence from the very Catholic Republic of Ireland. The Catholics in Northern Ireland claim to be oppressed and are "nationalists" and wish unification with the Republic of Ireland, but there are no Protestants in the Republic of Ireland to speak of. The unionists are accused of being "imperialistic" with the United Kingdom posed as an empire with Northern Ireland representing the colonization of Ireland. Sympathetic Irish in the US frequently cite the American Revolution as being the same thing the Catholics are struggling for in Northern Ireland.

More information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Career f ups? Like Ireland? I would hope that the Republic of Ireland is one of your targets for US colonialism since so many in Northern Ireland evoke the US as a model for their own violence against what they call British Imperialism.


No, action should only be taken that benefits the U.S. Ireland is not a problem for the U.S. (or in my opinion, a problem at all). Career f ups like Afghanistan, the Palestinians, Mexico and Iraq.

[Ayatollahgondola]

No, action should only be taken that benefits the U.S. Ireland is not a problem for the U.S. (or in my opinion, a problem at all). Career f ups like Afghanistan, the Palestinians, Mexico and Iraq.

Wait a minute, wait a minute.....Iraq was in the career category? They were our ally and beneficiary prior to the 90's. If our intervention is a good thing, why did it turn out so bad there?

[Twoller]

No, action should only be taken that benefits the U.S. Ireland is not a problem for the U.S. (or in my opinion, a problem at all). Career f ups like Afghanistan, the Palestinians, Mexico and Iraq.

As I thought ...

Not only is Ireland a career f up like the Palestinians, they are partner f ups. They frequently identify with each other's various "struggles". Gerry Adams has visited Gaza and campaigned for Palestinian "nationalism". People have seriously suggested that the current situation in Northern Ireland is a model for a solution for the question of Palestinian statehood.