Nike faces significant backlash over alleged funding of a five-year study tracking transgender youths’ athletic performance during medical transition, raising questions about corporate ethics and athletic fairness.
At a Glance
- Nike allegedly funded a controversial study tracking physical performance changes in transgender youth during medical transition
- Researcher Joanna Harper, a transgender woman, was set to lead the study involving adolescents as young as 12
- Dr. Kathryn Ackerman from Boston Children’s Hospital confirmed Nike’s involvement in funding
- Critics question the ethics of studying children undergoing hormone therapy and the implications for women’s sports
- Nike has remained largely silent, offering only brief statements that the study “was never initialized” and “is not moving forward”
Study Details and Confirmation
According to reports from multiple sources, Nike has been linked to funding a controversial five-year research project tracking physical performance changes in transgender youth during medical transition. The study, which would involve adolescents as young as 12, was to be led by Joanna Harper, a transgender woman and researcher. The project aimed to measure athletic performance before and after hormone therapy to determine what level of medical intervention might be required for transgender athletes to compete in categories aligned with their gender identity.
Two sources have directly confirmed Nike’s involvement in this research. Harper explicitly stated, “The study is being funded by Nike,” according to multiple reports. Dr. Kathryn Ackerman from Boston Children’s Hospital similarly confirmed that “Nike provided them funding.” These statements were made in connection with a profile in the New York Times Magazine about transgender athletes in women’s collegiate sports, bringing national attention to the previously undisclosed funding arrangement.
Criticism and Ethical Concerns
Jennifer Sey, founder of XX-XY Athletics, has been among the most vocal critics of Nike’s alleged involvement. Speaking about the research, Sey explained: “She’s trying to understand what they call ‘retained male advantage’ and is there little enough of it that these boys can pass for competing with girls.” Sey questioned why a shoe company would fund such research and called the study fundamentally degrading to women and girls in athletics.
“Senior executives probably didn’t know what was happening. This is something that happened deep in the organization,” Jennifer Sey said, suggesting the decision might have been made years ago without full corporate awareness.
Critics have raised serious concerns about the ethical implications of studying children undergoing hormone therapy. The controversy highlights questions about potential health risks to minors participating in such research and corporate responsibility in funding medical studies involving children. Some observers have also expressed concern that the research could be seen as an attempt to justify allowing male-born athletes to compete in women’s sports competitions rather than as an objective scientific inquiry.
Nike’s Response and Corporate Accountability
Despite multiple inquiries from journalists, Nike has largely maintained silence on the matter. When finally pressed for comment, the company issued brief statements claiming the study “was never initialized” and “is not moving forward.” However, critics note that these statements fall short of directly denying that funding was provided or addressing the ethical questions raised by such research. The limited response has only fueled further criticism about corporate transparency.
Nike’s website promotes various gender ideology initiatives and partnerships with groups supporting gender transitions, though it makes no specific mention of funding Harper’s study. This has led to accusations of a disconnect between Nike’s public marketing stance and its behind-the-scenes research funding. Some traditional Nike supporters, particularly in communities like skateboarding, have expressed discomfort with the company’s apparent direction on gender issues in sports.
Broader Implications for Women’s Sports
This controversy occurs against the backdrop of ongoing national debate about transgender participation in women’s sports. Critics argue that such research, especially when funded by a major sports apparel company, risks undermining decades of progress in women’s athletics. The fundamental question raised by many centers on whether scientific research is being undertaken to justify policy positions rather than to objectively determine athletic fairness.
Harper indicated in reports that uncertainty about the study’s progress was due to political climate changes affecting gender-affirming care, not funding issues. This has created additional questions about the real status of the research and whether similar studies might be undertaken privately without public disclosure. Critics have called for greater accountability not just from Nike, but from all corporations funding scientific research with potential implications for policy decisions affecting fairness in sports.
