Last year, the Kenyan distance runners Eliud Kipchoge and Brigid Kosgei made headlines around the world. Kipchoge became the first human being ever to run a marathon – albeit an unofficial one – in less than two hours, while Kosgei broke the women’s world record for the same distance. Both were wearing the Nike Vaporfly, and the uproar over the shoes has been constant ever since.
Inside the Vaporfly is a curved, carbon-fiber plate embedded in lightweight foam to put a little more spring in one’s step. How much more? According to Nike itself, four percent more – by comparison with Nike’s second-bounciest shoe, the Zoom Streak 6. Back in 2017, a Nike-sponsored study by the University of Colorado found that the Zoom Vaporfly was more efficient than the Nike Zoom Streak 6 or the Adidas Adizero Adios Boost 2. More recent, independent studies seem to confirm the figure of four percent. Again, the figure refers to extra spring, not to lower marathon times.
Now the world of track and field is waiting for its governing body, formerly called IAAF, to make a pronouncement. Is wearing the Vaporfly tantamount to cheating? Does it deserve a ban from professional running? World Athletics has been examining the case for months but so far has said nothing. Nicole Jefferies, the body’s head of communications, has told Business Insider that World Athletics is “still deliberating” but hopes to announce something by the end of January.
According to Reuters, World Athletics will likely tighten the regulations on “technological doping” in elite sports competitions. It already has guidelines about the thickness of the midsole in shoes for the high and long jump. On the other hand, Kipchoge himself has told the Daily Telegraph that running in the Vaporfly is “fair” and that athletics as a sport should embrace technological advances.
Meanwhile, life in the business world goes on. Matt Powell, senior sports-industry adviser at the NPD Group, is suggesting that the controversy might spur sales. “Nike has not made a lot of pairs here, so [there is] no real financial impact.” Moreover, a banned shoe might prove irresistible to amateur runners who would like to shave a few seconds from their times. Carol Spieckerman of the Spieckerman Retail consultancy agrees that sales are likely to rise and adds that a ban on the Vaporfly for its “exceptional performance” would actually leave Nike’s reputation intact.
There are plenty of amateur runners who might love to own a pair of Vaporflies. The shoe retails for about $250. The Swoosh seems to playing up this devilish angle on its website, which not only calls the Vaporfly the “fastest shoe we’ve ever made” but also describes it as having a “built-in secret weapon.”
Athletes in Japan have been taking to the Vaporfly as well, especially after its prominent use in a recent, much-watched race there. Japan is, of course, home to two of Nike’s sneaker rivals, Asics and Mizuno. According to one analyst at Iwai Cosmo Securities in Tokyo, Masami Nakanaga, the market worries that without a ban “Nike could take Asics’ share of the athletic sneakers segment.” With a ban, however, “the concerns over sales, as well as the advertising impact that comes from in-competition use, would be relieved.” Tim Morse, an analyst at Asymmetric Advisors in Singapore, disagrees. “It could be a pyrrhic victory for Asics,” he says.
Anyway, Bloomberg has noted that more than 84 percent of the racers in Japan’s recent Hakone Ekiden relay marathon wore the Vaporfly Next% shoe worn by Kipchoge. Only six of them wore Asics, down from 51 a year earlier, and nine wore Mizuno, down from 24. The report noted that the winning team from Tokyo’s Aoyama Gakuin University had switched from Adidas to Nike.
