Nike said yesterday it does not have a "contractual relationship" with Michael Vick, a day after the quarterback's agent announced a deal with the manufacturer.
In a statement, Nike said it has "agreed to supply product to Michael Vick as we do a number of athletes who are not under contract with Nike."
So Nike will give Vick products and he will represent the company by wearing them, but apparently there is no written "contract" between the two?
Save it Nike. You either have a relationship or you don't and in this case you do. Whether you characterize it as a contractual relationship or not doesn't really mean anything to the general public.