richardmurray

Kurt Zouma is a black athlete. He kicked a cat and made a video of it. Adidas terminated their shoe deal with him. 

Years before Eden HAzard a white athlete. Kicked a ball boy and he didn't lose his shoe deal.

Years before Luis Suarez a mestizo athlete. Achieved multiple incidents of biting another player. He didn't lose his Adidas shoe deal and Adidas publicly stated, I paraphrase, they talked and the player comprehends the standards of adidas.

I end my examples that show incongruity. 

This question I have in this post isn't about the incidents or the actions of adidas. 

If a firm has the right to maintain or destroy a relationship based on a whim or financial assessment or culture or anything it see fit, I pose the following question.

Will the signal of a black owned firm operating in a similar matter, absent any congruency, be the best sign of black empowerment , in a humanity dominated by fiscal capitalism?

FORUM POST

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/8611-kurt-zouma-has-led-to-a-question/