Link

Link

Link

Link

The recent departure of four of Jamaica’s top field athletes to Türkiye has reignited a longstanding and often emotional debate: Should a cash-strapped government prioritize investing in athletes when nurses, teachers, and police officers are still fighting for livable wages?

It’s a fair question—but one grounded in a false choice.

This issue came to the fore again during my appearance on Lead Story on CVM TV last Friday. The suggestion was made that, in light of wage negotiations across the public sector, the government simply cannot afford to support its elite athletes. This argument, while politically expedient, ignores a key truth: investing in athletes is not a luxury or distraction—it is a strategic investment in national development, social mobility, and future economic growth.

Athletes are not entertainers performing for applause. They are cultural ambassadors, mentors, and living proof that talent, when nurtured, can transcend poverty, violence, and limited opportunity.

A Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce, who emerged from the volatile community of Waterhouse to become one of the greatest sprinters of all time, is not merely a track icon—she is a social blueprint. Her story tells thousands of Jamaican children growing up in similarly harsh conditions that greatness is possible. Every time a child ties their shoelaces to train on a patchy field, inspired by someone like her, a new path is being carved away from crime, hopelessness, and underachievement.

And these athletes do more than just inspire from afar. They draw the world to Jamaica. Just recently, Usain Bolt—arguably the most recognizable Jamaican alive—was named the country’s Tourism Ambassador. Why? Because of what he represents globally as the face of Jamaica. Who else could have been appointed to that role and be as effective? This is why a safer, more optimistic Jamaica, shaped in part by sport, becomes a magnet for visitors and foreign investment. An athlete like Roje Stona, had he remained and received the right support, could have also emerged as a powerful ambassador of brand Jamaica. The more we invest in our elite athletes, the more global representatives we cultivate—each one contributing to our tourism product, our national identity, and our economic prospects.

There is also real, data-backed evidence that structured investment in sport delivers tangible social returns. A 2000 study by the Australian Institute of Criminology, titled Sport and Crime: A Report on the Role of Sports in Crime Prevention (source), provides compelling insights.

The report concludes that sports-based programmes can help reduce antisocial behaviour and criminal activity, particularly among youth. It highlights that sport provides a structured outlet for energy, fosters discipline and teamwork, and promotes positive peer associations. These qualities are especially potent in communities plagued by gang violence or low academic achievement—challenges familiar to many parts of Jamaica.

In short: support for sport is support for public safety.

And for those who prefer to speak in dollars and cents, here’s the economic truth: sport pays back—often many times over. Major global events such as the Olympics and World Championships generate billions in tourism, merchandise, broadcast rights, and investment. But even on a smaller scale, successful athletes create economic ripple effects.

From endorsement deals and brand ambassadorships to local club growth and sporting clinics, athletes fuel an entire ecosystem. When they train and win in the national kit, Jamaica benefits—economically, diplomatically, and reputationally.

The Australian study goes further, linking sports investment to increased government revenue. A healthier, more engaged youth population reduces long-term healthcare and policing costs. A booming sports economy creates jobs. The contribution of sport to the national economy also potentially increases government revenue, thereby creating greater fiscal space. With that expanded fiscal room, the government is ultimately in a stronger position to afford more agreeable wages for civil servants—including the very nurses, teachers, and police officers at the centre of the wage debate.

These dynamics, if harnessed strategically, can power a more sustainable and balanced approach to national development.

The idea that we must choose between paying civil servants and supporting athletes is a false binary. In fact, it is poor planning and vision that pits them against each other. Jamaica must build a development model that recognizes how all sectors—education, healthcare, security, and sport—are interconnected. Undervaluing one only weakens the rest.

No one is suggesting that nurses, police officers or teachers be paid less. But just as the country needs skilled professionals to teach, protect, and heal, we also need athletes who can inspire, lead, and elevate Jamaica on the world stage.

The moment we treat our best athletes as expendable, we risk not just losing medals, but losing an entire generation of young people who might have followed their lead.

And if we fail to see the wisdom in keeping our best at home, others—like Türkiye—certainly will.

Leighton Levy is a veteran sports journalist and Content Editor at Sportsmax.TV. He is passionate about Caribbean athlete development and the intersection of sport, culture, and nation-building.

Introduction

Few would dispute that Nike (NYSE:NKE) remains one of the most iconic brands in athletic fashion, with a track record of defining culture, bringing impressive levels of innovation, and delivering at scale globally. However, 2025 is proving to be a challenging year for many of the world’s largest retailers, with mounting pressures from geopolitical tensions, rising threats to supply chains, and uncertain trading conditions. I see shares in the company trading close to fair value, so while Nike is likely going nowhere any time soon, the catalysts that have made it investible over the last few decades are not really working for now.

Company Overview

One of the most instantly recognisable brands in the world, Nike has been designing, marketing and selling athletic footwear, clothing, and equipment since 1964. It generally operates across direct to consumer sales channels, delivering just over $50 billion in revenue in FY24. Net margins during this period were a solid 9%, well above the median average of peers at 5%. However, there will be concerns that this growth appears to be faltering, with the share price down over 35% in a year, forward revenues expected to drop by 4%, and EPS sliding 16%. Following the events of the pandemic, a shift towards direct to consumer business was meant to deliver premium margins and a closer relationship with customers. Although there were signs in previous quarters that this was developing, the wider economic landscape globally has taken a significant toll on the balance sheet. Rising costs in logistics, weakening demand, and discounting from competitors have all hit margins more than management would have liked to see.

With so much of the company’s logistics network in China, Vietnam and Indonesia, the recent tariff tensions have put enormous stress on the profitability analysts are expecting over the coming years, with some suggesting that as much as [url=”]95[/url]% of profits could be at risk in the worst case scenario.

Of course, Nike is not the only company dealing with this landscape, but with newer brands amassing loyal followings from social media and more dynamic brand campaigns, firms such as Lululemon are seeing surges in key markets, such as women-led athleisure. Nike is clearly making moves to correct this, with a partnership with [url=”]Skims[/url] likely to roll out in 2026, but it suggests that the firm is perhaps on the backfoot with these emerging trends.

The Bull/Bear Balance

That said, there is enormous strength in the Nike brand, with a track record of cash-generation, innovative campaigns, and huge deals with athletes such as LeBron James and Kylian Mbappe. From an investor perspective, the 2.7% dividend yield adds a decent level of appeal alongside a strong balance sheet, especially in a period of market transition where some of these newcomers appear to be losing share even faster than some of the more established players.

From my perspective, the real weakness comes from relatively weak momentum and a rather expensive valuation. With a forward P/E sitting at about 31x, EV/EBITDA at 16x and P/S at about 2x, the company’s key metrics are at a decent premium despite not necessarily having the growth to justify them. Following the latest Q4 earnings report, which indicated that inventory clearance is underway, many analysts have slashed expectations, with management forecasting revenue decline of between 8-10%.

Digging into the valuation, I’ve developed a discounted cash flow (DCF) model based on the following inputs:

• Terminal growth: 2.5% based on industry,
• WACC: 8% based on industry and peers,
• Revenue CAGR 5Y: 2%,
• EBIT Margin: approx. 11%.

With these assumptions applied, a fair value of shares comes to about $52 per share. This can be closer to $62 in a more optimistic scenario where top line growth exceeds 5%, and with 13-14% margins, but even in this case, I’d not expect to see much more than 10% returns for investors in the near-term.

Looking across the market to peers with slightly more appealing valuations, such as Adidas with P/E of 15x, I feel that it is hard to get excited about this premium as a new investor.

Analyst Perspectives

Of course, there are plenty of reasons to justify both perspectives, and the divided ratings from Wall Street reflect this well. With 63% of analysts now appearing to be behind Buy or Strong Buy ratings, and 35% holding neutral ratings, I appear to be in the relative minority on the bearish side of the spectrum.

Recent upgrades in the Nike coverage from analysts match this, with about 23 upward revisions for EPS guidance, and just 4 downgrades, suggesting that cost control and potential products reflect opportunities looking ahead. That said, top-line expectations for revenue forecasts have been much more negative.

From my perspective, I have my eye on the next earnings report on June 27th. Investors will be keen to understand the latest inventory levels and strategy for approaching markdowns going forward, but mostly will look to the trend in gross margins.

I’d also want to see some more promising performance, particularly in the critical Chinese market, and hear some progress towards new innovations which will keep investors on-side. Investors will likely want to hear exactly where margin targets are landing for management, and the response being taken to fierce competition across multiple sectors.

Closing Thoughts

By no means is the investor thesis for Nike broken, but I fear that it is nowhere near as strong as the valuation may justify. It is still an elite brand across multiple markets, with strong profitability and operational discipline during a volatile period.

However, I feel that it is far from an automatic pick for investors at present, with growth looking uncertain, and a valuation which leaves little room for error. Investors may be rewarded for patience at this stage, especially if innovation and cost control works out in a negative market backdrop, but I suspect there may be safer opportunities elsewhere. Until management are able to present tangible evidence that revenue is accelerating, and that the brand is moving ahead of leaner competitors, I’ll be keeping my distance.