In Defense: Sporty & Rich
I don’t remember when or why I found Sporty & Rich. It probably was recommended to me on Instagram because the brand is like catnip for half the hot women I have known at some point or another. It’s not especially important how I came across the brand, I liked it. The colors were nice, their sweatpants came in XS— something rare for too many brands —and the moodboard of Range Rovers and anorexic white women was far more aligned with my interests than the same old pictures of Leo DiCaprio in 1996.
Anyway, I like the brand a lot. There are things I’d rather buy in this world, but it’s cool and I would have no issue supporting it. Besides, the aesthetic that is presented— comfortable sweats, sneakers, and vintage jeans —is appealing in its simplicity and strikes me as a lot healthier than a forced “need” to have a constantly rotating closet of the newest trends. It was fun to watch S&R slowly take over my explore page and Oberg shift from the cesspools of Complex and Kith to presenting something I actually liked. But of course both the brand and Oberg were divisive— it makes clothing for railing shaped women, it’s expensive, and there’s the whole “anti-vaxxer” thing. But regardless of all that, I was somewhat surprised to see the establishment of the @notsportyrich Instagram account (now on their second iteration, I don’t care enough to know why). And boy, if anything could make me an ardent fan of Sporty & Rich, it’s the sheer pedantry of @notsportyrich.
There’s the calling out of the brand for, as best I can figure, using blanks? Noah pocket tees were discovered to be Comfort Colors a while back. Supreme used American Apparel blanks. Funny enough, S&R uses blanks from LA Apparel, a brand run by the former founder of AA, Dov Charney. That’s it’s own can of worms, but whatever. The greatest “offense” committed by S&R seemingly is ripping off a lot of vintage sportswear designs. I find such an offense pretty silly, especially the comments rife with 15 follower accounts spamming @dietprada. Mainly because, if I recall correctly, Diet Prada has started to call out larger companies and fast fashion brands ripping of predominantly independent labels (not to call out a streetwear brand for doing something that has been common practice in streetwear since its inception). And it makes even less sense when you consider that S&R is doing rips of vintage garments which, because, you know, they’re vintage, would otherwise be hard to come by and purchase. It’s not like an actual business is losing profit by S&R flipping their graphics. If anything, I think it’s a symptom of the world of streetwear suddenly being populated by consumers who are more used to buying clothes at Zara or Free People than having an actual understanding of the culture.
When I thought the situation couldn’t become any more annoying, it did. People tried to bring politics into it. The first was representation— particularly with regards to the brand’s image of anorexic white women with far too much money and not enough sense. To call out a brand called Sporty & Rich for classism is laughable. If you can’t figure it out from the name and need a two-bit Instagram account to point it out for you, that is probably more an indication of your own failures in vetting and independent thought. And look, representation, specifically in regards to a diversity of body types, is great. I admire brands that do it well. But I also just don’t get the issue with a brand being into skin and bones women. Last I checked, many independent designers create clothing that they want to wear, that fits their image. And have you seen Emily Oberg? The woman looks like a prisoner of war, as do the models she hires. Makes sense to me, she has no fucking responsibility to design clothes for anyone but herself. I’m not saying anorexic nut-cases are especially oppressed but, as someone with xylophone ribs, it’s nice to see a brand worn by people who kind of do look like me.
What seemed to me to be the most ludicrous was when Oberg was attacked for promoting an “anti-racism” course that cost $97. @notsportyrich was quick to post it, and their followers were quick to label Oberg a piece of shit, a roach, etc. Seemingly, no one could invest the thirty seconds it took to realize the course is created by a black woman who is a professional advocate and race-educator. I’m not saying $97 to learn how to not be racist is worth it, but to demonize Oberg for promoting the good works done by a person of color is at best deeply misguided. People are in the streets protesting for their right to live, and using that as an excuse to continue in the takedown of an influencer is deeply petty and a pathetic failure to read the room.
I’m not saying there aren’t issues with Oberg or Sporty & Rich. Her opinion on vaccines isn’t one I agree with (though she is not really a through-and-through anti-vaxxer. On a now unfortunately removed episode of the podcast Failing Upwards, she plainly stated that she is not against vaccines, she merely believes that people are too quick to jump to medication and vaccination rather than the build-up of a healthy immune system). Again, I don’t totally agree, but it’s a lot more rational than the total resistance to vaccination that people believe she supports. If anything, the one good point that has been brought up by detractors is issues with print and overall garments quality as well as shipping. Clearly, there needs to be more oversight than currently exists, but it’s hardly a good reason to let Emily Oberg live rent-free in your head to the point of photoshopping the Sporty & Rich logo out of pictures for the sanctity of your shitty moodboard.
