The advert has got the publicity it wanted then?
That's how I read it. For all the comments above, I think there may be a reasonable argument to suggest that this is simply Nike shamelessly going down the 'Benetton' route of yesteryear --- deliberately courting controversy to get free publicity.
In many respects Mulvaney has been used, given sales of trans merchandise is probably of no material significance to Nike.
Eventually, that tactic back-fired on Benetton. One mis-step is all it takes. Has Nike already been guilty of this?
Mulvaney and any trans persons are perfectly entitled to wear whatever sports gear they want and live a lifestyle free of discrimination, but so does everyone. There are grey areas and unresolved conflicts that need to be recognised and resolved. I'm as confused as the next person and wary of stepping into this toxic debate.
One thing that I do think is dreadful however is that Nike kit. The logo positioning, hypersexualised, and highlighting / mimicking a penis, I can imagine it does no favours to trans people wishing to access shared spaces. But then, I'm just trying to understand both sides . . . and still confused!