>> rose: welcome to the p >> rose: welcome to the program. tonight the attorney general of the united states lore eda lynch, al hunt on the story. >> we are have been engaged in discussions with companies for some time, trying to highlight the concerns that we have, not about strong encryption. we have to have strong encryption but about warrant proof encryption. making sure we strike that right balance between protecting all of our information, all of our intellectual property and letting law enforcement protect all of our citizens. >> rose: and we continue with a man who founded nike, phil knight. >> in all honesty it's gotten to be a lot bicker than i ever imagined. but no, i thought we could succeed. and i thought we had in that class, i had seen a lot of companies start from very minger beginnings and become really good companies. and that's what i believed we would do. >> rose: you had a mortgage on your house, a wife, a three year

old kid. >> yup. >> rose: all this stuff that might make you careful. but you weren't careful. >> i wasn't careful. i had a dream. >> rose: loretta lynch and phil knight when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the flowing: o. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> loretta lynch is the 83rd attorney general of the united states. a native of north carolina and graduate of harvard college and harvard law school. she was a federal prosecutor and rose to be u.s. attorney for the

eastern district. she was sworn in as attorney general of the united states a year ago this week. happy anniversary general, and welcome to the program. >> thank you, and thank you for having me. >> let's start with the issue of crime. this is a national reentry week where you are trying to help people who get out of prison, to have a more productive life. let me just start though, why do we have the highest incarceration rate in the world? >> you know, i'm not sure we can speak for every other country. we certainly do have one of the highest rates in the world. and it stems from a number of sources. i think we look back at efforts that we made that were truly speaking to violence to deal with the burgeoning drug problem particularly in the '80s and 90st and the violence that accompanied them. and what people thought was a need to appear very, very tough on crime without thinking through the results of a lot of those actions.

well, we've lived through the results of those actions now, for several generations, actually. and we've seen some of the affects of some of the laws and regulations and statutes that we passed. >> so the 934y crime act was that a mistake. >> it wasn't just the '94 crime act at the federal level there were a lot of states that had those laws as well. >> in retrospect do you think it was a mistake. >> i think it didn't look through all the consequences. i think it was seeking to address the incredible amount of violence accompanying the drug trade particularly the drug trade grew in our large cities. you had individuals coming from overseas who were part of trafficking. i was a young prosecutor in the '90s and i remember those days. and i think that the thought was as is often the case, that a solution that was crafted and in washington could be passed. and essentially affect every neighborhood the same way. and it just didn't. and i think many of us who were practicek in that area saw those results soon after that.

and realized that while if we could, in fact, use the portions of the crime bill to focus on the kingpins, the large scale traffickers, that it was really focused on, that would have a beneficial effect. but as it hit the lower level nonviolent offenders, it was not going to be. >> bill clinton still said that it actually made the black community safer and murder rates were down. so he said there may have been some unintended consequences but it did some good too. is that a fair assessment? >> i think it's definitely a mixed bag. certainly it was an effective tool when you were targeting those large scale drug traffickers. when you were targeting the people who literally had tons of cocaine in warehouses in the new york area, who were bringing in large amounts of cocaine by speed boat. it is a very effective tool for going after those traffickers. when, however, you are looking at the individuals who were on the streelt who were peddling the amounts, dangerous yes, carrying violence, yes, definitely something that had to be dealt with.

but were they the ones that we were really looking at and needing to inflict the long-term mandatory minimums on. for example, that someone of the reasons why as we look at the effects of all those efforts, we're looking at ways to ameliorate them. not to say that people shouldn't be held accountable. they absolutely have to be. but we have to make sure that we have individualized prosecution and individualized look at this. and really use our resources on those large scale traffickers who are behind therug trade. >> you have a criminal justice bill, sentencing reform that's winding its way through the house and the senate am how confident are you, what are the odds that a bill will actually pass congress and be sent to the president for his signature this year? >> well, i think it's a very positive thing that this is a bill that has bipartisan support. i think it's an incredibly positive thing that this is a bill that recognizes that many of our states have been great laboratories of criminal justice reform and that they have given ideas that have found their way into this bill also. i think it is an incredibly

positive thing that members from across the aisle are working together. >> do you support what they are doing so far. >> absolutely, absolutely. we support their efforts and we obviously are looking to support them as they continue this road. >> let me turn to a totally different subject. the apple encryption case. two cases so far. and the government has found work-arounds in both. but this is only going to increase. and the companies are not going to provide back doors. do you have a strategy to how this is going to be resolved? >> i think this is part of a larger conversation that has to be a national krvetion. we have been engaged in discussions with companies for some time trying to highlight the concerns that we have. not about strong encryption. we have to have strong encryption but about warrant-proof encryption. making sure we strike that right balance between protecting all of our information, all of our intellectual property and letting law enforcement protect all of our citizens. >> do you think, does it require ledge slaiks do you think

ultimately. because we don't seem to have made a great deal of progress in the last couple of months. >> i think we are at the beginning of the discussion. i think we're at the beginning of the debate. people are talking about legislation, certainly we'll look at whatever is. >> you're open to that. >> we'll look at whatever is proposed. i think it still requires this national conversation. and i think it still requires the participation of all the stakeholders. citizens, government, the tech companies, who have very different positions depending upon how they-- as well. >> we haven't really-- that wide cass am much, have we. >> i don't think you can call it one single casm because the issue comes up in so many different ways. from a law enforcement per spisk, if we are looking for evidence on a device, we're looking for cooperation and help from the tech community in accessing that, as we have been fortunate to vuf in the past. where now hitting these issues of at what point do the cmpanies feel encryption and those issues mean that they shouldn't or can't provide that support. and we're working on those.

and i think that discussion has to continue also. >> it may end up going to the supreme court, you know, before it's all over. but that brings me to the question. i know you very much want judge gar land to be confirmed. it looks like it might not happen at least until after the-- what are the consequences of an eight person supreme court. >> i think the court is certainly at its strongest when it has a full complement of injurist like the outstanding ju rists we have now. certainly judge gar land is someone that falls into that category. his reputation proceeds him as an experienced pros cuter, as a fair minded ju rist, as an experienced jurest and outstanding writer, somebody that could easily step into the great standards of the supreme court. >> but if he is not confirmed for awhile, does it much matter? they still solve cases. sometimes the lower court ruling is dominant then. what difference does it make?

>> i think we have to look at the institutional difference there. we have a system whereby the president makes a nomination, be it of a supreme court justice and other judges or other positions that are confirmed by the senate. and there's a process that goes under way, that gets undertaken. and that process, in fact, is what helps keep a whole host of institutions running. not just the supreme court. and i think we have to be careful not to let those processes grind to a halt. >> are you worried that the court, apart from the gar land issue, the court has become at least in the public's mind too polit sized. you think of four republicans, four democrats the other way. you attended the, i think the arguments on the immigration case. and you're not going to comment on an individual case, i know, but that appeared to be almost a partisan divide. is there a fear that the court will use its credibility if it's tossed into this partisan.

>> i think one of the unfortunate things about the polittization of so many issues in our society has been how great institutions like the supreme court have been drawn into that. you know, i think that every justice on the court works incredibly hard to focus on the important issues before them. and despite who appointed them or despite what people might think was their affiliation, they work well together, they get along together. and i think frankly it's a tragedy for our legal system when people have a view that important issues are decided along those partisan lines. >> but you know, on that immigration case, you work for a president who critics, particularly republican critics in this election year, say has engaged in unprecedented overreach on executive actions, on immigration and the environment, that these are really, this is a reckless abuse of executive power. what is general lynch's answer to that? >> well, i think that as we expressed in the pleadings and the immigration case, when the

president has acted, with its executive power, he's done so after a careful review of law and precedent and looking at similar situations. and we'll see what the court says. and obviously we'll abide by the decision of the supreme court and we'll work within it. because that is our system. we have the utmost respect for the court. but i can tell you that with respect to those actions, this administration, this president look at legal precedent. they look at administration president. they look at congressional precedent before they take those actions. >> you are a proud tar heel, a native of north carolina. your state has been embroiled in several controversy lately. one of them recently a federal judge upheld what i think would be called crackdowns on voting procedures in that state. a couple of questions. one is the justice department going to appeal that decision? >> well, obviously we felt that the law as was crafted by the legislature set up imper missable roadblocks to the

voting booth for individuals for. >> reduced registration as well. >> but will you appeal that decision? >> well, we're still reviewing that decision it is fairly lengthy. we have read it we're looking at it carefully. we haven't made that decision yet. but i think that what it really tor pend-- more tends is a larger issue of the issue of voting rights in this i c. since the shellby county decision which did strike down portions of the voting rights act, particularly preclearance. we have seen a number of states change their voting laws. now we will still use every tool in our toolbox. we will still look at every other provision of the voting rights act to make sure that the path to the voting ballot box is clear and free and open for every one. but it does raise significant concerns for us. >> do you think the north carolina law is intended to-- is aimed at african-americans to disenfranchise or make it harder for blacks to vote? >> i think you have to look at a whole host of things there.

and so i think that we have to look at the-- not just the intent but also the impact of the laws as well. particularly if there is not really been show a need for these successively harsh limitations on voting. when there hasn't been any need shown or any particular high level voter fraud shown, you have to look at the impact there. not just on minorities but on elderly individuals, on students as well. you know. >> doesn't it disproportionately affect minorities. >> in the north carolina case and in other cases, we have had that view, certainly in the texas litigation. we did prevail on that view initially. and actually later in that case as well. and so where we see that in particular, that's an area of great concern for the justice department. but i will tell you that these laws have the possibility of impacting a host of groups access to the ballot box and that is not what this country is about. >> the other controversy, among the other controversies down in north carolina is they passed a

law that would prevent local governments from enacting antidiscrimination laws. and they prescribe what public bathrooms transgender people can use. are there constitutional issues raised in that? is justice looking at whether they're going to possibly challenge that law? >> well, obviously we're aware of that law. and it certainly is a situation that we're monitoring. i believe the state legislature -- legislature is also looking at the law. so we're looking to see what if anything they do to modify it, change it or repeal it. it's being played out in north carolina right now but we are monitoring that situation. >> so you would let it play out in north carolina before you would decide if you would get involved in it. >> i think the state legislature is considering whether to modify that law or appeal it if at all. so we certainly want to see what, if any, steps they take. but we are monster -- moniterring that. >> are there constitutional issues. >> i think there could be. when we look at it and look at the law in whatever state it will remain, whatever situation

it impli-- implicates and however it is graforted-- crafted, we look carefully on whether this-- affects the constitution or general statutes. >> you don't comment on specific cases, i know that. but there is a very important investigation into hillary clinton's use of a private e-mail server when she was secretary of state. whether that violates any class if i kaition laws. she is almost certainly headed for the democratic nomination in three months. the election is less than six months away or a little over six months away. there has been-- the doesn't the fbi and jus-- justice owe it to the voters to reach a decision very scwikly. >> you sort of started my answer with your question. >> i know will you will not comment on the merits. >> you raise important issues about how we actually conduct investigations of all types of cases. and i think it's important that the american people know that this matter is being handled like any other matter. it is being handled by the independent career, lawyers,

agents who look at the facts and look at the evidence and will come to a recommendation on it. and we handle it that way because it has to be treated like any other case. people have to have confidence that we treat every case the same, no matter whose last name is involved or no matter how much publicity it gets. >> i'm not talking about favoritism or lack of the same for anyone. but it's not like any other case. i mean this potentially affects the person who might or might not be the next president of the united states. and i'm not talking about what decision you come down with. i'm just saying isn't time of the essence and don't you owe it to the american people to come up with a decision very soon? >> i think we owe it to them to do a full, thorough and independent review. >> even if that takes until october. >> of everything that comes to our attention. we have to be full, thorough, fair and independent of that. and we don't make predictions on the time. because that essentially cuts off the independence of that. it cuts off. >> the thoroughness of that.

we don't predict the timing of any of our matters. >> but have you talked about it with the fbi directer. >> we don't predict the timing of any of our matters. >> i am not going to get an answer, i can tell, i tried. >> let me talk about class if i kaition, is the central issue here of whether there was a vy lengths. is st intent as it was in the david petraeus case or is it gross nedges what is the standard, what is the test? >> i think what has been reported is that we received an inquiry into the handling much classified information particularly of people who were no longer in government as to whether or not it had been improperly handled or properly handled. and that's the security review that we get in a number of situations, and that was the genesis of this matter. and so beyond that i'm not going to be able to comment on the specifics of it, except to say that we do look at the issues presented. but as i said before, we look at them thoroughly, fairly, independently and a recommendation will be made. >> but i'm saying leaving aside this case, and you have had other cases, not when you were

attorney general but david petraeus, and i'm just trying to say what is the standard for-- is it intent or is it gross nedges or something else? >> you know, every case is different. >> there is no standard. >> every case-- it just depinneds upon how a matter comes up. it really depends upon the facts of every particular case. >> there was a lot of damage caused by the economic cataclysm of 2008, 9, in the eastern district in new york, you certainly saw that. there does it bother you that no one from wall street has gone to jail? there were a thousand people who went to jail during the ss & l crisis, this was far worse and no oneness think it had a far ranging effect it was definitely-- you were right, this is systemic long-term damage. and that is why the department has taken a systemic long-term approach to that. and i get this question a lot. like why has no one gone to

jail. and i remind people of the over 4,000 people in the financial industry who have in fact been indicted and prosecuted and most of them have gone to jail. over matters arising out of the failure. not just in terms of what we saw in 2008, but the failures that were uncovered, that were revealed. the mall feesance, the way people were mishandling individual investor money, the way that people were misleading clients. so there, in fact have been. >> you know what i am saying. because you hear this from everybody from bernie sanders to donald trump. that mainstream got club erred and yeah, the big guys paid some fine, some rather steep fines but they can afford it and it's kind of bask to business as usual for them. that is an exaggeration, i'm sure. but that's a public perception. >> it is. >> and the statute of limitations is running out on some of these cases now. >> well, it is a perception. and what i would say again is that i think it doesn't take into account the work that has been done in this area, in this

field. certainly when i was a prosecutor in brooklyn, when i came back to the department after 2010, the number of cases that we looked at involving stock brokers, involving investment advisors, involving people who defrauded people, literally out of their lifesavings, who went after groups of individuals based upon knowing one person and then make inroads, for example, into the business community or into law enforcement communities and taking their lifesavings, the mortgage fraud cases that were done all over this country, they didn't get the attention that the whole crash got. and that's some what unfortunate. because those were very real cases and those were very real victims who truly suffered in this. and in every single one of those cases,ed aim was to bring justice to those victims. >> another tough subject is terrorism. what are you seeing in terms of americans trying to travel to or return from syria and iraq battle fields? slowed down? >> we actually saw an yup tick

in that i would say over the last two years. we saw a number of americans, and they were increasingly younger. and they also included young women who were seeking to travel overseas to syria to join isil or to join some connected organization with isil. they would state they wanted to fight american soldiers. or they wanted to join the fight in general. those numbers have gone down a bit in terms of what are seeing. we've done over 80 cases involving many of these individuals. we do prosecute them when we have the evidence. we do take these cases extremely seriously. while the number of individuals trying to leave the u.s. is ticking down, certainly it is increasing from other countries. the concern that we have here, however, is as the terror threat has morphed ask the danger from the homegrown extremists those individuals who become radicalized online, usually fros been here for years and that isil is still feeding to prop gate their views. and that is not di minute

shalling. and those individuals who for whatever reason are susceptible to those, for whatever reason is drawn to that extremist view, extremist ideology, for whatever reason are isolated, vulnerable or cut off from family, or become so at the behest of these online urgings in their ear, that say concern of ours. that is what we are seeing in the u.s., certainly, in some of the cases that have recently come to light. san bernardino, for example, also others that have been prosecuted. and so that's where we see a concern that we have. because obviously those individuals leaving syria find it much easier to get into europe and prop gate those larger, well planned attacks there. >> let me ask you a final question, there was a lot of partisan rancor over your appointment as there is over most things in this town these days. how are you getting along with republicans. >> as i said before, i think that we are working well together on things like

sentencing reform. i think that the mutuality on issues has been refreshing to seend it's been very good to work with. we look forward to more opportunities like that. >> attorney general loretta lynch, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> phil knight is here n1962 he was a recent stanford business school graduate and he had a crazy idea. he wanted to create a business importing high quality low cost running shoes from japan. 50 years later that crazy idea is now known as nike. it is the largest spoforting goods company in the world with annual sales topping 30 billion dollars. there's also become one of the most recognizable brand and popular culture and sponsors some of the world's most elite athletes. here is a look at some of nike's most iconic ads. >> i am not a role model. i am not paid to be a role model

. i am paid to wreck hatch october on the basketball court. >> eggs, butter. >> princess diana. >> swing. >> salsa follow gers. >> younes erck, comedy. >> i like the i could too, i hope he gets the road runner. >> independent, republican, boxers, briefs, the best of my coach. i want to find out what your thinking was. i want to find out what your feelings are. ang did you learn anything. >> this morng 9,000 shots in my career. i have lost almost 300 games. 26 times i have entrusted to take the game-winning shot and missed.

>> phil knight will step down as nike chairman in jeurch. he tells the story of his early days building a company in a new mem or t is called shoe dog t is part of a profile of him that was on sunday morning. >> not far from portland oregon, sprawling 350. you can find this, a cathedral to sports, and a castle in a way to cap tool. this is the home of the swoosh. it is the largest athletic shoe and apparel company on the planet with sales topping $30 billion last year alone. >> it took to the starting line over 50 years ago. the brain child of a young track athlete named phil buck knight. one of the richest men in the

world there are times. i get pretty choked up. an empire is a funny word but it kind of is. i'm pleased to have phil nielt back at this table, welcome i was last near in 1994. if i in back again i might be a hundred years old. i might fall asleep. >> rose: it has been a rather remarkable life. >> it certainly has, it's been a wonderful journey. >> how did they convince you to write a book? >> actually i finally decided myself that i had been asked several times over the years. and i never had any interest. and i finally got to the point that i said someone is going to write the narrative of my life it ought to be myself and i better do it now or it won't be done. >> better to write it yourself than somebody else. >> going through the proserks i'm not sure it is the right conclusion. >> rose: why did you call it

shoe dog. >> shoe dog is basically a person who has dedicated his life to shoes. a term that goes back over a hundred years. and i just thought it kind of applied to me. >> you have always had the same clothes since i have known you. >> yes, that's my uniform. >> it worked. it makes life easy. >> actually this is a newer jacket that fn than i wore last time. >> you have a fit bit thing. >> a nicke fuel band that keeps me active. >> what do you do, it is reading now because you lifted your arm. >> it tells time and it tells me how many steps i take during the course of a day and lets me know when i meet my goals. >> so nike is more than a shoe company. >> it is more than a shoe company. >> what is it. >> it is basically, i suppose, a company that provides inspiration and invasion for every athlete in the world, that's our goal. >> those ads we just saw. >> yeah. >> are they inspired by instincts from you? >> from me personally? >> yeah. >> no, i don't-- i would definitely say, definitely not. although you know sort of the culture of the company remains

today and it kind of grew out a little bit of the relationship between me and bill bower and we have fingerprints on that. >> cofounder, he was your coach. >> my coach and cofounder, right. >> tell me about him. >> wonderful man. very hard to describe. keny moore wrote probably the best book on him, 420 pages am and he did a great job but he still didn't capture the whole man. >> he just had so many different parts of it. i always like to say that describing bill bowerman is like the four indian blind men trying to describe an elephant. that he really-- it was what day you caught him on is the way you describe him. >> what did he mean to you? >> everything. that he was the secretary father that he was basically an inspiration to me. and he was a strong discipline arian, on me. until the day he died. >> here is back to the ads. here is what is interesting to he moosm you had michael jordan talk about all the things that he didn't do. how many times-- you can get him entrusted to the ball for a last

shot and missed. not how many he had scored. not how many he had won. how many-- was' the point there. >> well, the point is, is that. >> you try, try again. that it was interesting, and he asked if i was the inspiration whichs way not but the inspiration on two of them, the charles backly ad and michael jordan ad came from them. that was their idea. >> really. >> yeah and that's one of the things that i always tried to do is get to know the athlete, as we've said, win their hearts as well as their feet. >> understanding athletes heart is to understand their performance, isn't it? >> sure. that's where it comes from. >> like tiger, whatever the question was, you didn't know but you knew tiger didn't answer it. > right. >> that's tiger. >> well, he's listening to his father. and so he's listening, he's not answering. >> speaking of tiger, i mean you know him, you have been so good for him. he's been good for you. >> uh-huh. >> there is talk that he may come back to the u.s. open.

>> uh-huh. >> what do you think? >> i don't know for sure. but if i was betting, i bet he does. i know he wants to play. and he's been starting to hit the ball. and i would be surprised if he didn't enter a tournament sometime in the middle of the may. >> before the u.s. open and play in whatever, july, whatever it is. >> uh-huh. >> what is your best analysis of what happened to his game. >> oh, my goodness. do you play? >> i do. >> it's a terrible game. >> i know it is. and its' a beautiful game. >> an it's a beautiful game. >> and tiger, as phil michelson said at his best, no one even was remotely as good as he was. >> that's true. the best player that ever lived, in my opinion. but golf gets away from you. nobody ever owns it. you just lease it for awhile. and he made some swing changes to try and take pressure off his body which he was worried about. and it took awhile with the swing changes to get back in the groove.

and then his body began to break down. and that's in 25 words or less what happened. >> do you believe his body will be able to withstand the rigors. >> nobody knows. i will say this, that he works as hard as anybody you will ever see. and takes really good care himself. and if anybody can do it, he can do it. i certainly hope he does. it's really interesting that for the masters tournament-- . >> rose: you and i were together. >> i just saw you down there. >> that the ratings in the first-- the ratings for the tournament were off about 29% which shocked me because you have the big four going against each other. i thought it would create a lot of interest. but without tiger. >> and rory mcelroy. and ricky fowler, the big four. but without tiger there, the ratings were way down. so i think shall-- . >> rose: when he shows up, the ratings jufer. >> the ratings go back up. if he could play again, they are really go up. >> rose: what is that, simply the charisma of performance he once had. is it simply threa was one of the huge sell reb-- celebrities

in the world today? >> i think all of that. it wasn't just that he won, it was the way he won. he was never out of it. he could come from seven or eight back. he could hit a spectacular shot when he was in the lead and somebody, you know, creeping up the leaderboard t was just-- he had this sense of drama and spectacular in his game. >> rose: there was this sense that at that time when he was at his best, if he was leading on sunday, he would win on sunday. >> right. that's right. and that his father once said he hit one shot during four rounds that you can't bleevment i thought his father might be exaggerating a little bit. but if he was, it was just a little bit. >> his father had a huge impact on him. >> huge. >> rose: and who has had a huge impact on you soarn bill. >> i think obviously my own father which i talk about a little bit in the book. bill bowerman for sure had the big impact. >> rose: and the tragedy of your son. >> yeah, that's in there.

but i think also the band of brothers, the five of us together, you know, i guess you could say that had an impact. >> rose: how so? >> well, i mean, we did it together. and that is kind of what the book is about. >> rose: you knew when they talked about on entrepreneur that was you. >> yeah. >> rose: here is the self-definition. >> the first day of my entrepreneurship class at stanford, the professor got up and told about the characteristics of an entrepreneur versus sort of a scientific manager. one side and the other. among other things, they said you know, when we have a conference of entrepreneurs he said they break for lunch and they all go off by themselves. i said well, that's me. >> rose: interesting. what else would you say defines you and therefore defines your success? >> oh, i don't think-- i think persistence and lover for what i was doing. i was never going to give up. and i think that had a big part to do with it. >> but also, there say wonderful quote which you have which is about, basically is, i think, something to the effect, you

will know it instantly, once you say, all the possibilities if we don't know everything. but someone who is an expert sees very few possibilities. >> yeah. that's true. >> i think so. >> rose: so when are you young and put you selling shoes out of the back of that val yant or whatever it was. >> plymouth val yant, babe magnet. >> rose: but you so no way that you weren't going to sell enough shoes to build a great company? >> well, in all honesty, it's gotten to be a lot bigger than i ever imagined. but no, i thought we could succeed. and i thought i had had in that class, hi seen a lot of companies start from very minger beginnings and become really good companies. and that's what i believed we would do. >> rose: you had a mortgage on your house, a wife, a three year old kid, all this stuff. >> yup. >> rose: that mightic make you careful but you weren't careful. >> i wasn't careful. i had a dream. >> rose: that's it, isn't it, a dream. >> you bet. i was going there if i could. >> rose: with all this money, what you were giving away, and

really one of, you gave the largest donation to stanford quet, i hi i think 400 million, is it oregon or dns universities of oregon. >> rose: that is like michigan and michigan state, if you don't know the difference, don't tell. but at the same time, you still had dreams. >> oh, sure. >> rose: with all the money, with all the fame, with all the success, with all the, you know. >> yeah, no, i think you never want to get off those. and i hope i never gich up those. i still have great aspirations for the company itself. that is my real-- my real novel, my real paingt. i will step down sometime in this year. but i am not going away. i'm going to keep my office there and keep harassing. >> rose: why are you stepping down, because you know. >> i think that it's a lot better to step down as a chairman or an officer of a company two years too early than it is too years too late. and so i wanted the company to be ready for any kind of transition. but i will be around.

and so i still have high hopes for that and i will have a lot of other projects. >> you will still be a global ambassador for nike. >> i will still put my hand in where needed. >> whose decision was it for the swoosh? >> well, as it is described in the book, we had to come up with something in a hell of a hurry. >> didn't you have some term like diamond something? >> diamond. >> it was. >> what was your thoughts for the company, what the company should be named. >> oh, no, we had two things we had to do. we made a transition from tiger to ba became nike. we had to come up with a brand name and a logo for the side of the shoe. we said we don't have any time to do research, we just have to pick a name and make it mean something. so we had a hat and went around to all 45 employees and everybody put a name in. and my name was dimension six which i was fortunately, i was not creative enough to puck a good name but was smart enough not to pick my own name. >> rose: and somebody put nike. >> jeff johnson actually the

night after it was-- everybody put their name in, we didn't have a name we liked. and jeff johnson called and he put a name in. he said i have a better idea, he said nike. >> rose: did everybody instantly say yes. >> no, no, it was not a eureka moment, i said there are a really lot of bad names in there. i guess this is the best we can do. >> rose: what has been the hardest part of it though? >> oh, i think you know, we had a lot of-- difficult moments. i mean i suppose there's several down moments in the history's journey. >> rose: like? >> the one that comes to mind the most is when i got kicked out of the second bank and they called me that night after telling me i no long her a bank, they said are you so far overdrafted, we had to notify the fbi. they told me that on friday at 5:00. i said i wonder what is going to happen on monday. >> and what happened? >> the fbi never did anything. and the bank was repaid instantly. and we got bailed out by a

japanese trading company which was not a well-known company in the united states but it was the sixth largest company in japan. and they were wonderful with it. and really helped us through those early years. >> rose: do you feel an affinity with japan? >> totally. the company started there. the fnszing came from there. i always liked going there. i liked the people. i liked the food, the scenery, totally. >> rose: there has also been enormous advantages you had in terms of timing. >> uh-huh. >> rose: you came in when-- your timing was exquisite. >> yes. >> you had experienced it too, i mean you were a runner. >> yeah. but yes, you are exactly right. right after we came in, right after we got flt business selling running shoes when the running boom hit. we knew fitness and activity, physical activity would grow as far as usage but we never had any idea the running boom was right around the corner. that that was a big help. >> rose: and there was a college player from north

carolina. >> that came just-- shortly thereafter n1984, of course i will never forget it. >> rose: tell me about it. >> well, obviously we were selling a lot of basketball shoes but we didn't have really kind of a marquee name. we had some good players but we didn't have the great player. he was an ncaa player of the year. and had a really dynamic game. and so we focused in on signing him foreign dorsment agreement. and so he had never worn nike shoes so we were fairly knew. we had to sell them ourselves. we had michael and his agent and parents come out. we spent three days romancing him as farred as he-- hard as we could and said we would build a special shoe for him. at the end of the day we made the sale. >> rose: was that air swrord ang. >> that became air jordan which took us to another level. >> rose: in terms of international brand name. >> absolutely. and consumer identification and everything. we got helped a lot because the first air jordans which we did

for him, we wanted people to notice them so we made them really dramatic colors with black and red, very flashy. and we weren't an official shoe of the nba. so david stern banned our shoes. >> rose: the commissioner of the nba. >> which is the biggest favor anybody could ever do us. because then we ran an ad that says banned in the nba. kids bought them more than ever. >> rose: and they still sell. >> they still sell. they sell more now than when he was playing. >> rose: how do you explain that. >> what happened was it was such a successful endorsement that it ultimately became a brands. you have seen kids now that never saw michael jordan play, don't really know who he is but they know what air jordan is. >> rose: what do you they expect from air jordan. >> top of the line, that's for sure. obviously when he was playing, he was the best player in the world. and we wanted to make the best products and have the best advertising and it carried over into a brand. >> rose: is it a tough negotiation when you sign these guys, they are in the drivers seat, aren't they? >> some are, some aren't. >> rose: michael jordan. >> but certainly-- .

>> rose: michael roger federer is. >> see, those guys are, in some cases it was a difficult-- an expensive negotiation, i guess a better way. but after things get going well, well, renewal sch easier. renewals are easy. the original negotiation can be difficult. >> rose: how much do you pay college coaches to. >> it varies. >> rose: what is the best deal, i mean what is the most expensive deal you have. >> i wouldn't explain what it is. but a good basketball coach will make. >> 8 or 10 million. >> oh no, a year? no, a college basketball coach, no way. there is no college basketball coach on the payroll paid a million dollars. >> rose: not a million, no. it's less than a million. >> rose: what do they get for that? what do they give you for that if you pay them. >> you know, the identification of them and their team. >> rose: but do their team, therefore wear all nike shoes. >> exeact. >> rose: you pay them less, they make the decision. >> right, usually, usually,

sometimes, sometimes it's an all-athletic department deal well university that they do it for all the sports. football, basketball, baseball, track, in some cases it's just bas kelt ball only. >> rose: do you worry that some. top stars in the golf, for example, jordan speelt spieth is not at nike. >> we would rather have him than not have him. but we have never, ever had everybody. or all the good ones in any sports. so we're used to that. >> rose: used to that. >> uh-huh. no, i was the one-- . >> rose: you're not used tho that. >> well, no, i said magic johnson will never make it to the nba because he is a plair without a position, how good is that. >> rose: and also a guy with a magnetic personality. >> absolutely. >> rose: still does. >> we own con verse now but we didn't when they signed magic johnson but they did a terrible job of promoting him. he could have been michael jordan. >> rose: in-terms of endorsement. >> yeah. >> rose: and he wasn't because

shall did. >> i just think his sneaker endorsement never promoted him properly. >> rose: i bet he knows that. >> can you remember a con verse ad for magic johnson? >> rose: no, but i tell you what, i mean the interesting thing about magic, first of all, he's a great entrepreneur. >> absolutely. and so is michael in a different way. >> uh-huh. but magic has got businesses all over the country. >> right. >> rose: you could have paid a real difference in his life. >> yes, i believe that's true. i will agree with you on that one. >> rose: you have said it's not that-- it's not that i have to win. it's that i have not to lose. >> yeah, i hate to lose. it's not about win sog much. vz that right? >> yeah, its he just an emotion. i take losses personally. >> rose: and how do they affect you? >> not well. >> rose: i mean do you go into a depression? do you-- can you not eat for two days. >> no i don't do that. >> rose: do you skullk around. >> it depends. i have lost enough so i'm better at it now. as i explain in the book when

frank shorter didn't wear the shoes at the olympic games, i was-- i turned all the lights off in my den for seven hours and didn't come out. and then i was over it. >> rose: you turns the lights out. >> it was just-- what did you do. >> i just sat there. >> rose: what opportunities have you missed? within oh, we didn't-- basically we dispt gets aronics boom. >> rose: you didn't. >> we missed it. >> rose: how did you miss it? >> well, we were still a fairly young company. part of the thing was, is it came in a hurry. and then ree become beat us to that. and they came out with a shoe that befud eled us for a little bit, if you will, the shoe tore apart early. so you would ask a woman, your shoes fell apart, in your aerobic exercises, what do do you about them. >> go out and buy a new pair. they were so soft that they liked them. but we didn't like shoes that fell apart which was controversy to our whole mission.

but we finally worked around with leather manufacturers and got something that was a softlet thary didn't fall apart. >> rose: did you miss something leaving an opening for underarmour? >> i don't know. as you ask that question, i can't think what comes to mind. we're always going to have a competitor. and so i can't say what we missed. but. >> rose: gave them an opportunity. >> but they-- you know, they're a good competitor. >> rose: japan, you are fascinated with how they began to compete with germany. >> uh-huh. >> rose: in terms of cameras. >> uh-huh. >> rose: in terms of athletic shoes. >> uh-huh. >> rose: in terms of cars. >> uh-huh. >> rose: what was st about that quul ture that you learned? >> well, there again, in 25 wordings or less, it's quite a unique culture, that the first time i went there, the only foreign country i had been in before i went there was canada. so it was an eye-opener.

and as i say within a couple of days i began to like it allotment but the -- it is a unique culture that i know that-- they had a manager in the portland office that gt sick. and he was in his '60s. and he didn't want the home office in tokyo to know about it because he thought he would get called home. and his income would be reduced. so he asked everybody in the office to hide the fact that he wasn't coming in to the superiors. so we knew it, and they knew it, but tokyo never knew it. it is just we will band together to win this battle. that is a big part of the culture and some. reasons why they have succeeded, i think, in business. but they have also kind of failed because as their economy has kind of failed because basically they've had some bad governments. >> rose: thinking anything in terms of the life you have lived that you have missed. do you look back, with all the success and say i wish i spent

more time doing this? >> well, i think that every time, yeah, sure, you wish you had spent more time with your family and kids. i would bet you would say that. >> as i said, they never asked the unsuccessful businessman that question. but no, i. >> on the other hand they say that nobody ever dies saying i wish i had spent more time at the office. >> that's absolutely true. as far as my journey, i wouldn't trade places with anybody. there isn't nik major that i regret at all. >> so here is what surprised me about this. we talked about it earlier. you simply, were you not that sort of immersed in advertising and marketing. >> right. >> i would have thought f somebody had said to me, what is phil's genius. i would have said he understood imaging, marketing. identity of brand, that kind of thing. i would have thought that was right down your sweet spot, but it's notness well-- particularly

advertising, i think that's probably fair. but it's interesting on the advertising part, that when i met dan widen in 1978, the first words were i hade advertising. and he said oh, this is going to be interesting. and it has been. it's been a wonderful ride. it's interesting because-- . >> rose: why did you hate it? >> well, when you see the advertisements, does micky mantel really smoke lucky strike cigarettes. there were so many false, what i would call fraudulent ads. and and that really helped in the relationship with widen to get real ads that really reflected who the athlete was or who nike was. when we won an award at the advertising festival, dan and i stood on the stage and i reminded everybody about the first time i said i hate advertising. and then i said i love advertising, dan widen says i hate advertising. we're read meaning the same thing, traditional advertising. >> rose: exactly. criticisms, one is that, and you feel strongly about this, and you write about this, is that the conditions and the factories

were not as good as they could have been. >> uh-huh. >> rose: you argue they were a lot better than when we got there. >> that's true. >> rose: your essential argument. but were they not as good as they should have been and should you have paid more attention and done more? >> well n retrospect, yes. we made some mistakes early on. particularly made a mistakes respondk to the criticism. that it was the c.e.o. didn't do a very good job of directing that. and that c.e.o. happened-- to be me. >> rose: how would you describe your attitude. was it pet you lent, was it i dare you. >> a little bit in the sense that i was angered that they were criticizing our factories. the criticism really was more an industrywide criticism but we just took the brunt of it. and the shoe industry, our shoe factories were probably-- not probably, our shoe factories were probly as good as any in the industry. the industry was just kind of behind the times. we needed to take a leadership role which i believe we have. >> you didn't-- they weren't at the time. and then the response should

have been that way. but it wasn't it was a little bit teenagey. >> is it still a fact of life that you mafer all the shoes overseas because the wages are different and therefore you can. >> well, why can't you manufacture shoes in maryblg? >> that day will come. >> interesting. >> is it's a very labor intensive business. and shoe manufacturing and apparel manufacturing and toy manufacturing are all part of what a lot of people call a needle trade. and that's what companies beginning in their industrialization begin to do. so the low labor countries have an advantage of that. an they're really, those industries aren't really the stuff of industrial nations, it's more cars and airplanes and computers and those types of things. so but i do think the day is not far off when it will be much more automated. and then some of that manufacturing will come back. >> rose: robotics an

everything else. >> we were looking down a world of technology. almostev ree company will have to be a technology company. >> very well put. that's what is on the horizon. >> uh-huh. >> what else? >> what else do you see in terms of the dynamics of change affecting what your company. >> well, i think, you know, obviously the only constant is change. and so it will always change. but i think, i say enough of a good thing. morend more people will be active. and so i think that's good. >> that's fine. one of the things that people expect is that there will be a premium on time with more and more technology and automation and robotics and people are going to find themselves with more free time. >> and spend their time and how is it going to become interesting for them? >> well, yeah, and i think that for our business obviously that more and more people will become more active. i think basically physical fitness is absolutely running, in one word, is as important as eating and sleeping.

and you see that now, running in central park, will you see more and more of that, i think. >> are you doing more of that. >> i am a very-- i'm such a slow walk runner it is now a walk. but i do. i walk regularly. >> you got that-- it keeps me fit, that's right. >> rose: there is also this about you. there is this great story in what you and maybe-- i can't remember, went to a theat tore see that book, that movie that morgan freeman and jack nik oldson made, bucket list. and you walk out of the theater and you have shall-- you know that you are a changed man in terms of how you are going to think about the future. >> yes, there was some of that in there. but there was-- it was compounded by the fact as i walk out of the movie theater, into the lobby there is warren buffett and bill gates who have all come to see the same movie. >> but you thought at the time, you said yourself, well, clearly they don't have a bucket list because they've done everything, right? >> that's right. but it did get me thinking. that is the point of the thing. and the combination. >> how did it.

>> i just thought up what i wanted to do and ultimately it lead to a book. >> rose: that is a book. but also, philanthropy. >> and philanthropy. 400 million, the largest donator, and they have had some very wealthy people out there. and i'm sure you will be out, there will be somebody coming along with all the money those tech guys are making that will make you proud, it is all for the same reason. >> right. >> rose: a lot to oregon. >> uh-huh. >> rose: are you going to give it all away? >> not all of it. but way more than half. but it will be-- some of it will be in a foundation after my death. >> that means, you know, are you on the list that warren and bill. >> i won't sign it, they will have to reduce my contribution if i said i would do half. >> rose: so you won't sign it. >> i'm not signing it. >> rose: and what do he they say to you to sil on the idea when you say i'm not signing it. >> i just want to do it my way. and that's, you know, i supposed part of my person alt. >> rose: they want to do it their way. it's not so much they want to hold on to it. >> that's right. >> rose: you don't want to hold on to it but you want to

decide. but they don't force you to decide how you are going to give it away. they are just asking you to give away more than half of it. and it's only-- it's a pledge. it's a giving pledge. >> i understand. >> rose: it's a pledge. >> i understand. >> rose: i can't change your mind here. >> i'm going to give it away but i'm not going to sign the pledge. >> rose: so there is something about your independence there. >> i think so. >> rose: that is what it is. >> yeah, i think that is probably true. you would be a good shrink. >> rose: do i testify ree night. >> i guess you do. i guess you are. >> rose: but most of it is medical stuff and then. >> there's education and medical, yeah, uh-huh. >> rose: on your bucket list what remains. >> oh, i don't know. as i say, i still have high hopes for nike. i am active at stanford and the university of oregon. my son is very active in an animated movie studio. and so all of those things are on the list. >> rose: the book is called shoe dog, a memoir by the creator of nike, phil knight,

thank you. pleasure to see you again. >> really a pleasure, look forward to seeing you in 22 years. thank you. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com.

funding for carlie rose is provided by the following:. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by

this is "nightly business report." with tyler mathisen and sue herera. huge beat. amazon crushes earnings estimates, reporting its fourth straight profitable quarter as its heavy investments start to pay off. he's out. influential investor carl icahn exits his entire position in apple. sending shares and the broader market lower. picasso. renoir. polak. warhol. bacon. chaga chagall. on great collections of modern art few have seen before, until now. hidden in the heart of iran. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for thursd good evening,