Every business reporter was all over the Nike bitch fest. It’s a classic tale of a powerful man not being able to let the person he appoints take over the reigns of his “money baby.” In this instance, Philip Knight, 68, former CEO and co-founder of Nike attempts to show the media that he has the biggest balls, putting all the blame of poor performance on his successor. Somewhat petty, but pretty much in line with today’s personal-business practices of company founders not being able to simply let go, retire, and spend their days playing golf.

So, the story for Nike goes: William Perez, 57, was announced as the new chief executive of Nike by the founder and chairman, Philip Knight, who, according to the New York Times’s article, Slightly Testy Nike Divorce Came Down to Data vs. Feel, by Michael Barbaro, called it the ''beginning of an exciting new chapter'' in Nike's history. But after a little over a year, Perez resigned “because of ‘differences’” with Knight, according to Bloomberg article Nike Chief Perez Resigns Amid Differences With Knight.

Being that Nike is such a huge company with a significant share in the marketplace, the media was intrigued and most companies would keep such business details under wraps, getting their PR teams together for a major blitz in PC spinning. But Knight, did not do so, instead, he laid out all the dirty laundry, putting the blame in Nike’s poor performance in the past year on Perez’s failure to ''’wrap his arms around'’ Nike's culture,” according to the New York Times’ piece. Such poor performance as stated in the Bloomberg article was embodied through numbers:

Nike's shares fell 4.3 percent last year, while Adidas- Salomon AG surged 35 percent. Nike dropped 93 cents to $83.27 in trading before the open of U.S. markets. Adidas gained 69 cents to 166.33 euros in Frankfurt.

In terms of timing, Perez didn't pick a swell time to leave, especially when major competitor Adidas, agreed to buy Reebok for $3.8 billion, which will eventually help Adidas take over the sportswear market, as a whole. See Reuters article, Adidas closes Reebok takeover to take on Nike.

By law, Perez, who was only the second CEO of the $14 billion dollar global brand, was supposed to stay tight lipped, but once he was attacked in the media by Knight, he defended himself, and kept the flood gates opened. The Times reports:

Mr. Knight invited analysts and reporters to join a conference call, where he asserted that Mr. Perez, the former head of S. C. Johnson & Son, the maker of Windex and Ziploc bags, failed to ''wrap his arms around'' Nike's culture. Firing back, Mr. Perez contended that Mr. Knight, himself a former Nike chief executive who has the brand's swoosh tattooed on his left ankle, refused to cede control.

''When he hired me, I believed he wanted to let go,'' Mr. Perez said. ''If I did not think he was ready to relinquish, I would have never come.''

As the war of words escalated, Mr. Knight issued a biting statement: ''While Bill believes that the reasons for his termination were as he described, and it may be in his personal interest to portray it that way, I and the board decided that the company could be better managed with a proven, seasoned industry veteran who has a much greater understanding of our industry and credibility among employees, customers and consumers.''

So you see how the dialogue goes....But the Times contacted Perez for his side of the story:

Q: Why were you ousted?

A: It's simple. Phil didn't back off. He hired me to replace him and he never left. His level of interaction with employees was the same on my last day as the day before I got there.

Q: So you felt undermined?

A: As Phil often says, he is not the greatest communicator. I would hear that he had a different position from mine -- not from him but from another person I talked to at Nike. That leads to confused employees and a very frustrated guy named the C.E.O.

Q: You still speak highly of Phil even after he forced you out. Why is that?

A: I wanted him to be involved. He is the man. I wanted the man there. I wanted him to inspire and energize, not run the business. I didn't expect him to get involved to the extent he did.

Q: What do you think of your replacement, Mark Parker, who has spent 27 years at Nike?

A: Parker is talented, but they are back to the old flying formation. They will be very influenced by Phil. If I was a Nike shareholder I would say, This sounds fine, but what happens after Phil Knight?

Advice to founders: If you can’t let go of your company, don’t step down and pretend to give the reigns to someone else. As Perez states, what will happen after the obsessive chairman is dead and long gone? If people, like Knight, continue to obsess over these “money babies” they’ve found, they will never have heirs to take over the thrown. Being a leader does not merely mean being the voice and decision maker of a company, it means nourishing leaders within your company to take over once you’re gone.