Nike. The goddess of victory. The “Swoosh”. The aura. They are Phil Knight and Bob Bowerman. It is life “inside the berm”, and “Just Do It.” We are, of course, talking about Nike, the global footwear and apparel company that is truly a $16 billion empire. The Beaverton, OR. based company has redefined what athletics companies are about. Whether it is their Maxims (It is our Nature to Innovate. Evolve Immediately. Do the Right Thing., etc.), the story of Nike is about something more than just "shoes and apparel". Whether it is Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, ad agency Wieden + Kennedy, or questions about labor practices in third world countries such as Vietnam where Nike shoes are manufactured, the story of Nike was made for television.

With that, CNBC and sports business reporter Darren Rovell has made, what can really be defined as a “Made for Hollywood” documentary entitled, “Swoosh: Inside Nike”. The one hour documentary that goes into, not only the business side of Nike, but their evolution, their culture, their labor practices, and their aura. Rovell and CNBC literally spanned the globe to capture the story. Whether it was visiting Nike’s sprawling world headquarters in Beaverton, interviewing Michael Jordan in Charlotte, Charles Barkley in NYC, or going to Vietnam to see shoes being manufactured, the documentary does an outstanding job at explaining the phenomenon that is Nike.

For those interested in seeing “Swoosh: Inside Nike,” it can next be seen Sunday, Feb. 24 at 10pm ET and Friday, Feb. 29 at 9pm and midnight ET

See CNBC's Swoosh: Inside Nike mini site

We had a chance to catch up with Rovell within his busy schedule to ask some questions about the documentary, and Nike as a business. The following interview covers the logistics of making the documentary, the relationship between Michael Jordan, Tinker Hatfield, and Nike, how the Jordan brand, as a revenue stream, compares to other product lines of Nike, thoughts on Wieden + Kennedy’s groundbreaking ad campaigns, Nike Skateboard, the selling of Nike Bauer, and whether Nike will ever be supplanted as the global footwear and apparel king

As a matter of full discloser, the author lives in Portland, OR. and has done consulting work for Nike at their world headquarters. Seeing what life is like “Inside the Berm” (a reference to Nike’s earthen berm that surrounds the 74 acres campus that is the central nerve center that is Nike) provides extra insight into the CNBC documentary. – Maury Brown

Select Read More to see the interview with Darren Rovell of CNBC

Maury Brown for the Business of Sports Network: In doing the documentary on Nike for CNBC, you covered a lot of ground. From their headquarters in Beaverton, OR. to manufacturing plants in Vietnam. How long did the documentary take to produce, and how much travel was involved?

Darren Rovell: We pitched the show to Nike on Nov. 1. Got the go ahead around Nov. 15. Started shooting Dec. 1 and wrapped everything up around Feb. 6. So it was a tight schedule. We did more than 30 interviews in more than 14 locations around the world.

Bizball: Michael Jordan describes the relationship with Nike shoe designer Tinker Hatfield as a "romance" when it came to visioning what the Air Jordan line of shoes would become. How powerful has that relationship been in building the Jordan brand?

Rovell: Well, Michael Jordan is the next Michael Jordan. No one is going to replace him and I think that has become clear. He played his last basketball game in 2003 and yet 40 of the top 50 signature basketball shoes in 2007 were his.

Bizball: In terms of revenues, what is the Jordan brand worth, compared to, say, the Tiger Woods line?

Rovell: The Jordan brand is worth about $800 million. Tiger has his own line, not brand, so it's hard to say. But the Nike golf business is worth about $650 million and that business wouldn't be around without Tiger. I'd say Tiger is worth at least $200 million a year to Nike and they're definitely not paying him that yet.

Bizball: Phil Knight mentions in the documentary that he didn't truly believe in advertising when Nike was in their formative years. Wieden + Kennedy turned that view around with their groundbreaking ad campaigns, such as "Just Do It." Would Nike be viewed with the same aura if Wieden + Kennedy had not become involved with their campaigns?

Rovell: Definitely not. It ultimately did come down to good product, but at the end of the day a shoe is a shoe, right? But with Nike that wasn't the case because the advertising made shoes, for the first time, be a reflection on your personality, your beliefs and your dreams.

Bizball: On the ad campaigns, certainly Spike Lee's were a turning point, both for Nike, and for Michael Jordan. What is it about those ads that resonated so well with the public, and helped lift Jordan beyond simply being a remarkable basketball player?

Rovell: Starting with that Spike Lee as Mars Blackmon series of ads Jordan began to take on a personality that you wouldn't necessarily see on the court. That personality helped Jordan start a relationship with the consumer. They felt like they knew him. So Nike was as essential to his growth as a person as he was to Nike's growth as a company.

SEE A SPIKE LEE “MARS BLACKMON” AD

Bizball: The Nike ads have been as much a social commentary as they are about athletics. What is the impact of the Charles Barkley, "I am Not a Role Model" ad, to both Nike, and to Barkley?

Rovell: As I told Phil Knight when I was interviewing him, I was shocked that they even made this commercial. Charles was bold and came to them with this idea -- "stop looking up to us, look up to your parents" type thing -- and Nike went along with it. Nike went along with it despite the fact that they helped build up this role model idea. But Phil and Nike thought it was there place to make a statement like this and in the end, I actually do think -- despite the fact that they weren't selling any product in the ads -- it helped further legitimize the Nike brand.

SEE THE BARKLEY AD:

Bizball: Rarely, if ever, does Nike fail at product line. As you covered in the documentary, where they initially stumbled on the Nike SB (Skateboard), they regrouped, and have grown the product line. Tell us a bit about how Nike shifted their approach in a unique way for distribution.

Rovell: Nike SB was the new line, but they failed when they bought other companies Hurley and Savier to name a few and tried to get into the business. Every one wants to talk about the growth of Nike soccer, which -- don't get me wrong -- is a great accomplishment. But Nike got into that space because it had the money to buy its way in through expensive sponsorships. The skateboarding story is a much sweeter story. They couldn't buy their way in because once kids found out that Nike was being an old stalwart brand, they didn't buy the brand anymore. So Nike had to legitimately do it from scratch and that required a great sacrifice that was counterintuitive to their business model. First, they had to only sell to skate shops. And second, they had to be willing to deal with these skate shops, whose version of a credit line might have been what was in their cash register. And it worked. The question of course is, how much pressure will be put on them to grow the business beyond the $200 million business that it is now and how do they do that without introducing the shoes into a mass channel?

Bizball: Where the Nike SB line has been revitalized, the same cannot be said of Nike Bauer, the hockey equipment company they acquired some 15 years ago. With Nike selling off Bauer, why did that line fail, where regrouping with Nike SB, has not?

Rovell: I think that's a really simple answer. Nike bought the Bauer business in 1994 for $400 million and annual sales were at $160 million last. It's just not a growing business. They were able to start skateboarding from scratch and it's already surpassed Bauer sales. I think it is smart to dump it because Nike knows that they have to be fully committed in every space they go. That being said, it's not like a sale, in relative terms, is going to create that much cash for them .So another school of thought would be to stick with it just to have a presence everywhere.

Bizball: Finally, you've been to Nike's Headquarters, and have seen the culture there. Nike is really about a lifestyle as much as it is a footwear and apparel company. At this point in time, do foresee a company ever being able to supplant Nike as the athletic footwear and apparel king, and why?

Rovell: Not now. This is the best time of Nike's life. Sure, there are some areas where they are exposed. Under Armour has been doing a good job in the category that they really helped invent, but can they make shoes? Adidas bought Reebok and Reebok disappeared. Besides the logo on football jerseys, you can't find the brand in the stores.

Interview conducted by Maury Brown on 2/18/08