11 ms·

Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

313 points by andsoitis 27d ago

https://archive.ph/8NmSg https://archive.ph/8NmSg

epsteingpt 27d ago
Sneakerbots killed it for everyone. Priced out the demand IMO too early. But also, people only have 2 feet.
- andsoitis 27d ago
  > But also, people only have 2 feet. There's more to athletic wear than shoes. Competition like Lululemon, Vuori, Athleta, etc. suggest to me that Nike didn't expand their business broadly enough.
  - what 27d ago
    Why should they? Why can’t they just make shoes and be happy about it?
    - MiroslavPokorny 27d ago
      Exactly why should basketballers also try and advertise shoes.
    - deleted 27d ago
      [deleted]
  - morkalork 27d ago
    Lululemon is crashing out too tho, methinks consumers are having a hard time justifying the brand name markups for SEA clothing-slop these days.
    - ikr678 27d ago
      Word is out and there are a number of well regarded amazon dupes (CRZ) for Lulu that are rumoured to be from the same manufacturing lines.
- ronsor 27d ago
  > Sneakerbots killed it for everyone Ultimately I think artificial scarcity/limited production for products offered online is a futile and erroneous venture. The bots exist because the product is valuable. The product is valuable because it's artificially limited.
  - epsteingpt 27d ago
    Slightly different take IMO. There's a niche market for certain player's sneakers. If Nike services them at a price point (e.g. $200 base) then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version. If instead some sneakerbot takes ALL the consumer surplus (buys for $200, resells for $1000) yes that is the actual demand curve but it hurts NIKE'S business and the consumer.
    - bawolff 27d ago
      >then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version. But in this scenario people can't because if they are worth $1000 but selling for $200 then they will instantly sell out. why does it hurt consumers more to not be able to purchase due to the price point instead of due to being instantly sold out?
      - tancop 27d ago
        Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers.
        nadermx 27d ago
        For a foot company you'd think they wouldn't want themselves to have one less foot. But here we are.
      - WalterBright 27d ago
        It didn't hurt me any. I just bought a cheaper brand.
- bdangubic 27d ago
  not sneakebots but competition coupled with failure of nike to modernize past airjordan brand. nike was riding hiding when you alternatives were reebok and new balance. now there are a lot more brands and they leave nike in the dust. my 13-year old athlete - does not know who “jordan” is - called me a boomer when I suggested to buy her nike shoes I liked for the upcoming season
VirusNewbie 27d ago
I thought Nike had a good thing going for a while, they were able to sell cheap lower end shoes but had some good brands that stayed a little higher status. But where the hell have they been, as other athletic companies have taken off with better synthetic fabric, nike hasn't increased in quality. Their marketing is particularly weird, making some interesting choices. All in all, it seems the company has been badly run the last ten years.
fakedang 27d ago
Lots of bad marketing moves by Nike - wonder which middle management genius' idea it was to put that big ass poster right on the facade of a historic building, if anyone remembers. And their manufacturing quality has gone down the drain. Their sneakers fall apart in months while German brand sneakers still manage to retain their quality.
- bushwart 27d ago
  Not going to argue with you about the quality of German brand sneakers, I wear Adidas myself, but Nike still has several models that score well enough on runrepeat.com.
  - jahller 27d ago
    yeah, i dont think the quality of the shoes were ultimately the problem. consumers care more for trends than quality.
    - rrr_oh_man 26d ago
      > consumers people
- WalterBright 27d ago
  I buy cheap running shoes. I replace them when they wear through the sole. The shoe brands means absolutely nothing to me.
Alien1Being 27d ago
They are welcome to make stuff that nobody wants. Weird designs, made poorly and disintegrating in months. But then the share price drops. ie: the market capitalisation drops. They then have to pay more money to borrow. Fewer investors are interested in giving them money. The business spirals into irrelevance like Ken Olsen's Digital Equipment Corporation. Restructuring happens Employees lose jobs. Restructuring happens again and again and again. Employees lose jobs, more jobs and still more jobs. Unpaid suppliers go bankrupt. Finally they shut down and become an irrelevance like Nike, 777 Partners, DEC, BioXcel Therapeutics, Lycos, First Brands Group, Yahoo.
- eastbound 27d ago
  [flagged]
  - Alien1Being 27d ago
    Missing out on the ferociously MAGA market segment is surely a positive...
  - deaux 27d ago
    Talk about living in a bubble. Nike is an ultraglobal brand. The people who A. saw those ads and B. considered them negatively represent maybe 0.5% of global revenue. If even that. They sure weren't running "body-positive woman" ads in Tokyo and Zagreb. It's time you get out there and meet some people from different backgrounds rather than something filtered down to like-minded people, and hopefully realize that your frame of reference is very limited.
    - fodkodrasz 26d ago
      They did run some painfully out-of-touch adverts in Central-Europe, possibly in Zagreb also... In Hungary it was pretty much a talking point at a time to boycott them, and competition was there. Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements.
      - 26d ago
nemothekid 27d ago
Nike's destruction over the past 5 years was really surprised and until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about. About 2-3 years, it felt like, out of nowhere everyone was wearing Hoka and On brand sneakers. In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere. While Hoka probably executed extremely well, I imagine it was an incredibly lucky position Hoka found themselves in when all those retailers had to replace Nike with something. Maybe even allbirds would be in a better position today had they launched 3-4 years later. Edit: I just looked it up and it seems both Hoka and On were founded before Allbirds. Seems allbirds imploded (~2021), just as Nike was ceding all their retail space (also around 2021). Had they had another year, maybe they wouldn't have had to pivot into an AI datacenter company.
- sph 27d ago
  FWIW I have never heard or seen the Hoka brand in my life until now. I wouldn’t even try to google what On looks like. The first time I heard about Allbirds is when they pivoted to AI. We all live in our own bubbles.
  - harshalizee 27d ago
    Today, you're one of the lucky 10000![1] For me personally, On shoes are probably the most comfortable pairs I've ever owned. Their waterproof sneakers are the only ones I've ever had that's actually fully waterproof. If you're looking for a decent pair of sneakers you should at least take a look at their Cloud line. [1] https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
    - omnimus 27d ago
      On shoes are also very ugly. I don't think they have a single pair that has any style. I would love to try them but it looks like shoes for retirees.
      - dpark 27d ago
morkalork 27d ago
I'll just toss in 2c I've seen elsewhere: The brand got diluted like Burberry
cadamsdotcom 27d ago
Personal anecdote I treated myself last year to some Nikes (Vaporflys) because they looked suave on a friend's feet.. Did 180km of training, maybe 5 weeks worth, and the soles utterly shredded. Couldn't put my foot down level, corners of the soles completely gone. Shoe store said that's what they're designed to do, no refund. Cost me about $2AUD per km. But it'll cost Nike a bit more than that.
- deleted 27d ago
  [deleted]
- nielsk 27d ago
  But that’s a thing with all carbon-plated shoes. You get 200-300km out of it. They are usually only worth it, if you run around a sub-3 marathon. It can be worth it for shorter distances but you should have someone looking at your running style because those shoes increase your likeliness of injury if your running style isn’t well or you can keep it up for the whole distance when you are getting tired. All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events. This is really independent of Nike but a thing with those kind of shoes.
  - michaelt 26d ago
    > All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events. Doing all your marathon training in one type of shoe then switching to a different, new shoe on the day is certainly a choice.
    - standeven 26d ago
      There are usually training versions of the race shoe, which are heavier due in part to thicker rubber soles and more durable foam. So you train in those, and then switch to the ultra-light, ultra-bouncy race version on race day.
- twalla 27d ago
sh-run 27d ago
As a trail runner it’s been weird to watch. Nike ACG has been putting out some seriously good, cutting edge equipment. Ultrafly is a great shoe, as is the Pegasus trail for road-to-trail they’ve also got some neat cooling tech that I don’t have personal experience with. Project Oregon left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouth. It feels like right when they recovered their image with runners they are losing mass appeal.
- aprilthird2021 27d ago
  Runners are not even like 20-30% of the buyers of such shoes I'd wager. Most people buying a cushioned On, Hoka, or Nike running shoe are just looking for a shoe that's comfortable and versatile
  - imp0cat 27d ago
    Exactly. And there is a lot of other alternatives in this space, check the guides at https://runrepeat.com/ https://runrepeat.com/
  - cpursley 26d ago
    I think there’s actually a direct correlation of people wearing these athletic shoes, especially the really expensive fancy ones in public places and actually not being in shape. It’s pretty funny. People who are truly into athletics or generally wear those shoes only in the particular setting i.e. trail running, in the gym, etc., and then switch into normal shoes.
    - stevesimmons 26d ago
      Most runners I know wear running shoes nearly the whole time. They run in their new shoes, then switch them over to casual use as the cushioning starts to go. And if you're a really keen runner, you'll have different shoes for each type of training (track, tempo, long and slow) and racing (track, XC, trail, mid distance, half to full marathon). So you end up with a constant flow of "worn but not worn out" shoes. Which you wear when not running...
    - 26d ago
gcanyon 27d ago
I hope this doesn't negatively affect Laika -- I very much like their films.
hyperlinerapp 27d ago
The marketing campaign they launched in April 2023 also deteriorated their brand position. It earned them woke coins, but the NPV of all those future woke coins flows was negative.
- spiderice 27d ago
  People on HN are, of course, going to pretend that moving from Michael Jordan to Dylan Mulvaney and whoever that overweight "Own The Floor" lady aren't a huge downgrade. Wearing Nike became kind of embarrassing.
  - anon48293 27d ago
    I certainly won’t be wearing Nike anymore because of it. I’m clearly not the target audience.
  - kenjackson 26d ago
    Honestly, I suspect most people will have no idea about these ads. I know I don’t.
    - hyperlinerapp 26d ago
      Maybe if you were hiding under a rock. Even Jaguar was tremendously impacted by their woke ads.
      - kenjackson 26d ago
        Maybe I have been. And how was Jaguar impacted? I haven’t seen a Jaguar ad in a decade, and almost as long one of their cars.
        hyperlinerapp 26d ago
        [flagged]
        rsynnott 25d ago
jimt1234 27d ago
I feel like athletic shoes have mostly become what they were always meant to be: athletic shoes - you know, for doing something athletic, not just for going to Costco or McDonalds or whatever else. Back in the 90s, athletic shoes, like Nike, were for everything; they were the default shoe style. Now people wear Crocs or flip-flops or something else, not necessarily athletic shoes. So now the market is smaller for Nike - they can make the best athletic shoes in the world, but most people aren't athletes, they just wanna slip something on their feet and go to the grocery store.
- landdate 27d ago
  yeah but nike sells slides which are pretty popular with the youth.
- nradov 27d ago
  Athletic shoes are still popular for streetwear. But it's a fickle market where style trends count for a lot more than performance.
  - wyre 27d ago
    But even in streetwear Nike wasn't really keeping up with the trends of more maximalist sneakers.
    - jahller 26d ago
      Nike actually had a good run with the Air Max in that segment, but as someone already said: trends are fickle
      - wyre 23d ago
        Ya they had a good run ~10-15 year ago at the start of the rise of vintage/chunky/ugly sneaker aesthetics, but failed to innovate and keep up with trends.
- lifestyleguru 26d ago
kazinator 27d ago
Maybe they can come up with some push button pump gadget for inflating stocks.
AIorNot 27d ago
Maybe they should pivot to AI like AllBirds :)
bionhoward 27d ago
I feel like Nike’s biggest fumble was not advertising the Invincibles more. It seemed they had some evidence the PEBAX foam could reduce injury in base mileage, which is the number one thing many/most runners spend the most time on. So why not make sure everybody knows this? It seems weird. If you have a lot of athletes who need conditioning and don’t want to get injured, why not advertise the crap out of the injury prevention shoes?
deboulaymxf 27d ago
Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy just jumped over Jumpman Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy I just did the numbers If Nike ain’t have MJ they’d have nothing Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy just jumped over jumpman
jmyeet 27d ago
Two things really undead Nike: DTC and the simplification of their product line. But where did those ideas come from? Mckinsey [1]. Does anything good ever come out of management consulting? It just seems to be a scam whenever I hear about. It's to provide cover for CEOs where the consultants can get blamed when things inevitably go sour. Then you fire them and hire new consultants. It's only when the disaster is so massive that the CEO gets fired (as was the case here). And likewise, McKinsey (or whoever) just say the company failed to execute properly or they were already doomed so they gave them the best chance to succeed or whatever self-absolution they choose on any given day. Producing things has been replaced with financial chicanery to boost short term profits in a way that's inevitably fatal to the company. Few developed economies actually produce anything anymore and we have China that produces 30-40% of the world's stuff at this point. [1]: https://www.toddherman.com/leadership/how-data-drove-nike-into-a-ditch https://www.toddherman.com/leadership/how-data-drove-nike-in...
- mitxela 26d ago
  Executives probably got more money from it somehow. Whether McKinsey executives, Nike executives or both.
- wvanbergen 26d ago
  This is the value of consulting. If it works, you get to claim the win. If it fails, you blame the consultant.
madaxe_again 27d ago
The market has more confidence in Nike than Nvidia, however - the former trades at a higher forward PE. I guess it’s easier to believe in a shoe brand turnaround than it is in an AI future.
branko_d 27d ago
Last month, I bought two pairs of sneakers: one was a full leather design made in Spain, the other was a leather/cloth combination (Italian design, I'm not sure where they are made). Both are comfortable, seem to be of very good quality and look premium. The price of these two pairs together was less then one Nike pair made of synthetic materials. This was in Novi Sad, Serbia. I don't know what's going on around the world, but if this anecdote is of any indication, Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have.
- nomorewords 27d ago
  This sounds like it might have something to do with taxes? In Bulgaria all sports stores carry Nikes and the lower end ones are like 60 euros. Offbrand design replicas are like 40 or 50, no way you get such a deal f, especially for natural materials
- globular-toast 27d ago
  Leather shoes are still disposable if you can't unstitch the sole. You need a Goodyear welted shoe if you want one that will last decades.
  - loeg 26d ago
    Who cares. Everything has a lifespan.
- torben-friis 27d ago
  >Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have. I always go to buy Nike first after decades of conditioning. These past years I always return. Outer soles are of a recycled material that slips and feels like packaging material, the upper part is badly stitched and I've had two times where left and right shoes where slightly different size or shape. I swear Nike knockoffs are significantly better quality than Nike itself now somehow.
  - gamessucknow 26d ago
    Not sure if I’ve always been too rough with my should, but last year I needed to get more shoes as I was particularly active hiking and fishing that summer. I ended up going with an expensive pair that was supposed to have all sorts features including some nest waterproof material that I was excited for. A year later the waterproofing has nearly all rubbed off and a hole has grown next to the toe. These shoes were like $200.
dijit 27d ago
don’t buy stuff from people who hate you. https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men
- kgwgk 26d ago
  Great link.
  - dijit 26d ago
    i think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough. Despite the fact that I suspect many would agree with the core sentiment, no matter which political side you’re on. It argues that greed causes loss of direction, and that large corporations can’t help themselves but to be greedy.
    - kergonath 26d ago
      > i think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough. You could have provided more context to avoid that.
      - dijit 26d ago
        people would have ignored that too.
    - throwawayffffas 26d ago
      It does so in an incredibly long winded stream of consciousness that meanders all over the place, and half way through reads as "Nike is bad because it went woke."
      - baud147258 26d ago
        Funny, I read it as 'Nike tried to chase after another market, while neglecting its core market in its advertising'...
freetime2 27d ago
I had a good 15+ year run where I only ever wore Nikes. Then I wore my first wide toe-box shoes and haven’t bought Nike since. Looking back, Nike was never very good about offering different width options on most of their shoes. And I still don’t think they offer wide toe box shoes.
- wideopenspace 27d ago
  Can I ask what you switched to? I also spent 15 years running in Nikes, mostly Structure, Pegasus, Invincible 3. I tried to stop buying so many american products 2 years ago and went for a pair of On's which are now reaching the end of their life. I can't say I'm super happy with the On's like I was with my Nikes. Might just go back
  - billynomates 26d ago
    Not OP but I bought a pair of wide-toe trainers from Altra and I love them. They are the least ugly, properly wide shoes I have bought yet (and I've worn a good few).
    - otikik 26d ago
      Yep, another happy Altra user here. I basically wear nothing else these days. Will never go back to a non-wide toebox shoe.
      - lr1970 26d ago
        +1. Since I discovered Altra it feels pain to wear anything else.
    - dranudin 26d ago
      Once upon a time adidas made shoes that were wide enough for me. Then somehow they decided to make them narrower and I had to search for wider shoes. The search was very difficult, as it seems that most shoe producers do not produce actually foot-shaped shoes. I bought my first pairs of Altra half a year ago, and I am very happy! The fit is really great. I will not switch to anything else, as long as they continue producing in this shape.
locallost 26d ago
The direct to consumer pivot is often mentioned, but this is probably something that just accelerated their demise. The bigger problem right now for the turnaround is the competition. A lot of Chinese brands even dominate some spaces like basketball in the last years, and they are still difficult to get in Europe where I live, but they are making a push. Once that happens, I am not sure what Nike is going to do. Quality wise pretty much every review puts shoes from Li-Ning and 361 as the best of the best. And they're not cheap either. In a lot of ways they remind me of Intel, and I'm not sure there will be a shoe center buildout bubble around to save them.
- coffeebeqn 26d ago
  The Chinese sneakers are made at the same factory out of the same materials and processes
  - locallost 26d ago
    Difficult to have it be the same factor considering the majority of Nike production is in Vietnam, and the majority of the Chinese manufacturing is in China. But even if yes those are still not the same shoes.
alfiedotwtf 26d ago
McKinsey
- AlexandrB 26d ago
  Canada just appointed their former CEO to a government role. https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/08/31/prime-minister-carney-announces-appointments-new-chair-board-and-ceo https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/08/31/prime-...
relaxfolio 26d ago
[dead]
rf15 26d ago
Beyond the stock market gambling aspect, what actually happened here? > revenue down 2% That means almost nothing, right? Some fluctuation must be expected. The Stock also looks like it really benefited from a Corona boost that is now cooling off. Can someone with more insight explain why everyone is screaming?
- Unit327 26d ago
  Without knowing any of the specifics of nike, investors are chasing money losing AI with promises of 100000x growth in the next five minutes, not a manufacturer of physical products that perhaps actually make a profit every year.
- throwaway2037 26d ago
  > Beyond the stock market gambling aspect First, the United States' stock markets (NYSE + NASDAQ) are not gambling. An index-tracking portfolio has never lost money over a 20 year time frame for the last 125 years. Google tells me: > Nike Annual Revenue Breakdown > Fiscal Year 2026: $46.40 billion (+0.19% YoY) > Fiscal Year 2025: $46.31 billion (-9.84% YoY) > Fiscal Year 2024: $51.36 billion (+0.28% YoY) Many Wall Street analysts will tell you that a stock price is the value of its future earnings growth. Nike has had three terrible years. As a result, their stock is in the toilet.
  - throwawayffffas 26d ago
    The price of any individual stock though is mostly determined by hype. Revenue and concrete performance plays a part but hype is very much a driving factor and hype is fickle.
    - muse900 26d ago
      Well tbh, hype does tell you something about future demand. It doesn't guarantee sales, but how excited people are about a product gives you an idea of how likely they are to buy it. I think Nike lost some of its cool while the competition got better. For me, the turning point was walking into a Nike store and thinking their prices were way too high for what I was actually getting. I reckon they'd be in a much worse position without Jordan. It's still a massive part of their appeal, even if its sales have slowed too. And the stock market doesn't just look at today's revenue and performance. It also prices in what people expect to happen next. If people think a brand is losing its appeal, they won't necessarily wait for that to fully show up in the numbers.
relaxfolio 26d ago
[dead]
zhivota 26d ago
I used to get all my running shoes from Nike, the Pegasus line which was always their basic running shoe that was very good overall. These days, I can get what is basically the same shoe from Decathlon for 1/5th the price of last year's Pegasus. Running shoe tech is not some kind of secret thing. Any shoe manufacturer can buy a pair of any other shoes and cut it open and copy it. The only shoes that have anything special in them are the ones with the carbon fiber spring plate, and those are highly specialized and only last for a few races anyway, not for me as a casual runner in his 40s.
- ciropantera 26d ago
  Same. I used to run a Pegasus pair to the ground and get a new one (ideally previous year's) without even thinking about it. They were usually cheaper than the competition and worked fine for me so why not. At some point they got just as expensive as a Hoka pair so I tried one and I'm not coming back. I'll try the Decathlon next time :) any particular model you would recommend?
  - zhivota 26d ago
    The JF190 trail runners feel just like Pegasus to me, I haven't tried the road version of the same but it's basically the cheapest shoe in the store. The first time I tried it, I almost couldn't bring myself to buy it, I felt like it was too good to be true for the price. I got a pair of the cushion 500s and they are very similar, just a thicker sole. They have Hoka copies as well, and even have a carbon plate race shoe I'm pretty sure. If you have a big store near you just go in and try a few. They're cheap enough that I actually keep a few copies of the same shoe in rotation and swap old ones out quickly rather than running them dead like I used to do with the Nike's.
emptyfile 26d ago
[dead]
redsocksfan45 26d ago
[dead]
gyomu 26d ago
Wild that you can have Tim Cook, one of the most effective CEOs of all time, on your board of directors and fumble so badly. There must be some juicy drama that went on behind the scenes, I hope we get to hear it eventually.
- tonyedgecombe 26d ago
  I sometimes think half of Apple's success is down to the failure of the rest of the industry to deliver quality products. Microsoft and Intel in particular but all the OEM's as well. A world where they got their act together would look quite different.
- eightysixfour 26d ago
  I would argue it was moving towards a more Apple-like distribution model that has hurt them so much.
Bluestein 26d ago
This is the end of an era.- PS. To those objecting in the silent cowardice of a downvote: The exiting of something as basic as shoes (modulo lifestyle/"luxury") further represents "software" eating the world" look at the newcomers to the S&P 100: DELL — Dell Technologies PANW — Palo Alto Networks ANET — Arista Networks SNDK — SanDisk
TitaRusell 26d ago
[flagged]
- Markoff 26d ago
  Adidas and Puma are German companies and they are pretty famous, Joma is Spanish, Decathlon is French, seems plenty of the options, if you don't wanna support Trumpistan.
  - fransje26 26d ago
    Ah. I see we are going around the autocratic circle. Past and present!
  - antonyh 26d ago
    We swear by Adidas on the football pitch, the best boots available in my opinion. I've not tried their serious running shoes but their 'fashion' shoes are middling at best. Next pair will likely be Asics.
theGeatZhopa 26d ago
Just bought Nike Air Jordans the blue/white, 2025 model - it's a good shoe! I love it.
antonyh 26d ago
It could be because Nike aren't very good, and because half the world is boycotting US products after the tariffs shenanigans. I personally will choose other products whenever there is a viable alternative, and frankly there are plenty of non-US trainers / running shoes available.
- avazhi 26d ago
  You don't really think half the world is boycotting US products, do you lol?
  - antonyh 26d ago
    lol yes I do. Canada, Mexico, any countries adversely affected by tariffs, anyone who doesn't wish to support Trumps political views. I'm fairly sure that's more than half the globe
    - avazhi 26d ago
      Are you European? I ask because this seems like a very European thing to say. Countries are buying less from America for sure, especially of particular goods, but neither Mexico nor Canada nor anybody else are 'boycotting' American goods lol. I'm not in America either (so don't accuse of introverted jingoism), but I work in the international trade sector. If you're gonna use the term boycott, use it properly.
      - antonyh 26d ago
        Indeed European. I'm surprised to hear that Canada is no longer though, I thought the protests and avoidance were very much still ongoing. I only have international news to go by, and I've no way to be certain but I do know that nobody I know deliberately buys American now and will actively search out alternatives for brands that are based in the US. I could live in an anecdotal bubble though, but it sure does look like there is a bias against US-owned business. I'm sure your data is more accurate.
cramer4next 26d ago
For me the end of buying anything Nike for my household and owning there stock was 2018. After their embracement of kaepernick and circus of marketing schemes that followed its no surprise what the outcome would be. Now Lululemon hired one of architects of all this as their CEO. They followed the nike playbook and are already suffering from it. Now their doubling down in a race to the bottom. "Just weird..... Even if it means destroying everything."
ionwake 26d ago
All I know is the "ON" shoes are easy to recognise on the street due to their completely bizarre soles, even for non shoe enthusiasts. Look even I didnt realize the N for new Balance was different for the N for Nike for like decades. The focus on running by Hoka and ON, on the street, and IMO the "low quality" of the collectible Jordans, apparently were the deathknell. But this is armchair speculation.
kypro 26d ago
A very large part of this is simply that Nike was trading at an extremely aggressive valuation a few years ago. The business is obviously struggling and while some of the decline is related directly to that, the stock collapse mostly attributable to investors rerating NKE from a safe stock with steadily growing profits, to something more uncertain that requires a lower multiple. Another thing I'll note is that historically Nike was always primarily a sports company focused on shoe technology. And arguably they are the best in that category. But in the last decade they also seemed to become a ubiquitous fashion brand. So much so that a few years ago almost everyone I knew were wearing Nike's casually, for sport and even in the office. Whenever something becomes so popular that even grown men are wearing them to the office, you know it won't remain in fashion for long.
csomar 26d ago
I am surprised how no one is mentioning how their sneakers dissolves in a couple months? Last store Nike sneaker I bought was 4 years ago. $120 or something and within 2 months it has become unwearable. Since then I only buy new balance from an outlet so the price remains below $100. Still the last new balance I got are wearing out fast and I am on the look for a newer brand. I am actually surprised they are still in business and making sales.
- qwerpy 26d ago
  Without looking too carefully at the box I accidentally bought a pair of Nikes that had prominent marketing about how environmentally friendly the shoes were. Many parts of it were made out of recycled materials, including the insole that looked like it was made out of shredded multicolored plastic. No matter, it was comfortable, so I wore it. Same as you, after 2 months it disintegrated. Now, I refuse to buy anything from Nike. I also check for any over the top statements about using recycled materials.
boxed 26d ago
The article has one heading which is "Why is Nike dropping?" But to me when looking at that graph the question is: what in the world happened in 2020-2021 to make it go up that much? The graph looks like some kind of crypto scam or AI hype, but neither makes any sense for a shoe company. Can anyone explain the rise?
- randusername 26d ago
  Stimulus checks?
- Elte 26d ago
  Supposedly the pandemic caused quite the running boom since it was the easiest sport to keep doing despite lockdowns. Combine that with a bunch of bored retail investors with stimulus checks... I don't know if this is the actual reason or not, but it seems like it might have had something to do with it.
  - coffeebeqn 26d ago
    Some people were also collecting Jordan’s and everything else under the Sun with their stimulus
- donandon 26d ago
  Pump and dump
- hucklebuckle 26d ago
  Streetwear was booming. Nike had very sought after collaborations, the ball started rolling after they released a re-imagined version of 10 of their moest iconics sneakers (designed by Virgil Abloh from Off-White).
itomato 26d ago
When the counterfeiters came, that's what they chose to put in the box. They have been reduced to pleather collectibles.
alexpotato 26d ago
There is a great article [0] that has some interesting points about this: - Nike used to be very "male coded" e.g. "Be like Mike" - So much so that they were one of the only companies where men bought more clothes than women - The powers that be wanted to go after the "Adjacent Whale" (explained in the article) that was the female consumer - They ended up alienating their core customer base while competing poorly with other brands 0 - https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men?r=11111 https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men?r=11111
- sfmz 26d ago
  > Nike used to be very "male coded" e.g. "Be like Mike" There are very-few male-coded places left. I think any Mall is like 80% for women and 20% food court. Beside that, there are jewelry stores, nail salons, spas, hair salons. Drive around the 'burbs and the only male-coded place is probably hardware stores and Pizza Hut
  - NullPrefix 26d ago
    How is pizza hut male coded?
  - DC-3 26d ago
    For every shop that exists in the real world to sell shit to women you have to remember there's an offshore sports betting portal on the world wide web to relieve men of their disposable income.
    - jeltz 26d ago
      Many, maybe even most, online casinos target women primarily.
      - Maxatar 26d ago
        Not the sports betting sites though, also poker seems to be indifferent in terms of marketing even though it's dominated by men.
gosub100 26d ago
Here's a good video essay about their downfall https://youtu.be/SrsUlTtLLIM?is=2S9uP-LvXOrWKfH6 https://youtu.be/SrsUlTtLLIM?is=2S9uP-LvXOrWKfH6
aczerepinski 26d ago
A huge percentage of Nike’s sales come from vintage shoes like dunks, air force ones, Jordan 1s, etc. By modern standards, they aren’t good shoes. They aren’t suitable for the sport they were originally designed for, and they aren’t comfortable compared to modern lifestyle shoes. I can’t believe Nike is ok with that being how loads of people experience the brand. Why not spend an extra $2 upgrading the cushioning to React or Zoom so that they feel good on foot? Nike does of course also make great modern shoes, but you have to know what’s what.
- slopinthebag 26d ago
  cuz jordans (especially 1s and 3s), dunks, af1s, air maxes etc look great and have heritage behind them. same reason people wear converse (awful basketball shoe). idk if they could change them without pissing off a lot of ppl.
  - aczerepinski 26d ago
    They could swap in quality cushioning without changing the silhouette. They used the term “protro” when they did this to upgrade Kobe sneakers and people loved it. I assume the reason they don’t with dunks is because the margins on selling 1980s tech is insane.
andy_ppp 26d ago
I love Nike shoes and brand but they just don’t produce anything since fly knits that I actually like. All I want is a flat shoe with a massive toe box and thin material for the gym with Nike branding - why is it so difficult to make something people want?
- bellowsgulch 26d ago
  Jesus this, and the shit I do want, they price at like $300. Fuck! I guess I'll just never give them a dollar.
rrr_oh_man 26d ago
Can anyone recommend durable, bright white, wide toe box, not ugly looking sneakers without any brand logos?
- goton23122 26d ago
  > not ugly looking sneakers but white https://barefootuniverse.com/best-white-barefoot-sneakers/ https://barefootuniverse.com/best-white-barefoot-sneakers/ I dont know what style you're after. These are my recommendations for brands that look decent. AltraRunning (Escalante), LemsShoes (Zenspeed, trailtrasher, primal3), VivoBarefoot, Fluxfootwear, OhneProject, XeroShoes (Wynn)
jonstewart 26d ago
I intellectually understand the retailpocalypse replaced by online shopping, but I will always want to try on clothes before buying them, and that goes double for shoes. After trying out New Balance for a year or two in adulthood I ended up going back to Nike running shoes (I still remember my pair of Air Icarus from high school, so light), just seemed to fit my feet better. But now I wear Hokas. Nike’s loss.
deleted 26d ago
[deleted]
snarfy 26d ago
I have been wearing Vans for so long my foot is the shape of one. This made me check their stock... ouch.
duckmysick 26d ago
I wanted to check the primary source so I went to (what looks like) the official S&P website and their S&P 100 section at https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-100/ https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-100/ I can't find any press release about it. And the Constituents section lists only 10 of them, so I can't check who is there. I even checked the PDFs with methodology but couldn't find the list there. I even tried to limit the search on Google to spglobal.com domain and I can see this in the result preview: "Constituents. Top 10 Constituents by Index Weight. Full Constituents List. Constituent. Symbol. Sector*. Sector Breakdown." But when I click it, Full Constituents List is nowhere on the page. What's going on? Am I missing something obvious?
- Maxatar 26d ago
  How did you search? I really wonder if I just have a vastly different Google algorithm than others because whenever a post similar to this pops up I have no problem finding the info using the most obvious and basic of Google searches, while other people seemingly struggle to find authoritative information. At any rate, the info comes from S&P themselves: https://press.spglobal.com/2026-09-04-Bloom-Energy,-Illumina,-and-Everpure-Set-to-Join-S-P-500-Others-to-Join-S-P-100,-S-P-MidCap-400,-and-S-P-SmallCap-600 https://press.spglobal.com/2026-09-04-Bloom-Energy,-Illumina... >Sept 21, 2026 S&P 100 Deletion NIKE NKE Consumer Discretionary
  - duckmysick 26d ago
    I actually used two things: 1 - the search function on the S&P Global site: https://www.spglobal.com/en/search#q=nike&rows=10&pagenum=1&sort=es_unified_dt%20desc https://www.spglobal.com/en/search#q=nike&rows=10&pagenum=1&... For me, right now the latest result is from Feb 27, 2026 2 - Google search with this query: `site:spglobal.com Nike` Even when I limited the search results to the last month, the only page that shows for me is https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en but I'm not sure why - it doesn't have anything to do with it. I see now your link, thanks. I have no idea why it's not indexed in the site's own search or why it's skipped for me in Google. Interestingly, I just checked the same query on Bing and it's there, but not in the top. Did you find a page that lists all the companies on S&P 100 in a simple table?
gedy 26d ago
> “We made meaningful structural improvements to lay the groundwork for our Sport Offense across our team culture, innovative product, brand strength, and how we serve consumers in our countries and cities,” Hill said in the report. “While we continue to face top-line headwinds, we’re encouraged by progress in performance product and are focused on consistent execution, improved profitability and scaling our wins to realize our full potential.” Yikes this sounds like corporate bingo card nonsense.
maxglute 26d ago
Too much sneaker head gambling, Nikes started to feel like wearing pokemon.
diogenescynic 26d ago
They deserve it for listening to McKinsey and the consultant class and getting involved in politics. Stop lecturing me about politics when I just want a product that has nothing to do with politics (i.e. Colin Kaepernick and Dylan Mulvaney)--even when it was clear the public was against them. I don't want ANY corporation telling me how to think or feel. Just put the stuff in the bag and don't lecture me.
_DeadFred_ 26d ago
Nike went mail order only but wouldn't accept orders to PO boxes which meant I could no longer buy Nikes. Crazy move on their part.
achillesheels 26d ago
Ok so I’ve analyzed this before…opportunity cost not doubling-down on India and instead getting popular advertising to women who are not entertaining to watch sorry.
Folioshift 25d ago
Just a few years ago, Nike was seen as the ultimate goal for every athlete. It was the pinnacle of performance. I struggle to understand how they could have squandered such an advantage. Was it putting too much focus on lifestyle? Remaining too generalist? Or was it simply a PR blunder ?
daft_pink 25d ago
after the kaepernick nonsense, i started buying lululemon clothes and hoka shoes and never bought another nike product ever again.

313 points by andsoitis 27d ago

https://archive.ph/8NmSg https://archive.ph/8NmSg

epsteingpt 27d ago

Sneakerbots killed it for everyone. Priced out the demand IMO too early. But also, people only have 2 feet.

andsoitis 27d ago
> But also, people only have 2 feet. There's more to athletic wear than shoes. Competition like Lululemon, Vuori, Athleta, etc. suggest to me that Nike didn't expand their business broadly enough.
- what 27d ago
  Why should they? Why can’t they just make shoes and be happy about it?
  - MiroslavPokorny 27d ago
    Exactly why should basketballers also try and advertise shoes.
  - deleted 27d ago
    [deleted]
- morkalork 27d ago
  Lululemon is crashing out too tho, methinks consumers are having a hard time justifying the brand name markups for SEA clothing-slop these days.
  - ikr678 27d ago
    Word is out and there are a number of well regarded amazon dupes (CRZ) for Lulu that are rumoured to be from the same manufacturing lines.
ronsor 27d ago
> Sneakerbots killed it for everyone Ultimately I think artificial scarcity/limited production for products offered online is a futile and erroneous venture. The bots exist because the product is valuable. The product is valuable because it's artificially limited.
- epsteingpt 27d ago
  Slightly different take IMO. There's a niche market for certain player's sneakers. If Nike services them at a price point (e.g. $200 base) then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version. If instead some sneakerbot takes ALL the consumer surplus (buys for $200, resells for $1000) yes that is the actual demand curve but it hurts NIKE'S business and the consumer.
  - bawolff 27d ago
    >then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version. But in this scenario people can't because if they are worth $1000 but selling for $200 then they will instantly sell out. why does it hurt consumers more to not be able to purchase due to the price point instead of due to being instantly sold out?
    - tancop 27d ago
      Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers.
      - nadermx 27d ago
        For a foot company you'd think they wouldn't want themselves to have one less foot. But here we are.
    - WalterBright 27d ago
      It didn't hurt me any. I just bought a cheaper brand.
bdangubic 27d ago
not sneakebots but competition coupled with failure of nike to modernize past airjordan brand. nike was riding hiding when you alternatives were reebok and new balance. now there are a lot more brands and they leave nike in the dust. my 13-year old athlete - does not know who “jordan” is - called me a boomer when I suggested to buy her nike shoes I liked for the upcoming season

VirusNewbie 27d ago

I thought Nike had a good thing going for a while, they were able to sell cheap lower end shoes but had some good brands that stayed a little higher status. But where the hell have they been, as other athletic companies have taken off with better synthetic fabric, nike hasn't increased in quality. Their marketing is particularly weird, making some interesting choices. All in all, it seems the company has been badly run the last ten years.

fakedang 27d ago

Lots of bad marketing moves by Nike - wonder which middle management genius' idea it was to put that big ass poster right on the facade of a historic building, if anyone remembers. And their manufacturing quality has gone down the drain. Their sneakers fall apart in months while German brand sneakers still manage to retain their quality.

bushwart 27d ago
Not going to argue with you about the quality of German brand sneakers, I wear Adidas myself, but Nike still has several models that score well enough on runrepeat.com.
- jahller 27d ago
  yeah, i dont think the quality of the shoes were ultimately the problem. consumers care more for trends than quality.
  - rrr_oh_man 26d ago
    > consumers people
WalterBright 27d ago
I buy cheap running shoes. I replace them when they wear through the sole. The shoe brands means absolutely nothing to me.

Alien1Being 27d ago

They are welcome to make stuff that nobody wants. Weird designs, made poorly and disintegrating in months. But then the share price drops. ie: the market capitalisation drops. They then have to pay more money to borrow. Fewer investors are interested in giving them money. The business spirals into irrelevance like Ken Olsen's Digital Equipment Corporation. Restructuring happens Employees lose jobs. Restructuring happens again and again and again. Employees lose jobs, more jobs and still more jobs. Unpaid suppliers go bankrupt. Finally they shut down and become an irrelevance like Nike, 777 Partners, DEC, BioXcel Therapeutics, Lycos, First Brands Group, Yahoo.

eastbound 27d ago
[flagged]
- Alien1Being 27d ago
  Missing out on the ferociously MAGA market segment is surely a positive...
- deaux 27d ago
  Talk about living in a bubble. Nike is an ultraglobal brand. The people who A. saw those ads and B. considered them negatively represent maybe 0.5% of global revenue. If even that. They sure weren't running "body-positive woman" ads in Tokyo and Zagreb. It's time you get out there and meet some people from different backgrounds rather than something filtered down to like-minded people, and hopefully realize that your frame of reference is very limited.
  - fodkodrasz 26d ago
    They did run some painfully out-of-touch adverts in Central-Europe, possibly in Zagreb also... In Hungary it was pretty much a talking point at a time to boycott them, and competition was there. Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements.
    - 26d ago

nemothekid 27d ago

Nike's destruction over the past 5 years was really surprised and until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about. About 2-3 years, it felt like, out of nowhere everyone was wearing Hoka and On brand sneakers. In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere. While Hoka probably executed extremely well, I imagine it was an incredibly lucky position Hoka found themselves in when all those retailers had to replace Nike with something. Maybe even allbirds would be in a better position today had they launched 3-4 years later. Edit: I just looked it up and it seems both Hoka and On were founded before Allbirds. Seems allbirds imploded (~2021), just as Nike was ceding all their retail space (also around 2021). Had they had another year, maybe they wouldn't have had to pivot into an AI datacenter company.

sph 27d ago
FWIW I have never heard or seen the Hoka brand in my life until now. I wouldn’t even try to google what On looks like. The first time I heard about Allbirds is when they pivoted to AI. We all live in our own bubbles.
- harshalizee 27d ago
  Today, you're one of the lucky 10000![1] For me personally, On shoes are probably the most comfortable pairs I've ever owned. Their waterproof sneakers are the only ones I've ever had that's actually fully waterproof. If you're looking for a decent pair of sneakers you should at least take a look at their Cloud line. [1] https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
  - omnimus 27d ago
    On shoes are also very ugly. I don't think they have a single pair that has any style. I would love to try them but it looks like shoes for retirees.
    - dpark 27d ago

morkalork 27d ago

I'll just toss in 2c I've seen elsewhere: The brand got diluted like Burberry

cadamsdotcom 27d ago

Personal anecdote I treated myself last year to some Nikes (Vaporflys) because they looked suave on a friend's feet.. Did 180km of training, maybe 5 weeks worth, and the soles utterly shredded. Couldn't put my foot down level, corners of the soles completely gone. Shoe store said that's what they're designed to do, no refund. Cost me about $2AUD per km. But it'll cost Nike a bit more than that.

deleted 27d ago
[deleted]
nielsk 27d ago
But that’s a thing with all carbon-plated shoes. You get 200-300km out of it. They are usually only worth it, if you run around a sub-3 marathon. It can be worth it for shorter distances but you should have someone looking at your running style because those shoes increase your likeliness of injury if your running style isn’t well or you can keep it up for the whole distance when you are getting tired. All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events. This is really independent of Nike but a thing with those kind of shoes.
- michaelt 26d ago
  > All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events. Doing all your marathon training in one type of shoe then switching to a different, new shoe on the day is certainly a choice.
  - standeven 26d ago
    There are usually training versions of the race shoe, which are heavier due in part to thicker rubber soles and more durable foam. So you train in those, and then switch to the ultra-light, ultra-bouncy race version on race day.
twalla 27d ago

sh-run 27d ago

As a trail runner it’s been weird to watch. Nike ACG has been putting out some seriously good, cutting edge equipment. Ultrafly is a great shoe, as is the Pegasus trail for road-to-trail they’ve also got some neat cooling tech that I don’t have personal experience with. Project Oregon left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouth. It feels like right when they recovered their image with runners they are losing mass appeal.

aprilthird2021 27d ago
Runners are not even like 20-30% of the buyers of such shoes I'd wager. Most people buying a cushioned On, Hoka, or Nike running shoe are just looking for a shoe that's comfortable and versatile
- imp0cat 27d ago
  Exactly. And there is a lot of other alternatives in this space, check the guides at https://runrepeat.com/ https://runrepeat.com/
- cpursley 26d ago
  I think there’s actually a direct correlation of people wearing these athletic shoes, especially the really expensive fancy ones in public places and actually not being in shape. It’s pretty funny. People who are truly into athletics or generally wear those shoes only in the particular setting i.e. trail running, in the gym, etc., and then switch into normal shoes.
  - stevesimmons 26d ago
    Most runners I know wear running shoes nearly the whole time. They run in their new shoes, then switch them over to casual use as the cushioning starts to go. And if you're a really keen runner, you'll have different shoes for each type of training (track, tempo, long and slow) and racing (track, XC, trail, mid distance, half to full marathon). So you end up with a constant flow of "worn but not worn out" shoes. Which you wear when not running...
  - 26d ago

gcanyon 27d ago

I hope this doesn't negatively affect Laika -- I very much like their films.

hyperlinerapp 27d ago

The marketing campaign they launched in April 2023 also deteriorated their brand position. It earned them woke coins, but the NPV of all those future woke coins flows was negative.

spiderice 27d ago
People on HN are, of course, going to pretend that moving from Michael Jordan to Dylan Mulvaney and whoever that overweight "Own The Floor" lady aren't a huge downgrade. Wearing Nike became kind of embarrassing.
- anon48293 27d ago
  I certainly won’t be wearing Nike anymore because of it. I’m clearly not the target audience.
- kenjackson 26d ago
  Honestly, I suspect most people will have no idea about these ads. I know I don’t.
  - hyperlinerapp 26d ago
    Maybe if you were hiding under a rock. Even Jaguar was tremendously impacted by their woke ads.
    - kenjackson 26d ago
      Maybe I have been. And how was Jaguar impacted? I haven’t seen a Jaguar ad in a decade, and almost as long one of their cars.
      - hyperlinerapp 26d ago
        [flagged]
      - rsynnott 25d ago

jimt1234 27d ago

I feel like athletic shoes have mostly become what they were always meant to be: athletic shoes - you know, for doing something athletic, not just for going to Costco or McDonalds or whatever else. Back in the 90s, athletic shoes, like Nike, were for everything; they were the default shoe style. Now people wear Crocs or flip-flops or something else, not necessarily athletic shoes. So now the market is smaller for Nike - they can make the best athletic shoes in the world, but most people aren't athletes, they just wanna slip something on their feet and go to the grocery store.

landdate 27d ago
yeah but nike sells slides which are pretty popular with the youth.
nradov 27d ago
Athletic shoes are still popular for streetwear. But it's a fickle market where style trends count for a lot more than performance.
- wyre 27d ago
  But even in streetwear Nike wasn't really keeping up with the trends of more maximalist sneakers.
  - jahller 26d ago
    Nike actually had a good run with the Air Max in that segment, but as someone already said: trends are fickle
    - wyre 23d ago
      Ya they had a good run ~10-15 year ago at the start of the rise of vintage/chunky/ugly sneaker aesthetics, but failed to innovate and keep up with trends.
lifestyleguru 26d ago

kazinator 27d ago

Maybe they can come up with some push button pump gadget for inflating stocks.

AIorNot 27d ago

Maybe they should pivot to AI like AllBirds :)

bionhoward 27d ago

I feel like Nike’s biggest fumble was not advertising the Invincibles more. It seemed they had some evidence the PEBAX foam could reduce injury in base mileage, which is the number one thing many/most runners spend the most time on. So why not make sure everybody knows this? It seems weird. If you have a lot of athletes who need conditioning and don’t want to get injured, why not advertise the crap out of the injury prevention shoes?

deboulaymxf 27d ago

Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy just jumped over Jumpman Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy I just did the numbers If Nike ain’t have MJ they’d have nothing Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy Yeezy just jumped over jumpman

jmyeet 27d ago

Two things really undead Nike: DTC and the simplification of their product line. But where did those ideas come from? Mckinsey [1]. Does anything good ever come out of management consulting? It just seems to be a scam whenever I hear about. It's to provide cover for CEOs where the consultants can get blamed when things inevitably go sour. Then you fire them and hire new consultants. It's only when the disaster is so massive that the CEO gets fired (as was the case here). And likewise, McKinsey (or whoever) just say the company failed to execute properly or they were already doomed so they gave them the best chance to succeed or whatever self-absolution they choose on any given day. Producing things has been replaced with financial chicanery to boost short term profits in a way that's inevitably fatal to the company. Few developed economies actually produce anything anymore and we have China that produces 30-40% of the world's stuff at this point. [1]: https://www.toddherman.com/leadership/how-data-drove-nike-into-a-ditch https://www.toddherman.com/leadership/how-data-drove-nike-in...

mitxela 26d ago
Executives probably got more money from it somehow. Whether McKinsey executives, Nike executives or both.
wvanbergen 26d ago
This is the value of consulting. If it works, you get to claim the win. If it fails, you blame the consultant.

madaxe_again 27d ago

The market has more confidence in Nike than Nvidia, however - the former trades at a higher forward PE. I guess it’s easier to believe in a shoe brand turnaround than it is in an AI future.

branko_d 27d ago

Last month, I bought two pairs of sneakers: one was a full leather design made in Spain, the other was a leather/cloth combination (Italian design, I'm not sure where they are made). Both are comfortable, seem to be of very good quality and look premium. The price of these two pairs together was less then one Nike pair made of synthetic materials. This was in Novi Sad, Serbia. I don't know what's going on around the world, but if this anecdote is of any indication, Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have.

nomorewords 27d ago
This sounds like it might have something to do with taxes? In Bulgaria all sports stores carry Nikes and the lower end ones are like 60 euros. Offbrand design replicas are like 40 or 50, no way you get such a deal f, especially for natural materials
globular-toast 27d ago
Leather shoes are still disposable if you can't unstitch the sole. You need a Goodyear welted shoe if you want one that will last decades.
- loeg 26d ago
  Who cares. Everything has a lifespan.
torben-friis 27d ago
>Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have. I always go to buy Nike first after decades of conditioning. These past years I always return. Outer soles are of a recycled material that slips and feels like packaging material, the upper part is badly stitched and I've had two times where left and right shoes where slightly different size or shape. I swear Nike knockoffs are significantly better quality than Nike itself now somehow.
- gamessucknow 26d ago
  Not sure if I’ve always been too rough with my should, but last year I needed to get more shoes as I was particularly active hiking and fishing that summer. I ended up going with an expensive pair that was supposed to have all sorts features including some nest waterproof material that I was excited for. A year later the waterproofing has nearly all rubbed off and a hole has grown next to the toe. These shoes were like $200.

dijit 27d ago

don’t buy stuff from people who hate you. https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men

kgwgk 26d ago
Great link.
- dijit 26d ago
  i think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough. Despite the fact that I suspect many would agree with the core sentiment, no matter which political side you’re on. It argues that greed causes loss of direction, and that large corporations can’t help themselves but to be greedy.
  - kergonath 26d ago
    > i think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough. You could have provided more context to avoid that.
    - dijit 26d ago
      people would have ignored that too.
  - throwawayffffas 26d ago
    It does so in an incredibly long winded stream of consciousness that meanders all over the place, and half way through reads as "Nike is bad because it went woke."
    - baud147258 26d ago
      Funny, I read it as 'Nike tried to chase after another market, while neglecting its core market in its advertising'...

freetime2 27d ago

I had a good 15+ year run where I only ever wore Nikes. Then I wore my first wide toe-box shoes and haven’t bought Nike since. Looking back, Nike was never very good about offering different width options on most of their shoes. And I still don’t think they offer wide toe box shoes.

wideopenspace 27d ago
Can I ask what you switched to? I also spent 15 years running in Nikes, mostly Structure, Pegasus, Invincible 3. I tried to stop buying so many american products 2 years ago and went for a pair of On's which are now reaching the end of their life. I can't say I'm super happy with the On's like I was with my Nikes. Might just go back
- billynomates 26d ago
  Not OP but I bought a pair of wide-toe trainers from Altra and I love them. They are the least ugly, properly wide shoes I have bought yet (and I've worn a good few).
  - otikik 26d ago
    Yep, another happy Altra user here. I basically wear nothing else these days. Will never go back to a non-wide toebox shoe.
    - lr1970 26d ago
      +1. Since I discovered Altra it feels pain to wear anything else.
  - dranudin 26d ago
    Once upon a time adidas made shoes that were wide enough for me. Then somehow they decided to make them narrower and I had to search for wider shoes. The search was very difficult, as it seems that most shoe producers do not produce actually foot-shaped shoes. I bought my first pairs of Altra half a year ago, and I am very happy! The fit is really great. I will not switch to anything else, as long as they continue producing in this shape.

locallost 26d ago

The direct to consumer pivot is often mentioned, but this is probably something that just accelerated their demise. The bigger problem right now for the turnaround is the competition. A lot of Chinese brands even dominate some spaces like basketball in the last years, and they are still difficult to get in Europe where I live, but they are making a push. Once that happens, I am not sure what Nike is going to do. Quality wise pretty much every review puts shoes from Li-Ning and 361 as the best of the best. And they're not cheap either. In a lot of ways they remind me of Intel, and I'm not sure there will be a shoe center buildout bubble around to save them.

coffeebeqn 26d ago
The Chinese sneakers are made at the same factory out of the same materials and processes
- locallost 26d ago
  Difficult to have it be the same factor considering the majority of Nike production is in Vietnam, and the majority of the Chinese manufacturing is in China. But even if yes those are still not the same shoes.

alfiedotwtf 26d ago

McKinsey

AlexandrB 26d ago
Canada just appointed their former CEO to a government role. https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/08/31/prime-minister-carney-announces-appointments-new-chair-board-and-ceo https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/08/31/prime-...

relaxfolio 26d ago

[dead]

rf15 26d ago

Beyond the stock market gambling aspect, what actually happened here? > revenue down 2% That means almost nothing, right? Some fluctuation must be expected. The Stock also looks like it really benefited from a Corona boost that is now cooling off. Can someone with more insight explain why everyone is screaming?

Unit327 26d ago
Without knowing any of the specifics of nike, investors are chasing money losing AI with promises of 100000x growth in the next five minutes, not a manufacturer of physical products that perhaps actually make a profit every year.
throwaway2037 26d ago
> Beyond the stock market gambling aspect First, the United States' stock markets (NYSE + NASDAQ) are not gambling. An index-tracking portfolio has never lost money over a 20 year time frame for the last 125 years. Google tells me: > Nike Annual Revenue Breakdown > Fiscal Year 2026: $46.40 billion (+0.19% YoY) > Fiscal Year 2025: $46.31 billion (-9.84% YoY) > Fiscal Year 2024: $51.36 billion (+0.28% YoY) Many Wall Street analysts will tell you that a stock price is the value of its future earnings growth. Nike has had three terrible years. As a result, their stock is in the toilet.
- throwawayffffas 26d ago
  The price of any individual stock though is mostly determined by hype. Revenue and concrete performance plays a part but hype is very much a driving factor and hype is fickle.
  - muse900 26d ago
    Well tbh, hype does tell you something about future demand. It doesn't guarantee sales, but how excited people are about a product gives you an idea of how likely they are to buy it. I think Nike lost some of its cool while the competition got better. For me, the turning point was walking into a Nike store and thinking their prices were way too high for what I was actually getting. I reckon they'd be in a much worse position without Jordan. It's still a massive part of their appeal, even if its sales have slowed too. And the stock market doesn't just look at today's revenue and performance. It also prices in what people expect to happen next. If people think a brand is losing its appeal, they won't necessarily wait for that to fully show up in the numbers.

relaxfolio 26d ago

[dead]

zhivota 26d ago

I used to get all my running shoes from Nike, the Pegasus line which was always their basic running shoe that was very good overall. These days, I can get what is basically the same shoe from Decathlon for 1/5th the price of last year's Pegasus. Running shoe tech is not some kind of secret thing. Any shoe manufacturer can buy a pair of any other shoes and cut it open and copy it. The only shoes that have anything special in them are the ones with the carbon fiber spring plate, and those are highly specialized and only last for a few races anyway, not for me as a casual runner in his 40s.

ciropantera 26d ago
Same. I used to run a Pegasus pair to the ground and get a new one (ideally previous year's) without even thinking about it. They were usually cheaper than the competition and worked fine for me so why not. At some point they got just as expensive as a Hoka pair so I tried one and I'm not coming back. I'll try the Decathlon next time :) any particular model you would recommend?
- zhivota 26d ago
  The JF190 trail runners feel just like Pegasus to me, I haven't tried the road version of the same but it's basically the cheapest shoe in the store. The first time I tried it, I almost couldn't bring myself to buy it, I felt like it was too good to be true for the price. I got a pair of the cushion 500s and they are very similar, just a thicker sole. They have Hoka copies as well, and even have a carbon plate race shoe I'm pretty sure. If you have a big store near you just go in and try a few. They're cheap enough that I actually keep a few copies of the same shoe in rotation and swap old ones out quickly rather than running them dead like I used to do with the Nike's.

emptyfile 26d ago

[dead]

redsocksfan45 26d ago

[dead]

gyomu 26d ago

Wild that you can have Tim Cook, one of the most effective CEOs of all time, on your board of directors and fumble so badly. There must be some juicy drama that went on behind the scenes, I hope we get to hear it eventually.

tonyedgecombe 26d ago
I sometimes think half of Apple's success is down to the failure of the rest of the industry to deliver quality products. Microsoft and Intel in particular but all the OEM's as well. A world where they got their act together would look quite different.
eightysixfour 26d ago
I would argue it was moving towards a more Apple-like distribution model that has hurt them so much.

Bluestein 26d ago

This is the end of an era.- PS. To those objecting in the silent cowardice of a downvote: The exiting of something as basic as shoes (modulo lifestyle/"luxury") further represents "software" eating the world" look at the newcomers to the S&P 100: DELL — Dell Technologies PANW — Palo Alto Networks ANET — Arista Networks SNDK — SanDisk

TitaRusell 26d ago

[flagged]

Markoff 26d ago
Adidas and Puma are German companies and they are pretty famous, Joma is Spanish, Decathlon is French, seems plenty of the options, if you don't wanna support Trumpistan.
- fransje26 26d ago
  Ah. I see we are going around the autocratic circle. Past and present!
- antonyh 26d ago
  We swear by Adidas on the football pitch, the best boots available in my opinion. I've not tried their serious running shoes but their 'fashion' shoes are middling at best. Next pair will likely be Asics.

theGeatZhopa 26d ago

Just bought Nike Air Jordans the blue/white, 2025 model - it's a good shoe! I love it.

antonyh 26d ago

It could be because Nike aren't very good, and because half the world is boycotting US products after the tariffs shenanigans. I personally will choose other products whenever there is a viable alternative, and frankly there are plenty of non-US trainers / running shoes available.

avazhi 26d ago
You don't really think half the world is boycotting US products, do you lol?
- antonyh 26d ago
  lol yes I do. Canada, Mexico, any countries adversely affected by tariffs, anyone who doesn't wish to support Trumps political views. I'm fairly sure that's more than half the globe
  - avazhi 26d ago
    Are you European? I ask because this seems like a very European thing to say. Countries are buying less from America for sure, especially of particular goods, but neither Mexico nor Canada nor anybody else are 'boycotting' American goods lol. I'm not in America either (so don't accuse of introverted jingoism), but I work in the international trade sector. If you're gonna use the term boycott, use it properly.
    - antonyh 26d ago
      Indeed European. I'm surprised to hear that Canada is no longer though, I thought the protests and avoidance were very much still ongoing. I only have international news to go by, and I've no way to be certain but I do know that nobody I know deliberately buys American now and will actively search out alternatives for brands that are based in the US. I could live in an anecdotal bubble though, but it sure does look like there is a bias against US-owned business. I'm sure your data is more accurate.

cramer4next 26d ago

For me the end of buying anything Nike for my household and owning there stock was 2018. After their embracement of kaepernick and circus of marketing schemes that followed its no surprise what the outcome would be. Now Lululemon hired one of architects of all this as their CEO. They followed the nike playbook and are already suffering from it. Now their doubling down in a race to the bottom. "Just weird..... Even if it means destroying everything."

ionwake 26d ago

All I know is the "ON" shoes are easy to recognise on the street due to their completely bizarre soles, even for non shoe enthusiasts. Look even I didnt realize the N for new Balance was different for the N for Nike for like decades. The focus on running by Hoka and ON, on the street, and IMO the "low quality" of the collectible Jordans, apparently were the deathknell. But this is armchair speculation.

kypro 26d ago

A very large part of this is simply that Nike was trading at an extremely aggressive valuation a few years ago. The business is obviously struggling and while some of the decline is related directly to that, the stock collapse mostly attributable to investors rerating NKE from a safe stock with steadily growing profits, to something more uncertain that requires a lower multiple. Another thing I'll note is that historically Nike was always primarily a sports company focused on shoe technology. And arguably they are the best in that category. But in the last decade they also seemed to become a ubiquitous fashion brand. So much so that a few years ago almost everyone I knew were wearing Nike's casually, for sport and even in the office. Whenever something becomes so popular that even grown men are wearing them to the office, you know it won't remain in fashion for long.

csomar 26d ago

I am surprised how no one is mentioning how their sneakers dissolves in a couple months? Last store Nike sneaker I bought was 4 years ago. $120 or something and within 2 months it has become unwearable. Since then I only buy new balance from an outlet so the price remains below $100. Still the last new balance I got are wearing out fast and I am on the look for a newer brand. I am actually surprised they are still in business and making sales.

qwerpy 26d ago
Without looking too carefully at the box I accidentally bought a pair of Nikes that had prominent marketing about how environmentally friendly the shoes were. Many parts of it were made out of recycled materials, including the insole that looked like it was made out of shredded multicolored plastic. No matter, it was comfortable, so I wore it. Same as you, after 2 months it disintegrated. Now, I refuse to buy anything from Nike. I also check for any over the top statements about using recycled materials.

boxed 26d ago

The article has one heading which is "Why is Nike dropping?" But to me when looking at that graph the question is: what in the world happened in 2020-2021 to make it go up that much? The graph looks like some kind of crypto scam or AI hype, but neither makes any sense for a shoe company. Can anyone explain the rise?

randusername 26d ago
Stimulus checks?
Elte 26d ago
Supposedly the pandemic caused quite the running boom since it was the easiest sport to keep doing despite lockdowns. Combine that with a bunch of bored retail investors with stimulus checks... I don't know if this is the actual reason or not, but it seems like it might have had something to do with it.
- coffeebeqn 26d ago
  Some people were also collecting Jordan’s and everything else under the Sun with their stimulus
donandon 26d ago
Pump and dump
hucklebuckle 26d ago
Streetwear was booming. Nike had very sought after collaborations, the ball started rolling after they released a re-imagined version of 10 of their moest iconics sneakers (designed by Virgil Abloh from Off-White).

itomato 26d ago

When the counterfeiters came, that's what they chose to put in the box. They have been reduced to pleather collectibles.

alexpotato 26d ago

There is a great article [0] that has some interesting points about this: - Nike used to be very "male coded" e.g. "Be like Mike" - So much so that they were one of the only companies where men bought more clothes than women - The powers that be wanted to go after the "Adjacent Whale" (explained in the article) that was the female consumer - They ended up alienating their core customer base while competing poorly with other brands 0 - https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men?r=11111 https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men?r=11111

sfmz 26d ago
> Nike used to be very "male coded" e.g. "Be like Mike" There are very-few male-coded places left. I think any Mall is like 80% for women and 20% food court. Beside that, there are jewelry stores, nail salons, spas, hair salons. Drive around the 'burbs and the only male-coded place is probably hardware stores and Pizza Hut
- NullPrefix 26d ago
  How is pizza hut male coded?
- DC-3 26d ago
  For every shop that exists in the real world to sell shit to women you have to remember there's an offshore sports betting portal on the world wide web to relieve men of their disposable income.
  - jeltz 26d ago
    Many, maybe even most, online casinos target women primarily.
    - Maxatar 26d ago
      Not the sports betting sites though, also poker seems to be indifferent in terms of marketing even though it's dominated by men.

gosub100 26d ago

Here's a good video essay about their downfall https://youtu.be/SrsUlTtLLIM?is=2S9uP-LvXOrWKfH6 https://youtu.be/SrsUlTtLLIM?is=2S9uP-LvXOrWKfH6

aczerepinski 26d ago

A huge percentage of Nike’s sales come from vintage shoes like dunks, air force ones, Jordan 1s, etc. By modern standards, they aren’t good shoes. They aren’t suitable for the sport they were originally designed for, and they aren’t comfortable compared to modern lifestyle shoes. I can’t believe Nike is ok with that being how loads of people experience the brand. Why not spend an extra $2 upgrading the cushioning to React or Zoom so that they feel good on foot? Nike does of course also make great modern shoes, but you have to know what’s what.

slopinthebag 26d ago
cuz jordans (especially 1s and 3s), dunks, af1s, air maxes etc look great and have heritage behind them. same reason people wear converse (awful basketball shoe). idk if they could change them without pissing off a lot of ppl.
- aczerepinski 26d ago
  They could swap in quality cushioning without changing the silhouette. They used the term “protro” when they did this to upgrade Kobe sneakers and people loved it. I assume the reason they don’t with dunks is because the margins on selling 1980s tech is insane.

andy_ppp 26d ago

I love Nike shoes and brand but they just don’t produce anything since fly knits that I actually like. All I want is a flat shoe with a massive toe box and thin material for the gym with Nike branding - why is it so difficult to make something people want?

bellowsgulch 26d ago
Jesus this, and the shit I do want, they price at like $300. Fuck! I guess I'll just never give them a dollar.

rrr_oh_man 26d ago

Can anyone recommend durable, bright white, wide toe box, not ugly looking sneakers without any brand logos?

goton23122 26d ago
> not ugly looking sneakers but white https://barefootuniverse.com/best-white-barefoot-sneakers/ https://barefootuniverse.com/best-white-barefoot-sneakers/ I dont know what style you're after. These are my recommendations for brands that look decent. AltraRunning (Escalante), LemsShoes (Zenspeed, trailtrasher, primal3), VivoBarefoot, Fluxfootwear, OhneProject, XeroShoes (Wynn)

jonstewart 26d ago

I intellectually understand the retailpocalypse replaced by online shopping, but I will always want to try on clothes before buying them, and that goes double for shoes. After trying out New Balance for a year or two in adulthood I ended up going back to Nike running shoes (I still remember my pair of Air Icarus from high school, so light), just seemed to fit my feet better. But now I wear Hokas. Nike’s loss.

deleted 26d ago

[deleted]

snarfy 26d ago

I have been wearing Vans for so long my foot is the shape of one. This made me check their stock... ouch.

duckmysick 26d ago

I wanted to check the primary source so I went to (what looks like) the official S&P website and their S&P 100 section at https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-100/ https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-100/ I can't find any press release about it. And the Constituents section lists only 10 of them, so I can't check who is there. I even checked the PDFs with methodology but couldn't find the list there. I even tried to limit the search on Google to spglobal.com domain and I can see this in the result preview: "Constituents. Top 10 Constituents by Index Weight. Full Constituents List. Constituent. Symbol. Sector*. Sector Breakdown." But when I click it, Full Constituents List is nowhere on the page. What's going on? Am I missing something obvious?

Maxatar 26d ago
How did you search? I really wonder if I just have a vastly different Google algorithm than others because whenever a post similar to this pops up I have no problem finding the info using the most obvious and basic of Google searches, while other people seemingly struggle to find authoritative information. At any rate, the info comes from S&P themselves: https://press.spglobal.com/2026-09-04-Bloom-Energy,-Illumina,-and-Everpure-Set-to-Join-S-P-500-Others-to-Join-S-P-100,-S-P-MidCap-400,-and-S-P-SmallCap-600 https://press.spglobal.com/2026-09-04-Bloom-Energy,-Illumina... >Sept 21, 2026 S&P 100 Deletion NIKE NKE Consumer Discretionary
- duckmysick 26d ago
  I actually used two things: 1 - the search function on the S&P Global site: https://www.spglobal.com/en/search#q=nike&rows=10&pagenum=1&sort=es_unified_dt%20desc https://www.spglobal.com/en/search#q=nike&rows=10&pagenum=1&... For me, right now the latest result is from Feb 27, 2026 2 - Google search with this query: `site:spglobal.com Nike` Even when I limited the search results to the last month, the only page that shows for me is https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en but I'm not sure why - it doesn't have anything to do with it. I see now your link, thanks. I have no idea why it's not indexed in the site's own search or why it's skipped for me in Google. Interestingly, I just checked the same query on Bing and it's there, but not in the top. Did you find a page that lists all the companies on S&P 100 in a simple table?

gedy 26d ago

> “We made meaningful structural improvements to lay the groundwork for our Sport Offense across our team culture, innovative product, brand strength, and how we serve consumers in our countries and cities,” Hill said in the report. “While we continue to face top-line headwinds, we’re encouraged by progress in performance product and are focused on consistent execution, improved profitability and scaling our wins to realize our full potential.” Yikes this sounds like corporate bingo card nonsense.

maxglute 26d ago

Too much sneaker head gambling, Nikes started to feel like wearing pokemon.

diogenescynic 26d ago

They deserve it for listening to McKinsey and the consultant class and getting involved in politics. Stop lecturing me about politics when I just want a product that has nothing to do with politics (i.e. Colin Kaepernick and Dylan Mulvaney)--even when it was clear the public was against them. I don't want ANY corporation telling me how to think or feel. Just put the stuff in the bag and don't lecture me.

_DeadFred_ 26d ago

Nike went mail order only but wouldn't accept orders to PO boxes which meant I could no longer buy Nikes. Crazy move on their part.

achillesheels 26d ago

Ok so I’ve analyzed this before…opportunity cost not doubling-down on India and instead getting popular advertising to women who are not entertaining to watch sorry.

Folioshift 25d ago

Just a few years ago, Nike was seen as the ultimate goal for every athlete. It was the pinnacle of performance. I struggle to understand how they could have squandered such an advantage. Was it putting too much focus on lifestyle? Remaining too generalist? Or was it simply a PR blunder ?

daft_pink 25d ago

after the kaepernick nonsense, i started buying lululemon clothes and hoka shoes and never bought another nike product ever again.