Tonight’s question: 
what happened to Nike?

This is 
the company 
that made
‘Just Do It’
one of the
most powerful
slogans
in sports.

But now Nike is
battling falling sales
in key regions,
tougher competitors,
athlete departures,
and a major loss of
market prestige.

Nike: still giant,
no longer
untouchable

What happened
to the Swoosh?

First: Nike is
not collapsing.

It remains one of
the world’s largest
sportswear companies,
with enormous brand
recognition and
global reach.

But its old
position
—automatic
leader in
every sport and
every sneaker
conversation—
is no longer
guaranteed.

Not bankruptcy

Not a tiny company

A fight over relevance

In September 2026,
Nike was removed
from the S&P 100.

That sounds like
a corporate
funeral.
It is not.

Nike remains in the
larger S&P 500. But
leaving the S&P 100
is a visible sign that
its relative position
among America’s
corporate giants
has weakened.

Removed from S&P 100

Still in S&P 500

A symbol, not a death sentence

To decode this,
I called Dr. Roller
from another universe.

The S&P 100 is
a smaller group
of very large,
highly traded
companies selected
from the S&P 500.

So it is like
the VIP section

More or less. Nike
losing that spot does
not mean it is finished.
It means other companies
now rank more strongly
by the index’s selection criteria.

S&P 100: 100 major S&P 500 companies

Nike remains a public giant

But status slipped

Dr. Rollercoaster

Nike’s latest quarterly
profit looked strong at first.

Reported earnings per
share reached 72 cents.

But about 52 cents
came from a one-time
expected tariff recovery.

Remove that unusual
 benefit, and the
underlying result is
much weaker— around
20 cents per share.

So: not fake money.
But not a clean
turnaround either.

Reported EPS: $0.72

One-time tariff effect: ~$0.52

Underlying EPS: ~ $0.20

Headline improvement ≠ full recovery

Nike’s greatest
superpower was
never only shoes.

It made athletes
feel larger than life—
and made customers
feel connected
to that greatness.

Jordan. Serena. Tiger. 
Ronaldo. Kobe.
LeBron. Federer

But now even
Nike’s athlete
relationships are
sending
warning signals.

Nike sold performance

Nike sold athlete mythology

Roger Federer
wore Nike apparel
for decades.

Who is Federer?
A tennis legend
with 20 Grand Slam
singles titles!

In 2018, Federer
left Nike apparel
for Uniqlo.

Later, he became
an On shareholder
and partner.

At the time, it
looked like
one exceptional
athlete making
one exceptional
business decision.

In hindsight, it looks
more like an early
warning that athlete
relationships were
changing.

Nike apparel
→ Uniqlo, 2018

Later: On investor and partner

Athletes gained negotiating power

Antlet

…Four rackets. 
Four directions.
No escape.

But details are
the enemy 
of victory

Of course,
I won

Antlet?

He is definitely
thinking
about tennis.

Antlet’s highly realistic
strategic simulation

Then came
Kylian Mbappé.

Who is Mbappé?
One of football’s
biggest active stars—
and he is
still in his prime.

In 2026, Mbappé ended
a Nike relationship that
began in childhood 
and joined On
as it expanded into
football.

That matters
because he did not
just take a bigger
advertising deal.

Almessi

Mbappé: Nike → On, 2026

On is expanding into football

Cash + equity + influence

Athlete endorsement is changing

On offered a
partnership structure
that includes
equity—ownership.

“Modern stars
increasingly want
more than a logo on
their boots.
They want to help
build the business.

And that concludes
our football interview.

Mmm.

Almessi?

Oh no. That was
the office plant

It had excellent
defensive
positioning.

Rabbit Hole News: 
office decor budget
under review

Nike’s 
direct-to-consumer
strategy was not
foolish
by definition

Selling through
your own app, website,
and stores can
improve margins
and give you more
data about customers.

And during the pandemic,
that approach looked
extremely smart.

The problem was
what Nike gave up
to pursue it.”

“DTC can improve margins

DTC can improve customer data

The tradeoff: 
retailer reach

Nike reduced
relationships
with important
wholesale
retailers.

Then physical shopping
came back faster
than Nike expected.

And the shelf space
Nike had left behind
did not stay empty.

Competitors filled it.
New running brands
gained a chance to
be discovered by
customers in person.

Nike left some wholesale shelf space

Competitors occupied it

Retail discovery matters

Nike also
relied heavily
on retro shoes.

Retro basketball
shoes are beautiful.
No argument from me.

But nostalgia is
powerful only
when it feels special.

When too many pairs
are available too often,
scarcity disappears—
and with it, some
excitement.

Nike itself has
admitted it
oversupplied
retro Jordan
products.

Retro products can be profitable

Too much supply can reduce excitement

Nike: cutting back on some retro Jordan volume

Buzzer Beater

For decades, Nike
earned attention by
releasing products
that changed how
athletes felt and 
performed

If a brand wants
people to believe
it is the future,
it needs products
that feel like the future.

Competitors now
get attention for
cushioning, lightness,
technical design,
and comfort.

Marketing can make
a good product famous.
It cannot make an
unexciting productproduct
feel revolutionary forever.

Product creates belief

Marketing amplifies belief

Innovation must be visible to athletes

Lima Rangi

One analyst’s argument
created a debate: perhaps
basketball shoes are weaker
partly because today’s NBA
players do not command
the same cultural reach
as earlier generations.

I reject this
conclusion on
behalf of
every future
neighborhood
legend.

To be fair,
this is not
proven as
the single cause.

But basketball culture
is more fragmented now
—spread across many
players, creators, leagues,
games, and communities.

A reported analyst hypothesis

Not a settled fact

Star power is more fragmented

Buzzerbeater, 
do you agree
with the analyst?

I agree with
exactly one thing:
great players should
get great shoes.

That is not
an answer.

It is the only answer
that matters.

Even if fewer athletes become
global megastars, Nike still has
to make better shoes, tell better stories,
and show up where players shop

Finally, a useful
point hidden inside
a terrible interview
answer.

Even structural headwinds do not erase execution

Product + story + distribution still matter

The deepest irony
may be running.
Nike was born from
running.

And running customers
can be difficult to win
back, because they
care about proof.

How does the shoe fit?
How does it cushion?
Is it lighter?
Does it work for long training?

If Nike loses credibility there, 
it damages the foundation
of the whole brand.

Nike began in running

Running buyers demand performance proof

Technical credibility matters

Sir Hops-a-Lot

Sir Hops-a-Lot,
please move a
little closer.

…You named
my microphone?

Yes.

Why?

It suited
him.

Lima names things

Nike’s China business
has become one
of its biggest drags.

But one explanation is
not enough. China
includes different consumer
groups, different sports,
different cities,
and different preferences.

Nike faces weaker
demand, intense domestic
competition, faster local
product cycles, and—
in some cases—consumer
preference for local brands.

So national 
preference
can matter?

China is not one consumer

Demand + domestic competition + local speed + identity

National preference: a factor, not the whole story

Does nationalist preference
mean foreign brands can
never win in China?

No. Look at the
broader market logic.

Chinese brands can
also sign global stars, sell
international aspiration, compete
on technology, and use the
same commercial playbook
that American sportswear
companies have used for
decades.

Yes. But reducing
an entire market
to nationalism is
poor analysis.

And the Seal of Themis
has entered the discussion.

Li-Ning partnered with Stephen Curry

Consumer identity and global celebrity can coexist

Avoid one-dimensional China narratives

Actually, this is Chinese capitalism adapting faster than—

For example, Li-Ning
partnered with Stephen Curry.
That does not fit a simplistic
‘China rejects American
athletes’ story.

Nike once dominated
youth culture through
a few massive athletes.

Now attention is spread
across sports, creators,
gaming, fashion, music, school
teams, and small online
communities.

So there may never
be another Jordan?

There may be. But brands
cannot build their entirefuture
around waiting for one person.

Youth attention is fragmented

Relevance comes from many communities

One superstar is not enough

Nike has launched a 
‘Why Do It?’
campaign aimed at
younger consumers

That is a 
smart question
for a brand to ask.

But it is also revealing.

When a legendary
brand has to reintroduce
its purpose, it means
it knows history
alone is not enough.

Why Do It?

Relevance must be earned repeatedly

Legacy gives a head start—not immunity

CEO Elliott Hill’s
turnaround plan is
called Sport Offense.

The basic idea is straightforward
 organize Nike around sports again,
improve product creation, strengthen
athlete and consumer connections, 
and restore healthier distribution.

That is not a bad plan.

No. The question is
execution—and whether
Nike can move
faster than competitors.

Sport Offense

Return to sport-led product creation

Rebuild consumer and retail connections

Nike also announced a program
called Pace, targeting about
$2.5 billion in cumulative
savings through fiscal 2031.

Efficiency matters.
Cost savings can free
resources and stabilize
a difficult turnaround.

But can cost-cutting
make the next great
running shoe?

No. Savings create room.
Innovation creates demand.

Pace: ~$2.5B savings target through FY2031

Savings can fund a reset

But savings do not create desir

The bear case: China remains weak, running leadership stays
elsewhere, the Jordan brand struggles, and younger buyers
see Nike as their parents’ brand.

The bear case: China remains weak,
running leadership stays elsewhere, the
Jordan brand struggles, and younger
buyers see Nike as their parents’ brand.

The bull case: Nike rebuilds wholesale, launches better
performance products, uses its global scale well, and
reconnects with the next generation.

The most realistic
future may be
somewhere in
between.

Bear: permanent loss of cultural and category leadership”

Bull: product-led recovery

Likely outcome: uneven comeback

Nike is not becoming irrelevant overnight.
It still has extraordinary resources: scale, brand
recognition,
athlete relationships, retail power, and global reach

But its old dominance is no longer automatic.
The real test is not whether Nike can sell the past.

It is whether Nike can
once again make
athletes and consumers
believe the future is
happening
inside its products.

And whether it gives
equity to local
basketball legends.

Interview
over.

Nike is not finished

But automatic
dominance is finished

The comeback must be
earned through product and culture