Why Not Every Athlete Needs A Signature Sneaker
The category is more congested than ever, but white spaces still remain, especially in women's hoops.
Hi everyone, and welcome back to SportsVerse, my twice-weekly newsletter that tells stories you can't find anywhere else about the intersection of sports, fashion, business, and culture.
Yesterday, I read an article which asked if New York Knicks guard Jalen Brunson was in line to become “Nike’s next signature shoe superstar”.
I’ll save everyone the time. The short answer: no. The long answer: also no.
On the face of it, as the article points out, there are many things going in Brunson’s favour: he’s one of the most likeable players in the NBA, playing in one of the league’s most likeable teams; he has a genuine personality and a career arc rooted in humility and hard work that makes him (and his podcast with teammate and former college roomie Josh Hart) fun to watch off the court.
But herein lies the issue. Just because a player is likeable and popular and very good at basketball should not automatically lead to calls for a signature sneaker line. These days, this is too often the case. If we applied this logic, then half the league would be signature athletes. Such arguments also gloss over the glaringly important commercial and practical considerations a brand like Nike — or any sportswear company — must consider when granting an athlete a signature line.
Being awarded a signature deal is one of the biggest investments a brand can make in a star athlete, placing them among an elite class of sporting greats and cultural icons, from Michael Jordan to Kobe Bryant to Tiger Woods to Roger Federer. It requires significant financial and human resources to both: 1) design, develop and bring signature products to market (which for performance footwear is often a two year process, start to finish; 2) invest the necessary time and dollars in marketing the new products, creating a bespoke logo and visual brand for the new line.
The fact is, the majority of signature lines are loss makers, and are not even expected to be profit drivers by brands, who see them more as useful marketing tools designed to drive loyalty to towards them overall from an athlete’s fanbase.
Sometimes brands are too quick to anoint a “generational talent” and equate that with the need to develop a signature line for them (though often with certain young talent, it’s a way of keeping them looking elsewhere for endorsement). There’s the classic mantra that the NBA bigs (forwards, centers, etc) don’t sell shoes. It’s conventional wisdom that the “smaller” players in positions like the point guard, are the ones who typically have shoes that become a hit — yet people like Zion Williamson still have signature lines.
And then there are other generational talents out there whose profile and personality perhaps don’t warrant their own bespoke branding and product lines — not because they are not great people, just because it’s unlikely their shoes will make for compelling product, such as Jordan’s Luka Doncic. Similarly, I don’t know how many people will be queuing up to buy Cooper Flagg’s signature shoe when New Balance launch it in due course.
For a performance basketball shoe to be a commercial success from a sales perspective, it needs to be a sneaker that transcends basketball and is something that people feel can be worn for fashion use. It’s what Adidas has achieved so well with Anthony Edwards’ debut AE 1 sneaker, and will hope to do for the follow up iteration, which has just launched.
Brands approaching this space need to be aware of the simple fact that the signature category is completely oversaturated, and to find success, they need to come up with fresh ideas and go-to-market strategies.
Still Room For Growth
That’s not to say there isn’t an opportunity still for brands and athletes in the signature sneaker market. Far from it.
As I’ve frequently written in SportsVerse newsletters gone by, investment in this space (and consumer excitement) is fixated on women’s basketball. Take the sellout launch of Nike and A’ja Wilson’s A’One sneaker, which was met with widespread acclaim from the basketball community across the WNBA and NBA, and was quickly adopted by fans for casual use and by players of other sports, including volleyball. This was both due to the shoe’s casual, fashion-forward aesthetic and the universal popularity and fashion credibility of Wilson herself. Not every athlete can achieve this — even if they are one of the best in their sport — and brands must take that into consideration before handing out signature lines left, right and center.
But the fact remains that women’s hoops is a treasure trove for future signature sneaker talent, given how significantly brands have underindexed on handing such deals to WNBA players up until very recently. We saw the recent success of Angel Reese’s debut sneaker launch with Reebok, while Nike’s unveiling of Caitlin Clark’s signature logo was the first step of what will surely be another blockbuster line. Nike’s pipeline of current and future WNBA talent is stacked. Though not yet confirmed, it’s hard to imagine the brand won’t grant signature lines to Paige Bueckers and USC star Juju Watkins when she finally enters the pro game.
Meanwhile, Adidas is no doubt planning a signature line for one of the athletes in its newly revamped women’s basketball division, headed up by WNBA legend Candace Parker (who herself wasn’t granted a signature line by the brand during her playing days).
Under Armour has a close relationship with UConn talent Azzi Fudd, projected #1 overall pick of the 2026 WNBA draft, thanks to her connection to Steph Curry. Another generational talent, she will no doubt become a cornerstone of Under Armour’s (albeit struggling) basketball business in the long run, especially as Curry’s career winds down.
There is still money to be made and cultural impact to be had by brands testing the waters in the business of performance basketball sneakers. There are also fresh brands increasingly getting a seat at the table and swaying the heads of young athletes who in the past would have been nailed on members of the Nike roster — that cohort includes Adidas, New Balance, Anta, Li-Ning, Moolah Kicks, and even Skechers.
Opportunity is plentiful. It’s just about showing the necessary discernment to pick athletes whose products will actually help move the needle, whether that’s commercially, culturally, or ideally both.
That’s all for today, friends. Thanks for coming along for the ride.
See you next time,
DYM
Adidas going out of their way to diss Converse/ SGA’s signature sneaker in the new AE 2 spot was an interesting twist on this, I thought.
I’m amazed that the big brands are even entertaining this as a conversation as especially with where trends are now I struggle to see the ROI here besides getting people to sign contracts with the brands.