Nike's stock touched a 12-year low this week, a result the company's own record makes difficult to read as purely a competitive story. The business problems are real: newer rivals have taken market share, and Nike's products have not generated fresh excitement. Consumers are not eager to pay more for sneakers right now. The political choices the company made across the past decade are part of the record too.
A brand that chose a side
The story begins in 2018, when Nike placed former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick at the center of its 30th-anniversary "Just Do It" campaign. Kaepernick had kneeled during the national anthem, citing what he described as police brutality and the oppression of Black people and people of color. He had worn socks to an NFL practice depicting police officers as pigs and had expressed public support for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Nike's slogan for the campaign was "Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything." The backlash included footage of customers burning Nike products. The company did not pull back. The following summer, it halted distribution of a Fourth of July-themed Air Max sneaker featuring the Betsy Ross flag, reportedly after Kaepernick objected to the design.
In 2023, Nike featured Dylan Mulvaney, a trans-identifying male influencer, in a paid Instagram promotion for women's sports bras and leggings. The Bud Light controversy had already produced one of the most damaging corporate backlashes in recent memory. Nike proceeded anyway and later defended the decision. Then, in April 2025, OutKick reported that Nike had helped fund a study involving transgender youth athletes as young as 12, designed to track physiological and athletic changes in young people undergoing gender-affirming care. Boston Children's Hospital magazine described the study as supported in part by Nike. A company executive said on background that the study "was never initialized" and "was not moving forward." Joanna Harper, a trans-identifying male researcher connected to the project, offered a different account: Nike had "pulled out" after "haters got wind of it." Nike has offered no public statement that resolves those two versions.
That sits uncomfortably alongside what Nike was doing in its marketing at the same time. For its first Super Bowl commercial in 27 years, the company featured Caitlin Clark, A'ja Wilson, and Sabrina Ionescu in the "So Win" campaign, built around women being constantly told they cannot win.
In February 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed an action to enforce a subpoena against Nike, citing an investigation into systemic allegations of discrimination against white employees, job applicants, and participants in training programs through DEI-related practices. Nike denied wrongdoing and described the escalation as surprising and unusual.
The counterargument
The counterargument deserves real weight. Newer competitors have taken meaningful market share. Nike's product cycle has not produced the energy that sustains full-price demand, and the consumer spending environment is not forgiving. Those pressures would stress any company's stock.
On balance, the competitive picture and the brand decisions are not separate conversations. The read-through is that Nike built a corporate identity around a series of cultural positions across eight years, and those positions are now part of the public record alongside a product problem and an active EEOC investigation that remained pending as of February 2026.