The activist reckoning: shareholder pressure reshaped sporting goods in 2025

• The regulatory and governance landscape
• Lululemon: the dual-front proxy battle
• Nike: internal strategic reset
• YETI: the cooperative engagement model
• Under Armour: the founder’s return
• European governance evolution
• Adidas: operational pivots and market positioning
• Puma: strategic reset and cost discipline
• The activist ecosystem: funds and strategies
• Thematic implications for the sporting goods sector
• Looking ahead: the 2026 governance landscape

The year 2025 marked a watershed moment for shareholder activism globally and a reckoning for the sporting goods industry specifically. According to data compiled by Barclays’ Shareholder Advisory Group, activists launched 255 campaigns against global corporations in 2025 – approximately a 5 percent increase over 2024 levels and surpassing the previous 2018 record of 249 campaigns.

This heightened activity coincided with a challenging year for sporting goods equities. As detailed in SGIE’s comprehensive stock analysis, the sector experienced a 14 percent decline in 2025, marking the worst performance since 2022. This valuation pressure created ideal hunting grounds for activist investors seeking to exploit the gap between current share prices and perceived intrinsic value.

The geographic distribution of campaigns reflected a continuing shift toward a more globalized arena of conflict. The United States remained the primary jurisdiction, accounting for 141 campaigns in 2025 – a 23 percent jump from the prior year – while the Asia-Pacific region saw its share of global activity rise for a third consecutive year. Japan recorded a historic 56 campaigns, making up half of all activity outside the United States, according to Barclays data reported by Reuters.

Global activist campaign activity (2018–2025)

Year	Global Campaigns	U.S. Campaigns	APAC Campaigns	Japan Campaigns
2018	249	135	38	22
2019	238	128	42	26
2020	181	98	31	18
2021	223	115	40	24
2022	235	122	43	28
2023	223	119	40	31
2024	243	115	43	38
2025	255	141	56+	56

Source: Barclays Shareholder Advisory Group, Reuters

The regulatory and governance landscape

The activism surge unfolded against a backdrop of evolving corporate governance standards and heightened institutional investor assertiveness. While comprehensive regulatory changes to Schedule 13D disclosure requirements – a US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing requirement – remained under debate in 2025, with proposed amendments to accelerate beneficial ownership reporting timelines continuing to draw industry opposition, the broader governance environment shifted decisively in activists’ favor.

The universal proxy card rules, implemented by the SEC in late 2022, continued to reshape contested shareholder meetings throughout 2025. These rules made proxy fights – shareholder battles for control of a company’s board of directors – easier to wage by allowing shareholders to mix and match candidates from both management and dissident slates on a single ballot. While boards increasingly sought settlements to avoid the high costs and reputational risks of such contests, proxy advisory firms became significantly more assertive in supporting dissident nominees.

In the first half of 2025, Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis – the two dominant proxy advisory firms that provide independent research and voting recommendations to institutional investors on corporate governance matters – supported dissident nominees at rates of 69 percent and 85 percent, respectively, according to Barclays and Harvard Law School corporate governance data. These H1 support levels represented substantial increases over 2024 rates, though full-year 2025 figures were not yet available at publication. Their recommendations carry significant weight because large institutional investors often follow their guidance.

This shift in proxy advisor positioning tilted the playing field decisively towards activists, contributing to increased board seat wins through the third quarter of 2025. Of the board seats secured by activists in 2025, 39 percent were filled by individuals with prior public company CEO or CFO experience – a striking indicator of the professionalization of activist-appointed directors.

The year also saw elevated CEO turnover tied to activist pressure. According to Barclays data reported by Reuters, 32 chief executives resigned within a year of activist campaigns in 2025, reflecting activists’ growing willingness to target top leadership as a catalyst for change.

Lululemon: the dual-front proxy battle

The highest-profile activism campaign in the sporting goods sector centered on Lululemon Athletica, which became embroiled in an unprecedented dual-front proxy contest in late 2025. The Vancouver-based athleisure company faced simultaneous pressure from both a prominent activist fund and its own founder – creating a complex governance challenge with significant implications for CEO succession and strategic direction.

Elliott Management’s strategic intervention

In December 2025, Elliott Investment Management – which launched 18 campaigns globally during the year – disclosed it had built a significant stake in Lululemon exceeding $1 billion (€950m) and was pushing for strategic and leadership changes. While the exact percentage of Elliott’s position was not publicly disclosed in initial filings, reports indicated the activist fund had amassed approximately 4 percent of the company’s equity and was advocating for operational improvements and a CEO transition.

Elliott’s engagement reportedly centered on concerns that Lululemon had drifted from its core high-end women’s athleisure positioning, with the activist questioning recent strategic moves into lifestyle categories and collaborations – including clothing lines featuring NFL and Disney logos, as well as expanded beauty and skin care products – and arguing for a return to the brand’s performance-wear heritage. The fund was said to be working with potential CEO candidates who could refocus the company’s product strategy and restore pricing discipline.

Reports indicated Elliott had spent months cultivating support for Jane Nielsen, former CFO and COO of Ralph Lauren, as a potential CEO candidate. Nielsen, who also served as an executive at Coach, was viewed as a turnaround specialist with experience revitalizing iconic brands through full-price discipline and core customer focus.

The founder’s parallel campaign

The situation intensified when founder Chip Wilson – who retains approximately 9 percent of Lululemon’s equity despite retiring from the board a decade ago – launched his own proxy fight for board representation. Wilson took out a full-page advertisement in The Wall Street Journal, publicly criticizing current leadership and signaling his intent to nominate independent directors at the 2026 Annual Meeting. Wilson’s campaign emphasized what he described as systematic governance failures, particularly around CEO succession planning. His nominated slate included:

• Marc Maurer: Former Co-CEO of On Holding AG
• Laura Gentile: Former Chief Marketing Officer of ESPN
• Eric Hirshberg: Former CEO of Activision

Wilson argued that the board’s repeated failures to execute smooth CEO transitions suggested systemic governance deficiencies requiring fresh perspectives. The parallel nature of Elliott’s and Wilson’s campaigns – pursued independently rather than in formal coordination – created an unusual governance dynamic where the company faced pressure from both external institutional investors and an influential insider founder. As of early 2026, the resolution of these competing campaigns remained pending, with implications for both board composition and the CEO search process.

Market and advisory context

Lululemon’s stock experienced significant volatility through 2025. After starting the year near a 52-week high of $423 (€402), shares declined approximately 45 percent, touching lows around $159 (€151) – a performance gap that attracted activist attention and raised questions about strategic execution. The company’s market capitalization erosion created the valuation opportunity that activists sought to exploit.

While specific proxy advisor guidance on the competing dissident slates had not been published at the time of writing, the elevated support rates ISS and Glass Lewis demonstrated for activist nominees in H1 2025 suggested institutional investors would scrutinize incumbent directors’ responses carefully. Preliminary guidance from both firms indicated they would likely support at least some dissident nominees from both campaigns, citing concerns about strategic execution and the magnitude of stock underperformance.

Nike: internal strategic reset

Nike pursued a different path in 2025, initiating a comprehensive leadership transition and strategic realignment that appeared designed to address performance concerns before external activists could formally engage. The Beaverton-based athletic giant’s approach reflected a broader trend among sporting goods leaders: preemptive action to forestall activist intervention.

Leadership transition and organizational restructuring

Nike’s board undertook a significant CEO transition during 2024–2025, with veteran Nike executive Elliott Hill recalled from retirement to assume the President and CEO role, replacing John Donahoe. Hill, who spent 32 years at Nike before retiring, was tasked with addressing competitive pressures and restoring the brand’s performance-first positioning.

The strategic reset emphasized a return to sport-specific product innovation through Hill’s “Win Now” plan, which reorganized the company around “fields of play” – sport-specific franchises including running, basketball, football and training – rather than the broad consumer demographic segments (Men, Women, Kids) that had characterized the Donahoe era.

The organizational changes were accompanied by efforts to rebuild relationships with key retail partners after years of prioritizing Nike’s owned direct-to-consumer channels. Hill argued that the previous strategy had ceded critical shelf space to competitors like Hoka, On and Asics, and that restoring wholesale partnerships was essential to regaining market share.

Product innovation and brand positioning

Nike’s 2025 product strategy emphasized genuine performance innovation over lifestyle extensions, with the company highlighting new technologies and materials designed to restore technical credibility in core categories. Management positioned these initiatives – including product platforms marketed around performance benefits – as demonstrations that Nike remained at the forefront of athletic innovation, essential for maintaining premium pricing power.

Hill also introduced a cultural reset within the organization, promoting an internal mantra of “Create epic shit, make athletes better” and streamlining management layers to accelerate decision-making. The emphasis on athletic authenticity over lifestyle ubiquity represented a deliberate pivot away from the strategy that had characterized much of the early 2020s.

Market reception and remaining challenges

Despite these strategic pivots, Nike’s stock performance through 2025 remained pressured, with shares trading well below pandemic-era peaks. The company continued to face headwinds in key international markets, particularly China, where demand softness and inventory challenges persisted. Market analysts characterized the turnaround as showing early promise but requiring sustained execution through 2026 to restore investor confidence.

The preemptive nature of Nike’s strategic reset – initiated internally rather than in response to public activist demands – reflected management’s calculation that voluntary change, while disruptive in the near term, was preferable to ceding strategic control to external agitators.

YETI: the cooperative engagement model

YETI Holdings represented a markedly different approach to activist engagement in 2025 – one characterized by cooperation and mutual strategic alignment rather than confrontation. The Austin-based outdoor products specialist’s experience with Engaged Capital demonstrated that activist campaigns need not always culminate in proxy contests to achieve meaningful governance improvements.

The cooperation agreement

According to Barclays data, YETI was among the companies targeted by activist investors in 2025. The company’s engagement with Engaged Capital – which holds approximately 2 percent of YETI’s shares – resulted in a cooperation agreement announced in March 2025 that included board appointments and strategic dialogue rather than a contested election. The settlement resulted in the appointment of two highly credentialed outdoor industry executives to YETI’s board:

• Arne Arens: Former CEO of Boardriders and a veteran of The North Face and Nike
• J. Magnus Welander: Former CEO of Thule Group AB, who led that company to dominance in roof rack and outdoor equipment sectors

Engaged Capital’s engagement centered on three strategic priorities: improving investor communication and transparency, pursuing more effective growth strategies in new product categories and international geographies, and returning cash to shareholders through buybacks and potential dividends.

Strategic and operational context

YETI’s performance in 2025 was significantly influenced by external macroeconomic pressures, particularly tariff risks and supply chain complexity. According to the company’s public filings, YETI reported that its 2025 fiscal year – a 53-week period – experienced pressure from higher tariff costs, which had a 450-basis-point impact on adjusted operating income as a percentage of sales.

To mitigate these risks, YETI accelerated efforts to diversify its manufacturing footprint away from excessive China concentration – a transition that created near-term operational challenges and forced the company to reduce its adjusted sales outlook for the year. Despite these headwinds, YETI reported robust double-digit gains in international markets and its coolers and equipment category in Q3 2025.

Management expanded the company’s share repurchase target to $300 million (€285m) for the year – a direct win for the capital allocation strategy advocated by Engaged Capital. The cooperative nature of this engagement stood in contrast to the more adversarial dynamics at Lululemon, demonstrating that activist funds increasingly tailor their tactics to individual situations.

YETI 2025 revised outlook

Metric	Previous Outlook	FY 2025 Revised Outlook
Adjusted Sales Growth	5% – 7%	1% – 4%
Adjusted Operating Income Margin	16.9%	~12.0%
Adjusted Net Income Per Share	$2.90 – $2.95 (€2.76 – €2.81)	$1.96 – $2.02 (€1.87 – €1.92)
Capital Expenditures	$60m – $70m (€57m – €67m)	$60m (€57m)
Free Cash Flow	$200m (€190m)	$100m – $125m (€95m – €119m)

Source: YETI Holdings First Quarter 2025 Results

Under Armour: the founder’s return

Under Armour’s 2025 narrative was shaped by founder Kevin Plank’s return to the CEO role in April 2024, following a period of significant operational and financial challenges. While Plank’s comeback was not directly precipitated by a formal activist campaign, it reflected the board’s recognition that fundamental strategic and cultural change was required to restore competitiveness.

Plank succeeded Stephanie Linnartz, who served in the role for just over a year during a period when the company reported a 96 percent year-over-year profit decline in its fourth fiscal quarter – a performance crisis that necessitated immediate intervention.

The “Humble & Hungry” strategic reset

According to Under Armour’s corporate communications, Plank’s turnaround plan – branded “Humble & Hungry” – centered on several strategic imperatives:

• Product focus: Streamlining the product catalog by approximately 25 percent to emphasize innovative, performance-oriented designs rather than undifferentiated sportswear that had contributed to brand commodification.
• Core customer targeting: Re-centering marketing and product development on team sports athletes aged 16 to 22 – the demographic segment that originally built Under Armour’s reputation for performance gear.
• Pricing and distribution discipline: Moving away from discount-dependent outlet channels toward premium positioning in carefully selected retail partnerships, with emphasis on full-price selling rather than promotional volume.
• Governance strengthening: Appointing Dr. Mohamed A. El-Erian as non-executive Chair of the Board and adding new directors with financial, operational and sports industry expertise, including Dawn Fitzpatrick, Eugene Smith and Robert Sweeney.

Early results and ongoing challenges

Under Armour’s fiscal 2025 performance, as disclosed in company earnings releases, showed signs that the restructuring was beginning to gain traction. However, the company continued to face formidable competitive challenges, including significantly smaller scale compared to Nike and Adidas, and ongoing pressure to differentiate in a crowded performance athletic wear market. Under Armour’s ability to command premium pricing without the benefit of comparable brand equity to its larger rivals remained a strategic question.

Plank’s return represented a bet that founder vision combined with operational rigor could compensate for structural disadvantages in brand equity and distribution reach. The success of this approach will be tested throughout 2026 as product initiatives reach market and the company attempts to rebuild retail partnerships and consumer perception.

European governance evolution

In Europe, major sporting goods companies navigated their own governance pressures and strategic challenges in 2025, though the dynamics differed from the North American activist landscape. Adidas and Puma – the two German sportswear giants – both faced what industry analysts characterized as a “softer growth outlook” requiring careful balancing of revenue expansion and profitability improvement.

Adidas: operational pivots and market positioning

Adidas continued its post-crisis recovery in 2025, with management focused on restoring operational momentum and addressing inventory normalization across markets. According to the company’s annual report, Adidas targeted high-single-digit currency-neutral sales growth for the year, with operating profit guidance in the €1.7 billion to €1.8 billion ($1.79bn to $1.89bn) range.

At the company’s Annual General Meeting in May 2025, several institutional investors including Allianz Global Investors and Deka reportedly voiced concerns about Supervisory Board Chairman Thomas Rabe’s concurrent executive roles at Bertelsmann and RTL Group – reflecting broader European governance trends toward limiting “over-boarding” among directors with multiple demanding commitments. While Rabe was ultimately re-elected, the dissent signaled growing boardroom scrutiny aligned with North American governance standards.

The company made several strategic operational decisions in 2025, including materials sourcing changes and brand positioning refinements designed to strengthen appeal among younger consumers. These moves, including the exit from kangaroo leather sourcing following sustained pressure from animal welfare activists, reflected the company´s commitment toward more transparent and values-aligned business practices.

Puma: strategic reset and cost discipline

Puma characterized 2025 as a “strategic reset year,” implementing measures to address brand momentum challenges and elevated inventory levels. According to the company’s Q3 2025 results, currency-adjusted sales declined 10.4 percent in the period, reflecting deliberate actions to rationalize wholesale distribution and reduce undesired business.

To fund increased marketing investment and improve long-term profitability, Puma expanded cost-efficiency programs targeting the reduction of 900 white-collar positions globally by the end of 2026. The restructuring was designed to generate approximately €75 million ($79m) in one-time costs during 2025, with management emphasizing that short-term margin pressure was necessary for long-term competitive positioning.

The company’s “Go Wild” brand campaign – its largest global marketing initiative to date – represented a strategic pivot toward everyday self-expression positioning, particularly targeting Gen Z consumers who view fitness as a core identity element rather than purely competitive sport. Early data from the UK market suggested the campaign was building momentum with Gen Z women, with measurable increases in brand consideration and usage.

Puma forecast 2025 growth to remain in the low to mid-single-digit range as it absorbed restructuring costs, with management emphasizing that the strategic reset would establish a stronger foundation for 2026 and beyond.

The activist ecosystem: funds and strategies

The record campaign activity in 2025 was driven by a diverse universe of activist funds, including established players with decades of experience and newer entrants testing different engagement models. While traditional activists remained dominant, the ecosystem continued to evolve, with “occasional activists” – institutional investors deploying activist tactics selectively rather than as a core strategy – playing an increasingly important role in shaping outcomes.

Elliott Investment Management: scale and scope

Elliott Investment Management solidified its position as one of the world’s most active investors in 2025, deploying approximately $20 billion (€19bn) in capital across 18 campaigns globally, according to Barclays data. Beyond high-profile sporting goods engagement at Lululemon, Elliott took on diverse targets across sectors including energy, technology, retail and financial services.

Elliott’s 2025 campaigns demonstrated several consistent tactical elements: extensive pre-campaign operational due diligence often lasting 6 to 12 months, willingness to pursue formal proxy contests rather than accept inadequate settlements, focus on board refreshment and leadership changes, and multi-year holding periods that distinguish the firm from shorter-term activists.

The fund’s increasing willingness to advocate for CEO changes – evident in approximately 40 percent of its 2025 campaigns – contributed to the elevated executive turnover rates associated with activism during the year. Elliott’s reputation for thorough research and sustained engagement made the firm one of the most influential activists among institutional investors and proxy advisors.

Notable 2025 Elliott campaigns beyond Lululemon included:

• PepsiCo: Reaching a settlement in December 2025 that included significant cost reduction commitments
• Southwest Airlines: Securing five board seats through negotiated settlement
• Phillips 66: Nominating seven directors to address governance deficiencies and operational underperformance
• Barrick Mining: Pushing for potential corporate restructuring to unlock asset value

Engaged Capital: the collaborative specialist

Engaged Capital positioned itself as a collaborative activist throughout 2025, demonstrating that constructive engagement and negotiated settlements could achieve meaningful governance reforms without the costs and distractions of contested elections. The firm’s approach proved particularly effective with mid-cap consumer and retail companies where strategic refinement rather than wholesale transformation was required.

Engaged Capital’s sector specialization – focusing primarily on consumer, retail and industrial companies – enabled the firm to make credible operational recommendations and identify industry-expert directors who could add immediate strategic value. This model contrasted with generalist activists who rely more heavily on financial engineering and capital allocation changes.

The firm’s reputation for constructive partnership with management teams – viewing activist engagement as strategic collaboration rather than hostile takeover – facilitated faster implementation of governance improvements and operational changes. This approach proved particularly effective at YETI, where the cooperative agreement avoided the disruption and expense of a proxy contest while still achieving meaningful board refreshment and strategic realignment.

Starboard Value and the broader activist universe

Starboard Value remained among the most prolific activists in 2025, launching 16 proxy contests by the end of October across various sectors. While Starboard did not directly target sporting goods companies during 2025, the firm’s broader playbook – focusing on “deeply undervalued” companies where combined growth and margin metrics (the “Rule of 40”) had deteriorated significantly – provided a template that influenced other activists’ approaches.

Starboard’s typical strategy centers on identifying companies where the sum of revenue growth rate and operating margin has declined substantially from post-pandemic highs, then advocating for operational improvements, cost discipline and capital allocation optimization to restore profitability and valuation multiples.

The 84 distinct activist funds active in 2025 represented a mature but still-evolving ecosystem, where tactical innovation and sector specialization increasingly differentiated successful campaigns from those that failed to gain traction with institutional investors and proxy advisors. The diversity of approaches – from Elliott’s aggressive, research-intensive campaigns to Engaged Capital’s collaborative settlements – indicated that activism had become a sophisticated toolkit rather than a one-size-fits-all strategy.

Thematic implications for the sporting goods sector

The intersection of record activism and structural sporting goods industry challenges in 2025 revealed several critical trends likely to shape corporate strategy and governance priorities in 2026 and beyond.

The performance authenticity imperative

The struggles at Lululemon and the strategic course corrections at Nike suggested that the era of undifferentiated “athleisure” growth was facing a fundamental reckoning. Consumer demand in 2025 increasingly centered on athletic authenticity – products with genuine technical innovation and clear connections to specific sports and performance contexts – rather than lifestyle aesthetics that could be easily replicated by fast-fashion competitors.

Activists targeting sporting goods companies seized on this shift, arguing that brand extensions into non-core categories and lifestyle collaborations ultimately eroded both pricing power and technical credibility. Elliott’s critique of Lululemon’s NFL and Disney collaborations, and Nike’s pivot back to “fields of play” organization, both reflected this broader thesis: premium sporting goods brands derive pricing power from performance heritage, and diluting that positioning through ubiquitous lifestyle extensions undermines both margins and market share.

The industry’s future trajectory appeared to require a dual agenda of revenue growth and productivity improvement, where premium positioning would be defended through product scarcity, demonstrable technical benefits and genuine innovation rather than ubiquitous distribution and volume discounting. Companies that could articulate and execute against this performance authenticity imperative would be better positioned to maintain pricing power and fend off both specialized competitors and activist pressure.

Supply chain resilience as valuation driver

The ability to manage geopolitical risk and diversify manufacturing footprints emerged in 2025 as a primary indicator of brand health and operational sophistication. Tariff exposure and China-concentration risks – explicitly cited by companies including YETI as margin pressures requiring urgent diversification – indicated that resilient, technologically enabled supply chains were no longer merely operational necessities but strategic assets directly influencing institutional investor valuations.

YETI’s experience was illustrative: the company’s decision to accelerate supply chain diversification resulted in near-term sales outlook reductions and a 450-basis-point impact on operating margin, but management and activist investors alike viewed the transition as strategically essential for long-term resilience. The willingness to accept short-term financial pain in exchange for reduced geopolitical exposure represented a maturation of strategic thinking among both management teams and activist investors.

Brands that successfully diversified away from single-country manufacturing while maintaining quality and cost discipline – even at the expense of near-term margin compression – were viewed more favorably by both traditional and activist investors. Conversely, companies unable to articulate credible supply chain risk mitigation strategies faced persistent valuation discounts, as investors priced in the potential for future disruption from tariff changes, trade disputes or geopolitical tensions.

Director quality and board professionalization

A notable 2025 trend was the rising caliber of independent directors appointed through activist campaigns or in anticipation of activist pressure. The emphasis on recruiting former CEOs and senior operational executives with direct industry experience – rather than financial specialists or activist fund employees – represented a maturation of the activist model and a shift in what institutional investors and proxy advisors valued in board composition.

The appointments of Arne Arens (former Boardriders CEO, veteran of The North Face and Nike) and Magnus Welander (former Thule Group CEO) at YETI exemplified this trend. Both directors brought deep operational expertise in outdoor and sporting goods categories, enabling them to provide strategic guidance on product development, distribution and brand positioning – not merely financial oversight.

This professionalization made activist board nominees more acceptable to institutional investors and proxy advisors, contributing to the dramatic increase in dissident director support rates observed in H1 2025. For incumbent boards, the implication was clear: proactive director recruitment emphasizing relevant operational expertise could help forestall activist challenges or at least make activist-nominated alternatives less compelling by comparison.

The fact that 39 percent of activist-appointed directors in 2025 had prior public company CEO or CFO experience indicated that activists were no longer merely seeking governance reform but were providing boards with the operational leadership needed to execute complex turnarounds. This shift elevated the quality of boardroom discourse and increased the likelihood that activist-driven governance changes would translate into genuine operational improvements.

Looking ahead: the 2026 governance landscape

As the sporting goods industry enters 2026, the ripple effects of 2025’s record activism will continue to influence corporate decision-making and governance priorities. Several key developments will likely shape the year ahead:

CEO succession resolutions

The outcome of Lululemon’s CEO search and dual proxy contests will serve as a bellwether for how companies navigate competing activist and insider demands. The resolution – whether through negotiated settlement, contested election or some hybrid outcome – will establish important precedents for future dual-front proxy battles.

If Elliott and Wilson reach accommodation on a mutually acceptable CEO candidate and board composition, it could demonstrate that even apparently irreconcilable activist demands can be bridged through skilled negotiation. Conversely, if the disputes proceed to contested votes, the results will indicate which type of activist message – institutional operational improvement or founder visionary restoration – resonates more strongly with institutional shareholders and proxy advisors.

Turnaround execution testing

For Nike and Under Armour, 2026 represents a critical year to demonstrate that preemptive strategic resets and founder-led turnarounds can deliver sustained financial improvement. Both companies initiated significant organizational and strategic changes in 2024–2025; 2026 will determine whether those changes translate into market share gains, margin improvement and stock price recovery.

Failure to show tangible progress could invite renewed activist interest or increase vulnerability to competitive threats from better-executing rivals. Nike’s ability to restore growth in China, rebuild wholesale partnerships and demonstrate that product innovation initiatives are gaining consumer traction will be closely watched. Under Armour’s challenge is even more acute: proving that streamlined product focus and premium repositioning can overcome significant scale disadvantages relative to Nike and Adidas.

European governance convergence

The gradual adoption of more assertive institutional investor engagement practices in European markets suggests that companies like Adidas and Puma may face increased governance scrutiny aligned with North American norms, particularly around board composition, executive accountability and strategic transparency.

The dissent against Adidas Supervisory Board Chairman Thomas Rabe’s re-election – though ultimately unsuccessful – indicated that European institutional investors are becoming less tolerant of governance practices that would draw activist attention in North American markets. This convergence could increase the likelihood of formal activist campaigns targeting European sporting goods companies in 2026, particularly if operational performance continues to lag expectations or if boards appear insufficiently responsive to shareholder concerns.

Supply chain as competitive moat

As geopolitical tensions and tariff risks persist, companies’ ability to operate resilient, diversified manufacturing networks will likely become an increasingly important component of activist due diligence and institutional investor assessment. The sporting goods industry’s historical reliance on Asian manufacturing – particularly China-centric production – creates both transition challenges and strategic opportunities.

Companies that successfully execute supply chain diversification while maintaining quality and cost discipline will build competitive moats that are difficult for rivals to replicate quickly. Conversely, those that delay necessary transitions or execute poorly will face both operational vulnerabilities and persistent valuation discounts. Activists will increasingly scrutinize supply chain strategy as a proxy for management quality and strategic foresight.

The permanent governance force

The 2025 data indicates that shareholder activists have become a permanent and increasingly sophisticated force in corporate governance, effectively serving as external catalysts for strategic and operational improvements that boards might otherwise delay or avoid. The professionalization of activist tactics – from extensive operational due diligence to recruitment of highly credentialed independent directors – has made activism harder for incumbent management teams to dismiss as short-term financial engineering.

The sporting goods industry’s experience in 2025 demonstrated that activism is no longer an occasional disruption but a structural feature of corporate governance. Companies that recognize this reality and proactively address potential vulnerabilities – weak boards, unclear strategy, poor capital allocation, inadequate succession planning – will navigate the 2026 landscape more successfully than those that wait for activists to force change from outside.