Inside the GRT100: A case study on adidas and Nike

One of the most storied rivalries in all of apparel, maybe even sports, is Adidas versus Nike. And while there have been many chapters to it, there’s one that’s being written now: corporate reputation.

For the last few years, these two storied brands have been moving in opposite directions. And our latest Global RepTrak 100 highlights how these brands have been trading places in the ranks of the world’s most reputable companies.

To understand these changes, though, you first need to understand the dynamics of how corporate reputation is shifting.

The Multiplayer Reputation Era

For years, the job in Corporate Communications has been to manage reputation by employing top-down, corporate-heavy stories: Media relations, investor relations, press releases.

Reputation, though, is increasingly co-constructed by communities, employees, creators, cultural participants, and, increasingly, AI systems. The very stakeholders Corporate Communications has spent years looking to influence are now doing the influencing.

For over two decades, RepTrak has measured the world's most reputable companies through a "think, feel, do" framework — linking drivers like Products & Services, Innovation, Workplace, Conduct, Citizenship, Leadership, and Performance to emotional connection and measurable Business Outcomes. Our model also tracks how channels shape reputation across earned, owned, paid media, and direct experience, using reach and impact to show which channels are helping or hurting perceptions.

There was very little change in channel impact for roughly ten years. But that is changing.

While Reputation Scores are near all-time highs, the infrastructure that builds corporate reputation is being rewired. Every traditional information channel lost effectiveness in 2026, dropping to all-time lows across all 12 micro touchpoints we measure.

Corporate reputation is becoming multiplayer. The companies thriving aren't the ones broadcasting loudest; they're the ones who are providing a clear, consistent message for everyone to shape in their own voice, and often staying out of the way while that happens.

This is the multiplayer experience: A willingness to let everyone shape your narrative.

Adidas v. Nike: A Difference in Strategies

As it happens, adidas and Nike present a near-perfect case study in this shift.

These two rivals looked close to identical in our 2024 rankings, but much has changed since then. Putting Global RepTrak 100 data next to key timeline events shows the divergence.

Score and driver movement, 2024–2026

adidas — #16 (2024) → #9 (2025) → #2 (2026)

• Reputation Score: +1.2 pts in 2026 (score 78.06); third consecutive year of rank gains │ Brand Score: +1.1 │ Ambassador share: +2pp to 52%

• Conduct: +2.5 │ Workplace: +2.5 │ Citizenship: +1.9 │ Factor standouts: Fair in doing business +3.3 — Employee well-being +3.1 — Ethical +2.6

Nike — #21 (2024) → #22 (2025) → #50 (2026

• Reputation Score: −1.0 pts in 2026 (score 74.48); third consecutive year of decline or stagnation │ Brand Score: −1.2 │ Ambassador share: −1pp

• Products & Services: −1.7 │ Performance: −1.8 │ Innovation: −1.6 │ Conduct: −0.4 │ Workplace: −0.5 │ Factor standouts: High quality −2.4 — Exceeds financial expectations −3.1

A contrasting timeline, 2022–2026

Stepping back to 2022, you can see a divergence in strategies taking hold. It is the timeframe in which Nike leaned into owned-and-operated channels, investing in DTC and pulling away from wholesale retail accounts. Accompanying those moves were major digital investments (some already underway). 

Adidas, meanwhile, had found success in collaborations with Kanye West/Ye and others. And while the Ye partnership caused brand damage in 2022, the larger strategy stayed put. While Nike aimed to build its own communities, Adidas aimed to become part of communities that already existed. 

A select timeline looks something like this:

• adidas / 2022 — The Ye partnership collapses. adidas absorbs a significant hit, but its creator communities and fan ecosystems are not contingent on any one relationship.

• Nike / 2022–23 — The DTC pivot accelerates. Nike pulls back from wholesale partners to concentrate sales through owned channels. The stated goal is community. The operational effect is channel control. The stakeholder ecosystem narrows.

• adidas / 2023 — Roblox partnership and cultural collaborations (Pharrell Williams, Bad Bunny, regional artists) bring adidas into communities organized around identity, not product purchase. Spaces adidas enters as a participant, not a landlord. Conduct and Workplace scores begin rising.

• Nike / 2023 — DTC margins disappoint. Wholesale partners partially reinstated after inventory problems. Products & Services scores begin their decline.

• adidas / 2024–25 — The Samba and Gazelle become dominant cultural footwear globally — not through brand-controlled campaigns but through street adoption and creator content. adidas maintained product quality and cultural availability; the network did the rest. Rank climbs from #16 to #9.

• Nike / 2024 — 1,600 roles eliminated as DTC restructuring costs mount. Conduct and Workplace scores decline further. Ambassador share begins falling. Nike is losing ground on both execution and conduct drivers simultaneously.

• adidas / 2026 — #2 globally. Gains concentrated where the multiplayer thesis predicts: factors stakeholders assess through community signal, not marketing. Fair in doing business +3.3. Employee well-being +3.1. Ethical +2.6. These scores rose because enough people in the network said the same things independently.

• Nike / 2025–26 — Elliott Hill appointed CEO; restructuring underway. But three years of pressure on the highest-weight drivers cannot be reversed in a quarter. The DTC infrastructure still exists. What does not exist is an independent stakeholder network to carry the brand narrative when execution falters. Rank: #50, down 28 positions.

The takeaway here is that adidas gave its stakeholder communities something to carry: cultural access, transparent conduct, and spaces to gather that the brand participates in but does not own. Nike built infrastructure and called it community. 

The RepTrak data, covered fully in the Global RepTrak 100, registers the difference. 

In a multiplayer world, the brand that lets others tell its story outperforms the brand that controls the telling.

This post contains excerpts from our 2026 Global RepTrak 100. For more coverage of how the shape of reputation is changing, along with the full rankings of the 100 most reputable companies, click here.