Kanye West. Ye. Adidas. How About You?
Ye’s sneaker and clothing brand, Yeezy, reportedly generated close to $2 billion annually for Adidas. Cutting ties meant walking away from serious money. It was estimated that Adidas would take a substantial financial hit by severing its relationship with Ye. When profit and principle collide, the spreadsheet usually wins. This time, it didn’t.
Adidas was already navigating soft demand before Ye’s “White Lives Matter” shirt and antisemitic tirades. Yeezy accounted for a meaningful portion of revenue. Severing the partnership was not symbolic. It was costly. That is precisely why it mattered.
Adidas was already navigating soft demand before Ye’s “White Lives Matter” shirt and antisemitic tirades. Yeezy accounted for a meaningful portion of revenue. Severing the partnership was not symbolic. It was costly. That is precisely why it mattered.
![]() |
| Photo by Hrt+Soul Design on Unsplash |
Adidas joined GAP, Balenciaga, Vogue, JPMorgan Chase, CAA, and MRC in cutting ties. There should be no room for racism or antisemitism in commerce or culture. When speech turns into harm, neutrality becomes endorsement.
Now comes the harder question.
We demand corporations sever profitable relationships with public figures who traffic in hate. We applaud when brands sacrifice revenue for moral clarity. Yet how many of us maintain close relationships with people who make racist remarks at the dinner table, in group chats, in passing jokes?
If it was unacceptable for Adidas to prioritize revenue over principle, why is it acceptable for us to prioritize comfort over accountability?
It is easier to condemn a corporation than to confront a relative. Easier to boycott a brand than to challenge a friend. But proximity does not neutralize prejudice. Familiarity does not soften racism. It simply makes it easier to ignore.
Racism does not become less corrosive because it is delivered privately. It does not become harmless because it comes from someone you love. And mental health struggles, while deserving compassion, do not excuse hateful rhetoric.
We cannot insist on zero tolerance from corporations while practicing selective tolerance in our own lives. The standard cannot apply only to celebrities and multinational brands. It must apply to individuals — including you and me.
So the question is not only whether Adidas did the right thing.
The question is: will you?
Now comes the harder question.
We demand corporations sever profitable relationships with public figures who traffic in hate. We applaud when brands sacrifice revenue for moral clarity. Yet how many of us maintain close relationships with people who make racist remarks at the dinner table, in group chats, in passing jokes?
If it was unacceptable for Adidas to prioritize revenue over principle, why is it acceptable for us to prioritize comfort over accountability?
It is easier to condemn a corporation than to confront a relative. Easier to boycott a brand than to challenge a friend. But proximity does not neutralize prejudice. Familiarity does not soften racism. It simply makes it easier to ignore.
Racism does not become less corrosive because it is delivered privately. It does not become harmless because it comes from someone you love. And mental health struggles, while deserving compassion, do not excuse hateful rhetoric.
We cannot insist on zero tolerance from corporations while practicing selective tolerance in our own lives. The standard cannot apply only to celebrities and multinational brands. It must apply to individuals — including you and me.
So the question is not only whether Adidas did the right thing.
The question is: will you?
_____
Archived essays:

Comments
Post a Comment