True in some ways (although jumping from WWI to the 1980's misses many significant milestones such as adidas selling hundreds of thousands of trainers in the 40s and 50s or the rise of Puma when the Dassler boys had a fall out)
Sales mostly in a sporting context I believe - my Father's athletics spikes for example were always Puma. As you say - not the point of the original post though.... rather a fashion question. Where CTs held sway for decades. It also explains the number of kids who bought Converse Weapon on the back of this ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJEa2c_939o
The vast majority of which never saw a BB court. Prior to this point Nike et al, on a social/fashion level, weren't even close. How did Nike compete - they signed Jordan and the rest, as they say, is history.
but today, association with a sports star, music artist or fashion designer all play their part in sneaker culture. The original post was about the value of one pair of Adidas and the disconnect between why they can command that price when you can buy any old pair for not much money. Not understanding modern culture is totally fine of course,
Oh I understand it - I just don't like it. There's a big difference. To my mind it is pure exhibitionism and somewhat pointless...but there are many who value these shoes very highly indeed and collectors can be found all over the world, trading rare pairs for huge sums through online forums and even in specialist shops.
Whereas making money out of a culture/fashion is nothing new. So long as there is a conveyor belt of mugs willing to get ripped off - I don't blame the traders for trying it on. I know is a store in Berlin that has a once a year sales of rare trainers and hundreds camp outside the night before to get in and grab a bargain. Surprising to some and certainly not of interest to all but important to millions of others.