iStock.com/Joe Hendrickson
August 13, 2025
Should the Dick’s Sporting Goods-Foot Locker Deal Face High Antitrust Concerns?
Senator Elizabeth Warren is asking the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice to “closely scrutinize” Dick’s Sporting Goods’ proposed acquisition of Foot Locker, arguing that the $2.4 billion deal could raise prices, reduce competition, and lead to job losses.
The senator, as reported by CNBC, in a letter to the agencies wrote that it would create a “duopoly” in sneakers and other athletic footwear between the merged companies and their next largest competitor, JD Sports.
“The new giant would have significantly increased power to extract favorable conditions with manufacturers,” she wrote. “This could mean that independent retailers are at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with suppliers, which could give Dick’s and Foot Locker an incentive to engage in anti-competitive conduct to restrict suppliers from dealing with independent retailers.”
Warren wrote that the move comes after a series of mergers and acquisitions in the sector have already “led to market consolidation and the closure of thousands of independent shoe stores” — and as a Credit Karma survey shows, 54% of U.S. parents plan to sacrifice necessities, such as groceries, to ensure their children have what they need for the school year. Warren wrote, “Higher prices on athletic footwear could lead to further economic hardship for parents.”
Dick’s, Foot Locker Acquisition: Detailed Breakdown
The deal, first announced in May, is expected to expand footwear to about half of Dick’s sales post-acquisition, up from 28% in 2024, Dick’s officials said on an analyst call when the merger was announced.
The deal should further increase its importance to vendors, particularly Nike, which accounted for 59% of Foot Locker’s sales last year, and a quarter of Dick’s. Other key shared vendors include Adidas, New Balance, Brooks, Ugg, and Asics — as well as hot upstarts such as Hoka and On.
Lauren Hobart, president and CEO for Dick’s, said on the call, “With increased geographic reach and a broader portfolio of banners, we can serve new demographics through new formats, brand positioning, and an expanded international footprint. We’re elevating our role as a partner to the world’s most important brands, both established and emerging, helping them showcase product innovation and storytelling on a worldwide stage.”
Footwear has been a growing category for Dick’s, as its product allocations have improved with the addition of full-service footwear decks in 90% of stores.
Ed Stack, executive chairman and chief merchandising officer, expects Dick’s will help Foot Locker further repair its relationship with Nike. He said brands overall are “really excited” about the potential merger.
He told analysts, “What we’ve been able to do from an operations standpoint, they think Foot Locker can benefit from that.”
Amanda Lewis, a former FTC mergers official and now a partner at Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, told CNBC the two retailers together would account for about 15% of the sporting goods market — a level she said usually doesn’t draw significant antitrust concern. She added that if regulators did impose conditions, they might require selling a small number of stores, a concession she believes would be less demanding under the current FTC leadership.
Discussion Questions
What’s the likelihood that Dick’s Sporting Goods’ proposed acquisition of Foot Locker will reduce competition and lead to higher prices for consumers?
Do you suspect Dick’s may have to sell off some or many stores to secure approvals for the merger?
Poll
BrainTrust
Neil Saunders
Managing Director, GlobalData
Gary Sankary
Retail Industry Strategy, Esri
Mark Ryski
Founder, CEO & Author, HeadCount Corporation
Recent Discussions
As usual, Elizabeth Warren is engaging in political posturing without reference to the facts.
Dick’s holds an 11.1% share of the US sporting goods market, while Foot Locker has 4.3%. Combined, that’s 15.4% – far too small to give the merged entity the ability to set market prices, especially given the extensive competition from other generalists and specialists. Moreover, the market is heavily brand-led: Nike alone commands a 23.4% share in the US. In that context, even a combined Dick’s–Foot Locker would hardly have the whip hand. In fact, it might serve the market well to have a more dominant retail force to pressure the brands.
“Show me the numbers!” Thanks, Neil for cutting to the chase. On to the next drama.
the two retailers together would account for about 15% of the sporting goods market
No: the defense will rest; but before it rests, it asks to address the court about the frivolousness of the claim…
But Liz says it will create a “duopoly”!
You really do have to laugh!
Well lately liars have just skipped the nuance, so who can blame her ?
(And at the other extreme, I’m sure there’re some who’d give the nod to a WalMart-Amazon merger….Sears still has
8 65 stores open, don’t they.)Dick’s has been essentially landlocked in North America while athletic brands increasingly think globally. Foot Locker’s operations in Europe, Asia-Pacific, and other markets bring local relationships, supply chains, and cultural knowledge that Dick’s lacked, justifying the $2.4 billion price tag.
The international dimension completely undermines the “U.S. duopoly” narrative. When you’re competing globally against Adidas’ direct channels, Nike’s international stores, and regional players like UK-based JD Sports, domestic market share becomes largely irrelevant.
Bottom line, the antitrust focus on domestic concentration misses the bigger competitive reality: this is about creating a platform capable of competing with global athletic brands that are increasingly bypassing traditional retail altogether. When global brands control 23% and retailers scramble for 15%, who’s really setting the prices?
As a combined entity, their market share would only be about 15% — I can’t see how this acquisition would constitute a meaningful reduction in competition. I suggest that Senator Warren and her colleagues have other, bigger challenges to focus on. Ultimately, Dick’s may need to sell off some locations to placate the FTC, but I would even question that.
It is my opinion that there is only a minimal conflict of interest, however, the proposed acquisition could be subject to significant scrutiny by regulators such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).Probably, the proposed merger will be investigated to determine whether it will create a monopoly or substantially reduce competition in the sporting goods retail sector. As a result of reduced competition and higher prices, regulators may impose conditions or even block the acquisition if it is determined that it will harm consumers.
I’m typically sensitive to industry consolidation—and my liberal bias would usually be triggered. But not here. Senator Warren’s characterization feels like a tempest in a teapot. The U.S. sporting goods market is intensely competitive. While this acquisition is notable, it doesn’t represent any meaningful control of the category.
Consumers will still have plenty of options: Amazon, Walmart, Target, Academy Sports (especially in the South), Bass Pro/Cabela’s, and a growing wave of DTC footwear and apparel brands. The landscape remains diverse, and this merger doesn’t fundamentally change that.
Of all the issues that any given senator could be focusing on right now, this one does not seem like it falls in the top 10,000 or so.
Jeff, you’re forgetting your history: note who Sen. Warren represents – Massachusetts – and recall that Lynn was once the “shoe capital of the world”…old habits die hard! 🙂
Well Boston still has Converse…
The Dick’s and Foot Locker deal is not only about scale but about influence in retail. Stronger vendor partnerships may help brands showcase products, yet the risk is reduced shelf space and fewer opportunities for independent retailers. Regulators should look beyond market share to how this merger could shift power across the footwear retail ecosystem.