Sporting-Goods Stocks Tumble After Trump Unveils Tariffs on Key Manufacturers
Shares in sporting-goods companies plunged after President Trump unveiled new U.S. tariffs on foreign imports that target countries where the industry has key manufacturing hubs.
Stocks of German players Adidas and Puma PUM -8.01%decrease; red down pointing triangle dropped 10% and 8.9%, respectively, in European morning trading, while shares in U.K. retailer JD Sports JD -4.85%decrease; red down pointing triangle fell 5.5%. Shares in Nike were 9.2% lower in pre-market trading.
The levies announced overnight are harsher than expected, especially for Southeast Asian countries with higher exposure to sporting goods, RBC Capital Markets analyst Piral Dadhania said in a note to clients.
Trump announced the latest round of duties he plans to implement in countries that he says treat the U.S. unfairly. These include 46% on Vietnam, 49% on Cambodia, 36% on Thailand, 32% on Indonesia, 48% on Laos, and 34% additional tariffs on China–on top of the already announced 20%. Other key trading partners for the U.S. that are subject to tariffs include Switzerland, the E.U. and the U.K.
The impact could be worse than anticipated, as nearly all footwear sold in the U.S. is imported, UBS analysts wrote in a research note.
The duties will be a concern for many brands that have shifted manufacturing from China to Vietnam in recent years. The growing role of the latter in footwear manufacturing as well as its meaningful contribution to U.S. footwear imports mean the tariffs represent a headwind to the sector that companies might not be able to fully offset, UBS analysts said.
Only a portion of the cost increases will likely be passed through to consumers, analysts at UBS said. They say that in order to fully mitigate the hit to Vietnam, companies would have to increase prices by between 10% and 12%.
Puma and Nike will likely suffer more relative to Adidas, due to their exposure to the U.S. and their sourcing, RBC's Dadhania said.
Write to Andrea Figueras at andrea.figueras@wsj.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
38 minutes ago
- New York Post
GOP blocks Dems' efforts to restrict Trump's war powers after strikes on Iran nuke sites
WASHINGTON — Democratic efforts in the Senate to prevent President Donald Trump from further escalating with Iran fell short Friday, with Republicans blocking a resolution that marked Congress' first attempt to reassert its war powers following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The resolution, authored by Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, aimed to affirm that Trump should seek authorization from Congress before launching more military action against Iran. Asked Friday if he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites again if he deemed necessary, Trump said, 'Sure, without question.' The measure was defeated in a 53-47 vote in the Republican-held Senate. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, joined Republicans in opposition, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor. Republicans beat back a Democrat effort, led by Sen. Tim Kaine, to restrict Donald Trump's war powers. AP Most Republicans have said Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Trump, and they backed his decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend without seeking congressional approval. 'Of course, we can debate the scope and strategy of our military engagements,' said Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn. 'But we must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line.' Democrats cast doubt on that justification, arguing the president should have come to Congress first. They also said the president did not update them adequately, with Congress' first briefings taking place Thursday. 'The idea is this: We shouldn't send our sons and daughters into war unless there's a political consensus that this is a good idea, this is a national interest,' Kaine said in a Thursday interview with The Associated Press. The resolution, Kaine said, wasn't aimed at restricting the president's ability to defend against a threat, but that 'if it's offense, let's really make sure we're making the right decision.' In a statement following Friday's vote, Kaine said he was 'disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress' should be a part of a decision to go to war. Democrats' argument for backing the resolution centered on the War Powers Resolution, passed in the early 1970s, which requires the president 'in every possible instance' to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.' Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Friday's vote, Paul said he would back the resolution, saying that 'despite the tactical success of our strikes, they may end up proving to be a strategic failure.' 'It is unclear if this intervention will fully curtail Iran's nuclear aspirations,' said Paul. Trump is just the latest in a line of presidents to test the limits of the resolution — though he's done so at a time when he's often bristling at the nation's checks and balances. Trump said Friday he would again bomb Iranian nuclear sites if he deemed it necessary. AP Trump on Monday sent a letter to Congress — as required by the War Powers Resolution — that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were 'limited in scope and purpose' and 'designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.' But following classified briefings with top White House officials this week, some lawmakers remain skeptical about how imminent the threat truly was. 'There was no imminent threat to the United States,' said Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, after Friday's classified briefings. 'There's always an Iranian threat to the world. But, I have not seen anything to suggest that the threat from the Iranians was radically different last Saturday than it was two Saturdays ago,' Himes said. Despite Democratic skepticism, nearly all Republicans applauded Trump's decision to strike Iran. And for GOP senators, supporting the resolution would have meant rebuking the president at the same time they're working to pass his major legislative package.
Chicago Tribune
42 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would 'continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.'
UPI
44 minutes ago
- UPI
Trump heralds 'tremendous breakthrough' in Rwanda, Congo peace accord
1 of 5 | President Donald Trump holds a signed peace agreement during a meeting with Democratic Republic of the Congo Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner and Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe in the Oval Office of the White House on Friday. Photo by Yuri Gripas/UPI | License Photo June 27 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump on Friday signed a peace deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo that ends 30 years of conflict in central Africa that the U.S. leader described as "one of the worst wars anyone's ever seen." Congo Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner and Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe appeared at a signing ceremony in the White House's Oval Office. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Qatar began negotiations with the two foreign ministers in April. The agreement was announced by the State Department on June 18. It is officially named the Washington Accords. "At least 6 million people were killed during that period of time," Trump said. "It's incredible. And somebody said that was actually, it's the biggest war on the planet since World War II. It's a shame but we're going to bring it to an end." The treaty ends the conflict and provides access to critical minerals for the U.S. "This is a wonderful day," he added. "Hopefully, there can be a lot of healing." Rubio, calling Trump a "president of peace," said: "This was not easy. And there's still work to be done, obviously, in terms of implementation, but we're very honored you're both here, and it's been an honor to work with both of you. " The two leaders thanked Trump, with Nduhungirehe describing the treaty as a "remarkable milestone." But they urged the United States ensure the peace agreement remains in place. "There have been many mediations in the past but none of them succeed," Nduhungirehe said. "We believe that it is because of your leadership and steadfast commitment the treaty was made possible." Wagner said: "This moment has been long in coming. It will not erase the pain, but it can begin to restore what conflict has robbed many women, men and children of: safety, dignity and a sense of future." Democratic senators also urged the treaty to be enforced and humanitarian assistance provided. "While signing an agreement is important, implementation will be essential, and we urge both parties and all international partners to ensure its enforcement," Sens. Chris Coons of Delaware, Corey Booker of New Jersey and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire said in a statement. "We are keenly watching how today's agreement shapes the future of eastern DRC. This is where the hard work begins, and following through on each component of the deal will be essential to its success." In the accord, both sides agreed to recognize and respect each other's territorial borders, committed to not supporting any armed groups and to establish a joint security mechanism to target militias. And they plan to expand trade and investment opportunities. Around 7 million people have displaced in Congo, which has a population of 106 million. Rwanda's population is 14 million. They both gained independence from Belgium in the early 1960s. In January, M-23 rebels were aided by Rwandan forces in escalating the conflict, according to a United Nations expert panel. They seized the strategic cities of Goma and Bukavu. M23 first emerged in 2012. The region has been reeling from one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. The rebels overwhelmed government forces, killing U.N. peacekeepers, fired on U.N. humanitarian facilities and sent people fleeing from displacement camps. The United Nations has called it "one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth." Congo wants the U.S. to provide security support needed to fight the M23 rebels. They want them to withdraw from Goma and Bukavu, and from the entire region where Rwanda is estimated to have up to 4,000 troops. The United States imposed sanctions on key Rwandan officials involved in the conflict. The European Union cut military aid to Rwanda.
