Paul & Shark names cricketer KL Rahul as brand ambassador
With this association, the brand aims to make deeper inroads in India which is a key market for the brand's international distribution network.
As part of the partnership, KL Rahul will feature in a campaign endorsing the brand's spring/summer 2025 collection across Paul & Shark's global platforms.
Commenting on the association, Andrea Dini, CEO of Paul & Shark in a statement said, 'KL Rahul's journey as an athlete, his international appeal, and his distinct sense of style makes him a natural extension of our brand's values. This partnership is not just about fashion – it's about celebrating a way of life that merges sport, travel, and contemporary elegance.'
KL Rahul added, 'Paul & Shark just gets my style. The brand is effortless, sharp, and never trying too hard. It stands for quality and quiet confidence, which is exactly how I see fashion too. Being the first Indian to represent them globally makes it even more special, it feels like the kind of partnership that just fits.'
Founded in 1976, Paul & Shark has a joint venture partnership with Reliance Brands Ltd in India. It operates three stores across Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata, along with five shop-in-shop doors and digital presence on Ajio Luxe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
2 days ago
- Euronews
Growth fades in Europe: Is the recovery already running out of steam?
Europe's economic momentum nearly stalled in the second quarter of 2025, with growth barely registering and industry output sliding sharply—raising concerns over whether the region's recovery is already running out of steam. According to Eurostat's second estimate released on Thursday, seasonally adjusted GDP in the euro area rose by just 0.1% in the three months to June, unchanged from the initial flash reading. The wider European Union (EU) grew by 0.2%, also in line with earlier estimates. These figures mark a stark slowdown from the robust first quarter, when GDP expanded by 0.6% in the eurozone and 0.5% across the EU thanks to strong export growth. In contrast, the United States economy bounced back strongly, posting a 0.7% quarterly expansion following a slight contraction in the first quarter. On an annual basis, eurozone GDP rose 1.4%, well behind Washington's 2.0% pace. Diverging national performances Beneath the headline figures, the recovery remains highly uneven across the bloc. Spain led the pack with 0.7% quarterly growth, fuelled by strong domestic demand and capital investment. Portugal followed with a 0.6% gain, while France managed a modest 0.3% expansion. However, both Germany and Italy, the eurozone's largest and third-largest economies, slipped by 0.1%. For Germany, the contraction reflects continued weakness in investment, particularly in construction and capital goods, while Italian output suffered from subdued consumption and softening industrial activity. Ireland saw the steepest drop, with output contracting by 1%. Elsewhere in the EU, growth was more robust in Eastern Europe, with Romania and Poland expanding by 1.2% and 0.8%, respectively, helped by resilient domestic demand and inflows from the Next Generation EU (NGEU) programme. Industrial downturn clouds outlook Adding to the worries, industrial production in the euro area dropped by 1.3% in June, reversing a 1.1% rise in May and missing expectations of a more moderate decline by 1%. The fall was broad-based, with capital goods production down 2.2% and non-durable consumer goods plunging 4.7%. In the wider EU, output fell by 1%. Among member states, Ireland recorded the largest monthly drop in industrial production at -11.3%, followed by Portugal and Lithuania. In contrast, Belgium, France and Sweden posted notable gains. US outpaces Europe, but sentiment is shifting While the euro area continues to lag behind the US, in terms of both output and productivity growth, Goldman Sachs believes that the sentiment is shifting towards Europe. Economists Giovanni Pierdomenico and Sven Jari Stehn note that Germany's fiscal policy pivot and heightened macroeconomic uncertainty in the US are helping shift investor attitudes. Goldman Sachs has upgraded its euro area growth forecast for 2027 by 1.2% since the start of the year, while downgrading its US projection by 1.7% over the same period. Portfolio flows into Europe have picked up, and the euro has strengthened notably against the dollar. Europe's long-term challenges and opportunities Despite the improved mood, Europe still faces deep structural challenges. Elevated energy costs—particularly for gas and electricity—continue to erode competitiveness. Low investment in high-growth sectors, regulatory fragmentation, and sluggish productivity gains further weigh on potential. In addition, China, once a key export market, has increasingly become a competitor, squeezing Europe's manufacturing base. Yet there are reasons for optimism. Increased public investment, driven by the NGEU programme and Germany's €500bn infrastructure plan, could support medium-term growth. Europe also remains a global leader in pharmaceuticals and has significant untapped potential in capital markets integration, digitalisation and green infrastructure. "Europe has opportunities to improve its economic performance through increased public investment, leadership in growth industries such as pharmaceuticals and green technologies, financial market reforms, and further integration of the internal market," Pierdomenico said. Efforts to deepen the single market—spurred by the European Commission's Competitiveness Compass, informed by the Draghi and Letta reports—are seen as vital steps to unlocking future growth. "European policymakers have a window of opportunity to build on this improved macro picture with reforms that lead to a lasting improvement in Europe's economic performance," Pierdomenico added. Goldman Sachs remains constructive on Europe's medium-term outlook, forecasting euro area growth above consensus for 2025–2028.
Fashion Network
4 days ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
Fashion Network
4 days ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
