Ah, a discussion I know something about on a personal level... 1. The advantage of 'knowing the business' – was that Adida was successful in Europe before coming to the United States and then bought out popular shoe brands in the US to even the ‘playing field’ with Nike.
2. The group most harmed by the buyout was Adida itself in that they underestimated Nike - and their hopes of being Numero Uno did not materialize – even with their other athletic clothing and gear in the equation. The posts from 2006 were hopeful but the ones from 2012 were more realistic.
3. Having been an athlete I remember my first pair of Adidas and how excited I was just to sport the logo with three white bars across my black shoes. The biggest issue for me was that they were flat shoes and I have very high arches. I equated Adida with ‘Misery’. My arches were so high that when my feet were wet the marks from my feet looked like the middle of my feet never touched the ground between the heel and the ball of my foot, so my favorite shoes have always been Reebok and Rockport for walking and hiking. I can stay in them all day long without complaints. Rockport has solid arches and shoes built for just about anything you can imagine. I thought they were pricey, but when they last longer you are more willing to pay the price. Adida now lists over a dozen different types of sports shoes on their website. So basically, the advantages I can see to the buyout was that Reebok and Rockport were given a larger field to compete in - because I will bet that not every European has flat feet. ahhhh.... :-)