Converse makes the most recognisable shoe in the world and it is currently falling apart. In the year to May 2026 the brand did $1.174 billion of revenue — down 31%, its lowest since 2011 — and operating profit fell 93% to $18 million. Three years earlier it did $2.427 billion and $676 million. Its owner is Nike, which has spent 2026 cutting Converse jobs, fielding questions about selling the brand, and saying almost nothing about it on earnings calls. Meanwhile in India, where Converse opened its first store only in November 2024, the shoe is cheaper than it is in America.
Converse makes the most recognisable shoe in the world and its business is collapsing — revenue fell 31% to $1.174 billion in the year to May 2026, a fifteen-year low. In India, where the first store opened only in November 2024, a Chuck Taylor is 34% to 46% cheaper than in America before tax. That is a brand clearing stock, not generosity, and a Chuck buys you no technical advantage over a ₹1,499 canvas sneaker.
Snapshot
- Founded
- 1908, Malden, Massachusetts, by Marquis Mills Converse — as a rubber galoshes company, with $250,000 of capital
- First shoe
- Not until 1910, and canvas production started for a dull reason: to keep summer staff employed between galoshes seasons
- The All Star
- Launched 1917 as the “Non-Skid”; renamed All Star in 1919. Chuck Taylor’s name went on it about fifteen years after it existed
- Owned by
- Nike, which bought it for approximately $305 million on 4 September 2003
- Revenue
- $1.174 billion in Nike’s FY2026, down 31%. Peak was $2.427 billion in FY2023
- Made where
- Asia. American manufacturing ended on 31 March 2001, with about 1,000 of 1,200 jobs cut
- In India
- Retail run by Bhaane Group. First store Mumbai, November 2024; Kolkata February 2026; Bengaluru June 2026
- India price
- ₹4,299–₹5,799 for a Chuck Taylor All Star, ₹5,499–₹6,999 for a Chuck 70
- Counterfeit risk
- Very high, and complicated by the fact that a legal lookalike is not a fake
Where Converse came from
Converse did not start as a shoe company. Marquis Mills Converse founded the Converse Rubber Company in Malden, Massachusetts in February 1908, and its first products, made on 30 April 1909, were ten rubber galoshes. Canvas footwear followed in 1910, and the company’s own history gives the reason with no romance attached: galoshes are a winter product, and Converse wanted something to keep its summer employees busy.
The basketball shoe arrived in 1917 as the “Non-Skid” and was renamed the All Star in 1919, in brown canvas, because coaches wanted a darker upper. It did not take off for another five or six years.
One thing almost every brand history leaves out: the original Converse company went bankrupt in 1929. The Stone family bought it in 1933 and owned it for thirty-nine years. Converse has been through more owners than almost any brand on this site — Eltra in 1972, Allied in 1979, a management buyout in 1982, a NASDAQ listing in 1983, Interco in 1986, an Interco bankruptcy in 1991, a spin-off in 1994, its own bankruptcy in 2001, and Nike in 2003.
- Bankruptcy, then the Stone familyFails in 1929; bought in 1933, held thirty-nine years
- Eltra, Allied, Interco1972, 1979 and 1986 — four owners in fourteen years
- Bankruptcy again2001; American manufacturing ends the same year
- NikeBought 4 September 2003 for about $305 million
A shoe this famous has almost never been owned by a company that was doing well.
Chuck Taylor: the man, and the parts that are not true
Charles Hollis Taylor was born on 24 July 1901 and died on 23 June 1969. He played semi-professional basketball in the 1920s for barnstorming Midwestern teams, and stopped playing around 1930. He never played in the NBA, which is not a criticism — the NBA was founded in 1946, sixteen years after his career ended.
He joined Converse in 1922, and the company’s own timeline describes the job accurately: salesman and team coach. He drove around America running free basketball clinics out of his car, sold shoes, managed the Converse All-Stars travelling team, launched the Converse Basketball Yearbook, and passed customer feedback back to the factory.
He did not design the shoe. The All Star existed from 1917. His signature went on the ankle patch about fifteen years later, and by his biographer’s account customers were already asking for “Chuck’s shoe” before Converse formalised it. He is also believed never to have received royalties on it — he was well paid and had a generous expense account, and that was the arrangement.
He is in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, and here the record needs care: sources disagree on whether it was 1968 or 1969, and the basis was his promotional work, his clinics and his ambassadorship for the game — not a playing record. He went in as a contributor. Anyone telling you Chuck Taylor was a Hall of Fame player has the story backwards.
His biographer, who spent three years on it, put the outcome well: by the seventies and eighties, people buying his shoes “just thought of Chuck Taylor as a brand. His brand grew with the shoe even as his persona, the real persona, was lost.”
How Converse lost, twice
The first collapse was competitive. Converse dominated basketball footwear from the 1930s through the early 1980s — the 1936 Olympics, both teams in the 1939 NCAA final, Wilt Chamberlain’s hundred-point game in 1962, Magic Johnson as its endorser from 1979, the official shoe of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. Then, in 1985, Nike signed Michael Jordan for $2.5 million plus royalties over five years, and the basketball shoe stopped being a canvas object and became an engineered one. Converse stayed with the Chuck Taylor and the Jack Purcell while everyone else moved into running, cushioning and athlete endorsement.
The second collapse was financial and it nearly killed the company. A catastrophic 1995 acquisition — a sports-apparel business called Apex One, closed eighty-five days after purchase — turned a $17.6 million profit into a $71.7 million loss, alongside a recall of 400,000 defective shoes. By 1998 sales had fallen 30% to $308 million and American market share was down to 2.3%. Converse filed for Chapter 11 on 22 January 2001 with $202.1 million of assets against $226.2 million of debts. The share price had gone from $28 to twenty cents.
Its plants in Lumberton, North Carolina; Mission, Texas; and Reynosa, Mexico closed by 31 March 2001, taking about 1,000 of 1,200 jobs, and production moved to Asia. The chief executive’s line at the time is worth preserving, because Converse had spent the late nineties marketing itself as American-made: “One could perhaps criticize us for holding on longer than most.”
Nike announced its acquisition on 9 July 2003 and completed it on 4 September, paying approximately $305 million. For a shoe that has sold, by press estimate, more than 800 million pairs, that was cheap.
And now the third collapse
Nike reports Converse as its own segment, so the numbers are public and they are stark.
| Year to 31 May | Revenue | Operating profit |
|---|---|---|
| FY2023 | $2,427 million | $676 million |
| FY2025 | $1,692 million | $240 million |
| FY2026 | $1,174 million | $18 million |
Nike’s own segment reporting. FY2024 is left out because no primary filing we could find carries the figure.
Nike’s explanation for FY2026 is a single phrase in a table: “declines across all territories.” Its Q4 press release contains no management commentary on Converse at all. Nike cut Converse jobs in February 2026, and an 8-K filed on 6 March disclosed roughly $300 million of pre-tax restructuring charges for the nine months to February, mostly severance, under a heading that reads “Costs Associated With Exit or Disposal Activities.” At least one analyst read that as a possible Converse exit. On 31 March 2026 Bloomberg reported Authentic Brands Group as a potential buyer.
Nike’s chief executive said on 1 April that Converse “will remain an important part of the Nike, Inc. family, and we are excited about its long-term prospects.” Read that alongside the restructuring charge and form your own view.
The diagnosis from outside is simple and probably right: Converse never managed to be anything other than the Chuck Taylor. It has run high-profile collaborations — Tyler, the Creator; Noah; a signature basketball shoe with Shai Gilgeous-Alexander — through the exact fiscal year in which revenue fell 31%. As one commentator put it: it didn’t disappear, it stopped feeling new.
How Converse came to India, and who actually sells it
This is the least-documented India story of any brand we have audited, and we are going to say so rather than fill the gaps.
What is established: Converse’s Indian retail is run by Bhaane Group, the Delhi company behind the Bhaane label and the VegNonVeg sneaker chain, led by Anand Ahuja. Bhaane is also a retail partner to Nike and operates NBAStore.in. The first Converse exclusive brand outlet in India opened on Linking Road, Mumbai, in November 2024. Kolkata’s South City Mall followed in February 2026, and in June 2026 Converse opened its largest Indian store at Phoenix Mall of Asia in Bengaluru, along with the India launch of Converse By You, the customisation platform. There is also a standalone store at Phoenix Marketcity, Chennai. The stated target is fifteen-plus urban stores by 2027.
What is not established, and matters: every trade report calls the Bhaane arrangement a “partnership” or a “retail partner”. Whether it is a licence, a franchise or a distribution agreement is disclosed nowhere, no Indian company named Converse India appears in registry data, and Nike India Private Limited’s own MCA record does not mention Converse. Converse’s own India store locator does not yield a usable total, so there is no published India store count — four is what the trade press documents.
There are also two loose threads we could not tie off, and we would rather flag them than pretend they do not exist. SSIPL Group, the company that brought Nike to India as exclusive licensee in the mid-nineties, lists Converse among its brands on one page and omits it entirely from its own milestones and distribution pages. And a Converse One Star India microsite with a store locator for eight cities sits on a Future Lifestyle Fashions domain, with no agreement or dates attached to it. Nike has licensed the One Star name into mass retail elsewhere — it did exactly that with Target in America from 2008 — so an Indian equivalent is plausible. Plausible is not the same as documented, and we are not printing it as history.
Made in India? No evidence either way. Converse manufacturing has been Asia-based since 2001, and nothing in Indian import records establishes current sourcing.
- Nov 2024First store opens in Mumbai, run by Bhaane
- Feb 2026Kolkata
- Jun 2026Bengaluru
Four stores in under two years, while the brand shrank 31% globally.
The models that matter
| Model | Year | What it changed |
|---|---|---|
| All Star (high) | 1917 / 1919 | The mass-produced canvas basketball shoe. Vulcanised sole, rubber toe cap, diamond outsole. Barely altered in a century |
| All Star (low) | 1957 | The moment the Chuck stopped being sportswear. Converse’s own history credits Californian beachgoers |
| One Star | 1971 or 1974 | Converse’s first leather All Star derivative. Reissued in 1993 and adopted wholesale by skateboarding and Seattle grunge |
| Jack Purcell | 1933 or 1935 | A badminton shoe, designed for B.F. Goodrich Canada by the world professional badminton champion. Converse only acquired it in 1972 |
| Pro Leather | 1976 | The leather performance flagship. Michael Jordan wore it in the 1982 NCAA final — for Converse, before Nike had him |
| Weapon | 1986 | “Choose Your Weapon”, built on Bird against Magic. The last time Converse won a basketball marketing war |
| Chuck 70 | 2013 | A premium reissue built to 1970s specification. See below, because the difference is smaller than the price gap suggests |
| Chuck Taylor All Star II | 2015 | The one serious attempt to make a Chuck comfortable — a Nike Lunarlon sockliner, padded collar, suede lining. Discontinued |
| Run Star Hike | Nike era | The exaggerated platform sole that became Converse’s biggest recent franchise outside the Chuck itself |
Two corrections worth carrying, because both are repeated wrongly. Jack Purcell was a Canadian badminton player, world professional champion from 1933 until 1945, and the shoe he designed in the mid-1930s belonged to B.F. Goodrich — Converse ended up with it in 1972 only because its then-owner Eltra bought Goodrich’s footwear division in the same year it bought Converse. And the Chuck Taylor All Star II was not a failure of nerve but a failure of market: it addressed every real criticism of the shoe and buyers did not want it. Converse revenue peaked two years after it launched and then fell for three straight years.
Chuck Taylor or Chuck 70? The difference nobody explains
On every Indian e-commerce site these two sit side by side with near-identical photography and near-identical names, separated by ₹1,600 to ₹2,100. Here is what the money actually buys.
That is the honest list. If you want the Chuck 70 for the cream toe cap and the heavier canvas, buy it — it looks better and it lasts longer. If you are buying it because you have been told it is a meaningfully better shoe, it is a better insole.
What Converse costs in India
Prices checked 21 August 2026. Method and its limits first, and this one matters more than usual: Converse publishes no Indian price list of its own that we could verify. Every Indian figure below is from an authorised retailer — Nykaa Fashion, Superkicks, AJIO and VegNonVeg, the last of which is owned by Bhaane, Converse’s own India partner. These are close to official pricing but they are not published MRP, and they may include markdown.
| Model | India (incl. GST) | India ex-GST | US list (ex tax) | US converted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chuck Taylor All Star, high | ₹4,799 | ₹4,067 | $65 | ₹6,203 |
| Chuck Taylor All Star, low | ₹4,299 | ₹3,643 | $60 | ₹5,726 |
| Chuck 70, high | ₹6,399 | ₹5,423 | $95 | ₹9,066 |
| Chuck 70, low | ₹5,499 | ₹4,660 | $90 | ₹8,589 |
| Run Star Hike | ₹6,999 | ₹5,931 | $115 | ₹10,974 |
| One Star 95 | ₹5,999 | ₹5,084 | No standard US list published | — |
Converse in India is 34% to 46% cheaper than in America, before tax on both sides — and 42% to 44% cheaper than Britain. That is the largest India-versus-America gap we have found on any brand, and it is the opposite of what the duty arithmetic predicts. An imported canvas sneaker pays 20% basic customs duty plus an 18.5% cess, 38.5% and none of it recoverable, before anyone’s margin.
Three caveats, all of which belong in the answer.
One. These are retailer prices, not MRP, and different Indian sellers quote ₹4,299 to ₹5,799 for the same silhouette. That spread is itself evidence that no single enforced price is visible to the buyer.
Two. Converse revenue fell 31% globally in the last fiscal year. The most likely explanation for the Indian discount is the same thing that produced the American discount: a brand clearing stock. Nykaa was showing one model at 30% off on the day we looked, and Converse’s own American site had the Run Star Hike listed at $115 and selling at $64.97.
Three. The Indian assortment is narrower than the American one. The BIS Quality Control Order on footwear, in force since 1 August 2024, requires an ISI mark under a licence held by the specific factory, which constrains which production lines can ship here at all.
So the accurate reading is not “Converse is generously priced in India.” It is: a brand in trouble is discounting everywhere, and India is getting the same discount without the duty being passed on. Enjoy it while it lasts.
The cheapest Chuck Taylor in the world is in India, and that is bad news rather than good.
What Converse actually gave the world
This is the strongest section in the audit, and it is not about engineering.
For fifty years the Chuck Taylor was simply what basketball players wore — the 1936 Olympics, both teams in the 1939 NCAA final, the hundred-point game. Then it stopped being a sports shoe and became something more unusual: the default footwear of every subculture that wanted to signal it was not trying.
The Ramones wore them because, as Tommy Ramone put it, in the sixties and seventies wearing sneakers outside a gym still read as “punky and snotty” — anti-establishment by default. Kurt Cobain wore them and drew on them in marker. Mark Arm of Mudhoney gave the most honest explanation anyone has: “it wasn’t really an aesthetic choice to wear Chuck Taylors; it’s just kind of what you did.” Ice Cube described gangsters buying Chucks at surplus stores because they looked right with khakis and a T-shirt. Blood and Crip sets used red and blue pairs as identifiers. Skaters wore them because they were cheap and they held up.
The Victoria and Albert Museum, which holds a pair, explains the appeal in three words: cost, comfort and customisation. That is the whole thesis. An engineered performance sneaker announces its engineering and therefore its brand. A canvas shoe with a rubber toe cap announces nothing. It was cheap enough to ruin, plain enough to draw on, and uniform enough that wearing it was not a statement about shoes. That is exactly why it could be adopted by people whose entire aesthetic position was refusing to participate in fashion.
The Smithsonian holds Cab Calloway’s pair. The insole is printed “CONVERSE COMFORT ARCH”, which brings us to the counterweight.
The honest problem: it is not a good shoe
Three named clinicians have said so on the record. The president of the American Academy of Podiatric Sports Medicine notes that patients are more likely to have foot pain when their shoes bend in the shank, and that the original Chuck’s flexibility “would not be ideal for someone walking for eight to 10 hours per day.” A spokesperson for the American Podiatric Medical Association called Chucks “a glorified sock without adequate support or stability.” A third described them as “inherently very flat shoes” offering “minimal arch support or cushioning.”
None of that is controversial and Converse has never seriously disputed it. It is a canvas upper on a flat vulcanised rubber sole with a bonded-in flat insole. It has no arch support because it was designed in 1917.
Here is the irony worth sitting with: the one model Converse built to answer the podiatrists is the one it discontinued. The Chuck Taylor All Star II arrived in 2015 with a Nike Lunarlon sockliner, a padded collar and a suede lining, at $70. It is gone. The market wanted the uncomfortable one.
If you are on your feet all day, do not buy Chucks. Buy something from Skechers or New Balance and keep the Chucks for four hours at a time.
Reputation and controversies
The trademark campaign Converse mostly lost. This is reported as a Converse victory almost everywhere and it was not.
The US International Trade Commission gave its final determination on 9 September 2020. It found Converse’s trade dress — the two midsole stripes, the toe cap, and the multi-layered toe bumper with its diamond and line patterns — valid, which is a real win. It then found no violation by Skechers, New Balance or Ash, holding that Converse had shown neither a likelihood of confusion nor injury. Only two defaulting respondents, who never showed up, were found to infringe. Converse got a general exclusion order, which is genuinely useful against anonymous importers.
Net position: a valid mark, a border order against counterfeiters, and defeat against every named brand it took on. The commercial objective failed.
Labour, and the number Nike published itself. In July 2011 the Associated Press interviewed dozens of workers at two Indonesian factories making Converse — a Pou Chen plant in Sukabumi and PT Amara Footwear outside Jakarta. What they described included supervisors throwing shoes at workers, slapping and kicking, workers made to stand in the sun as punishment, firings for taking sick leave, and wages around fifty cents an hour.
Nike acknowledged the abuse. But the damning figure came from Nike itself: nearly two-thirds of Converse factories failed to meet Nike’s own standards — eight years after Nike bought the brand. Nike argued its ability to intervene was limited by licence agreements predating the 2003 acquisition, a position critics found hard to accept from the largest buyer in the industry. That is the number to remember, and Nike is the source of it.
Environment. Converse Renew launched in 2019 using recycled PET, denim and cotton canvas. We could not verify recycled-content percentages or any third-party certification from a primary source, so we are not quoting any. We also found no greenwashing action, advertising ruling or false-advertising case against Converse — which is a finding of nothing found, not proof that nothing exists.
India. We found no Indian litigation or counterfeit enforcement by Converse.
Buying it in India: fakes, and the thing that is not a fake
Buy from converse.in, one of the four Bhaane-run Converse stores, VegNonVeg, Superkicks, or the brand-owned storefronts on Nykaa Fashion, AJIO, Myntra, Tata CLiQ and Amazon.
The counterfeit market here is open and unembarrassed. Indian replica storefronts sell “Converse first copy” as a product category — “first copy” being the standard local euphemism. On IndiaMART, B2B listings sold as Converse run from ₹295 to ₹4,100 a pair, with sellers concentrated in Agra, Delhi, Ghaziabad, Surat, Siliguri and Udaipur. A ₹295 “Converse” is six percent of the real price. A ₹1,500 one is thirty-one percent. Treat anything under about ₹3,500 from a non-authorised seller as counterfeit.
The tells, in the order to check them.
The serial number
There is a serial number on the label inside each tongue. It must match between the left and right shoe, and match the box. This is the single strongest test.
The ankle patch
On a high top it is white, with CONVERSE ALL STAR in red and the Chuck Taylor signature in navy, stitched evenly all the way round.
The tongue label
On a low top it is a rectangle, white on red, with ALL STAR in navy. The zig-zag stitching should run straight rather than crooked.
The toe cap finish
A standard Chuck’s toe cap is matte white; a Chuck 70’s is glossy off-white. Counterfeiters mix them up, and a cream toe cap on a shoe with the classic heel logo is internally inconsistent.
Glue and stitching
Excess glue at the toe cap and loose or irregular stitching are the most common failures on a fake. Look along the foxing tape in good light.
One tell specific to this shoe that is worth knowing: the standard Chuck’s toe cap is matte white and the Chuck 70’s is glossy off-white. Counterfeiters mix them up. A cream toe cap on a shoe with the classic heel logo and a flat bonded insole is internally inconsistent, and that inconsistency is the giveaway.
Now the part most Indian coverage gets wrong. A counterfeit copies Converse’s marks — the word, the star, the ankle patch. That is illegal everywhere. A legal lookalike copies only the shape: canvas upper, white rubber toe cap, contrasting foxing tape, vulcanised sole, no marks. That is a different thing, and the ITC’s own 2020 determination is the proof — Skechers, New Balance and Ash all sold Chuck-shaped shoes and all walked.
Which means Bata‘s Power and North Star, Campus and Liberty‘s Force 10 can lawfully sell you a white-toe-cap canvas sneaker, and they are not fakes. They are competitors. Power sneakers run ₹1,399 to ₹3,999 with most between ₹1,499 and ₹2,499, and Bata sells canvas slip-ons from ₹849. A genuine Chuck Taylor costs two to three times that, and by the podiatrists’ own account it buys no technical advantage whatsoever.
Common questions
Who owns Converse?
Nike, since 4 September 2003, for approximately $305 million. Nike reports Converse as a separate segment, so its revenue is public — $1.174 billion in the year to May 2026, down 31%.
Did Chuck Taylor design the Chuck Taylor?
No. The All Star launched in 1917; Taylor joined Converse in 1922 as a salesman and coach, and his signature went on the ankle patch about fifteen years after the shoe existed. He ran clinics, sold shoes and passed feedback to the factory. He is in the Basketball Hall of Fame as a contributor, not as a player, and is believed never to have received royalties.
What is the difference between a Chuck Taylor All Star and a Chuck 70?
A replaceable OrthoLite insole instead of a flat bonded one, heavier canvas, higher rubber sidewalls, a glossy off-white toe cap instead of a matte white one, and double stitching at the tongue and sides. It is a better-made version of the same shoe, not a different shoe.
Are Converse bad for your feet?
For long wear, yes, and podiatrists say so on the record — flat sole, minimal arch support, a shank that bends easily. One called them “a glorified sock.” They are fine for a few hours. The model Converse built to fix this, the Chuck Taylor All Star II with a Lunarlon sockliner, was discontinued.
Why is Converse cheaper in India than in America?
Strip the 18% GST out and Indian prices run 34% to 46% below US list before sales tax. The likeliest reason is discounting by a brand whose global revenue fell 31% last year, not Indian generosity. Note also that these are authorised-retailer prices — Converse’s Indian site does not publish an MRP we could check.
Is a Bata Power canvas shoe a fake Converse?
No. A fake carries Converse’s marks — the word, the star, the ankle patch. A canvas shoe with a white rubber toe cap and no Converse branding is a legal competitor. The US International Trade Commission held in 2020 that Converse’s trade dress is valid but that Skechers, New Balance and Ash did not infringe it. The silhouette is effectively free.
References
- Converse corporate history — the 1908 founding in Malden, the ten galoshes of 30 April 1909, canvas from 1910 to retain summer staff, the 1917 Non-Skid, the 1919 All Star, the 1957 low top, the One Star, the Jack Purcell, the Pro Leather, the Weapon and the 2013 Chuck 70
- Associated Press centenary report, 4 June 2008 — February 1908 founding, galoshes first, the All Star not gaining traction until the mid-1920s, 800 million pairs sold, the share price falling from $28 to 20 cents, and Michael Jordan’s 1985 Nike deal
- International Directory of Company Histories, Converse Inc — the 1929 bankruptcy, the Stone family, the full ownership chain from Eltra to Interco, the 1995 Apex One disaster, the 1998 sales collapse and market-share fall, and the Made in the USA positioning
- Mental Floss, who Chuck Taylor was — his 1901–1969 dates, the semi-pro career, the salesman role from 1922, the clinics and the yearbook, and the absence of royalties
- Deseret News profile — the barnstorming career to about 1930, life on the road, and the 1968 Hall of Fame date
- WBUR, interview with biographer Abe Aamidor — customers asking for “Chuck’s shoe” before the signature was added, the 1969 honour as a contributor, and the persona being lost behind the brand
- Abe Aamidor, Chuck Taylor, All Star, Indiana University Press — three years separating fact from fiction, and induction on the basis of promotion and clinics rather than a playing record
- Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame — Chuck Taylor’s hall-of-famer page
- Nike newsroom, the Chuck Taylor All Star history — galoshes and winter boots first, the 1910 canvas tennis shoe, and the 1917 All-American Basket-Ball Shoe
- Forbes, 22 January 2001 — the Chapter 11 filing, $202.1m of assets against $226.2m of debts, the plant closures and job cuts, and why Converse lost to Nike and Reebok
- Seattle Times / AP, 23 January 2001 — Lumberton, Mission and Reynosa closing by 31 March 2001, production moving to Asia, and Glenn Rupp’s “holding on longer than most”
- Nike 8-K, 9 July 2003 — the definitive agreement to acquire Converse for approximately $305 million in equity
- Nike SEC filing, September 2003 — completion on 4 September 2003, 100% of the equity for approximately $305 million
- Nike FY2026 Q4 results — Converse revenue $1,174m and EBIT $18m, down 31% and 93%, with “declines across all territories” and no management commentary
- Nike FY2024 Q4 results — the FY2023 peak of $2,427m revenue and $676m EBIT, and FY2024 at $2,082m
- Nike FY2022 Q4 results — FY2021 and FY2022 Converse revenue and EBIT
- Nike FY2025 Q4 results — FY2025 Converse revenue down 19%
- Nike FY2026 Q3 results — Converse quarterly revenue of $264m, down 35%, with no Converse commentary in management’s remarks
- Yahoo Finance, 14 February 2026 — Nike cutting jobs at Converse
- Yahoo Finance on Nike’s 8-K, 6 March 2026 — approximately $300 million of pre-tax restructuring charges filed under “Costs Associated With Exit or Disposal Activities”, and the analyst reading
- SGI Europe, April 2026 — Authentic Brands Group reported as a potential Converse buyer
- Shop Eat Surf, 1 April 2026 — Elliott Hill saying Converse will remain part of Nike
- Glossy — the 15-year revenue low, the recent collaborations and endorsements, and the analyst diagnosis
- Sneaker Freaker, the One Star — the 1974 dating from Converse’s own archive, the Suede Leather All Star origin, and the 1993 reissue into skate and grunge
- Ontario Heritage Trust, Jack Purcell — the Canadian badminton champion, world professional champion 1933–1945, and the 1935 shoe for B.F. Goodrich Canada
- Highsnobiety, the Weapon — the 1986 launch and the “Choose Your Weapon” campaign built on Bird against Magic
- NBC News, July 2015 — the Chuck Taylor All Star II at $70 with a Nike Lunarlon sockliner and padded collar
- Converse Chuck 70 product page — heavyweight canvas, OrthoLite cushioning, varnished off-white midsole and toe cap, thicker laces, and the $95 US list price
- Reviewed, Chuck 70 versus Chuck Taylor All Star — the replaceable OrthoLite insole against the bonded flat one, higher sidewalls, toe-cap colour and the extra stitching
- Converse US — Chuck Taylor All Star high top at $65, checked 21 August 2026
- Converse US, Run Star Hike — $115 list, showing $64.97 on 21 August 2026
- Converse UK — Chuck Taylor All Star high top at £65 including VAT, checked 21 August 2026
- Nykaa Fashion — Indian prices for the Chuck Taylor All Star, Chuck 70 and Run Star Hike, checked 21 August 2026
- Superkicks — the Indian price spread across the Converse catalogue, including the One Star 95, checked 21 August 2026
- VegNonVeg — Bhaane-owned retailer prices for the Chuck 70 and Chuck Taylor lines, checked 21 August 2026
- Indian Retailer, November 2024 — Converse’s first Indian exclusive brand outlet on Linking Road, Mumbai, with Bhaane Group
- FashionNetwork, February 2026 — the Kolkata store at South City Mall
- Indian Retailer, June 2026 — the Bengaluru flagship and the India launch of Converse By You
- DFU Publications, 29 April 2026 — the Chennai store, the fifteen-plus stores by 2027 target, and the Indian campaign strategy
- NBA press release, November 2023 — Bhaane described as an India and Southeast Asia retailer and strategic partner to Nike and Converse, led by Anand Ahuja
- Nike India Private Limited, registry record — incorporation 17 August 2004 in Bengaluru, with no mention of Converse
- SSIPL Group milestones — the Nike licence from 1995 and the sale of the Nike retail arm in 2019, with no mention of Converse
- ITC final determination, 9 September 2020 — trade dress found valid, no violation by Skechers, New Balance or Ash, and the general exclusion order
- ArentFox Schiff analysis — the same reading of the ITC outcome: protectable but not infringed
- Associated Press, 14 July 2011 — the Sukabumi and PT Amara accounts, wages around fifty cents an hour, and Nike’s admission that nearly two-thirds of Converse factories failed its standards
- Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Converse — the ongoing human rights record
- Dazed, the Chuck Taylor’s subcultural legacy — Tommy Ramone, Mark Arm and Ice Cube on why the shoe was adopted
- Victoria and Albert Museum — a pair of Chuck Taylor All Star boots, and the museum’s explanation of the appeal as cost, comfort and customisation
- Smithsonian NMAAHC — Cab Calloway’s Chuck Taylor All Stars, with the “CONVERSE COMFORT ARCH” insole
- HuffPost, three podiatrists on Chuck Taylors — the shank flexibility warning, “a glorified sock without adequate support or stability”, and the minimal arch support finding
- LegitGrails authentication guide — the ankle patch, tongue label, matching serial numbers, stitching, toe cap and outsole tells
- IndiaMART — B2B “Converse” listings from ₹295 to ₹4,100 a pair, checked 21 August 2026
- Bata Power — sneakers from ₹1,399 to ₹3,999, mostly ₹1,499 to ₹2,499
How we research and verify brand audits:
our methodology.
Converse sells the best story in footwear attached to one of the worst shoes, and for a hundred years that was a winning combination. The Chuck Taylor is flat, unsupportive and essentially unchanged since 1917, and none of that has ever been the point. It was cheap, plain and anonymous, and that is precisely why punk, grunge, hip-hop and skateboarding all adopted it — you cannot signal indifference to fashion in a shoe that announces its engineering.
What has gone wrong is that Nike has never found a second thing for Converse to be. Revenue halved in three years, operating profit is down 97%, jobs have been cut, and the parent is fielding questions about selling it while insisting it is not for sale. The collaborations were good and they did not work. The one genuinely improved Chuck was discontinued for want of buyers.
For Indian buyers the practical position is unusually clear. Converse here is a third cheaper than in America before tax, which is real, and is most likely a symptom of a brand clearing stock rather than a strategy. If you want the object — and it is a good object, the best-looking cheap shoe ever made — this is a good moment to buy one. Just do not confuse the Chuck 70 premium with a better shoe, do not wear them for a ten-hour day, and understand that the ₹1,500 canvas sneaker from Power sitting next to it is a legal competitor rather than a fake.
The most culturally important shoe ever made, sold by a company that has never worked out what else to sell.
