“One cannot do business knowing that human rights are not respected in a country.”

On June 11, the most important event for football fans began – the World Cup. FIFA expects the 2026 World Cup to become the most lucrative in history, generating around 13 billion dollars in income. However, this year’s tournament has also been accompanied by significant criticism, primarily due to the fact that it is being held, among other places, in the United States.

 Hannes Kühn // photo - IG BCE

Only recently, disturbing images of raids on migrants and violent crackdowns on protesters circulated online, and already today American cities are expected to become places of celebration and unity for fans from around the world. Yet not all football fans can turn a blind eye to this. And not everyone will be able to enter the United States easily in order to watch their team’s matches live.

At the end of last year, Donald Trump imposed a complete entry ban on citizens of many countries, including, for example, Iran and Haiti – participants in this year’s World Cup. Until the very last moment, it was unclear whether the Iranian national team would take part in the tournament in connection with the U.S. war in the Middle East, and a referee from Somalia was denied entry to the United States just a few days before the start of the tournament – presumably because of his nationality.

Another important aspect of this event is the sportswear companies. For them, the FIFA World Cup is the most significant (and, of course, the most profitable) event. While teams compete on the football field, sports brands are engaged in their own race – for the right to supply the kits and to shine on the chests of the world’s best footballers.

Among the 48 teams this year, Adidas is in the lead (contracts with 14 teams). It is followed by Nike (12 teams), and Puma (11). These are not just numbers, but an important factor for success: the more contracts a brand has, the more fans buy jerseys from that manufacturer.

Millions of people wear clothing and shoes from famous sports brands, yet only a few know who produces these products, where, and under what conditions.

On this topic, Gazetaby spoke with Hannes Kühn, the international secretary of the German Mining, Chemical and Energy Industrial Union (IGBCE).

— The German Football Association announced that from 2027 onwards, Nike will become the supplier of the national team. The reason: the company offered a sponsorship deal worth twice as much as Adidas’s offer – 100 million euros.

After 70 years of cooperation between the German company and the national team, Nike took away a key client from its competitor. For football fans in Germany, Adidas kits are part of football history and the identity of the national team, which is why it is still difficult to imagine the team without the traditional “three stripes.”

— Yes, that is difficult to imagine, but people will probably have to get used to it. The national team is indeed strongly associated with Adidas, which is logical since it is a German manufacturer. So, this is not only about the size of the contract, but also about a tradition that has developed over decades. However, the decision was made in favor of the more attractive offer from the American manufacturer.

— Recently, Adidas also surprised fans this year with the price of the German national team jerseys. German media report that the price for an adult jersey starts at 100 euros, and CDU politicians have already criticized the 75-euro price for a children’s jersey.

— Yes, jersey prices rise every year, but this time such a price really surprised many. However, it is said that one should not expect prices to fall once Nike becomes the sponsor. Prices for their products for other national teams are already higher than those of Adidas.

— There are data showing that workers who produce these products – mainly in Southeast Asian countries – receive only about 1 euro out of the 100 euros per jersey. The German Football Association receives 6–7 euros for selling the license. Adidas itself earns around 20 euros per jersey, while the remaining portion of the price consists of taxes, retail margins, and transportation costs.

The fact remains: the workers who produce the jerseys receive only a tiny share of the final price. This means that even multiplying their wages several times over would hardly affect the price of the final product. Is there still any Adidas production in Germany?

— Yes, in Scheinfeld, shoes for football players are produced, particularly on an individual custom basis. This is the only production site that Adidas is still very proud of. Slightly fewer than 300 people work there. My union is not a sectoral union for the textile industry, but we represent the leather industry. Since Adidas was originally a footwear company, we are still responsible for it.

The countries in which Adidas production facilities are located are mainly in Asia. These include Indonesia, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, India, Pakistan, and Turkey. We generally maintain contact with all of these unions.

The biggest problem is that Adidas does not produce directly but organizes production through suppliers. For example, for a specific shoe line or a textile line, and thus they are independent companies. However, the workers are not directly employed by Adidas. And when problems arise, usually only the supplier is held responsible.

We criticize the fact that the company offers only limited possibilities for filing complaints and for their further processing. Furthermore, the principles of worker participation and collective bargaining agreements are not implemented everywhere as they should be.

Adidas has adopted a code of conduct in which the company outlines how it intends to uphold human rights and trade union rights in its supply chain. And it intends to adhere to this.

But one thing is what is written down on paper, and another is how it functions in reality. And in everything related to the submission of complaints by workers or trade unions, we see that there is still room for improvement.

— Adidas has often been criticized for untransparent supply chains and labor conditions, including in Asian countries. Has anything changed over the past years or decades?

— Yes, for example thanks to the UN Guiding Principles for multinational enterprises, which require greater attention to be paid to supply chains.

At the same time, however, Adidas continues to produce in Myanmar. The country is under the rule of a military junta, and there can be no talk of rights being respected there. Adidas has been evading responsibility for many years. We have repeatedly publicly criticized the company for this. Nevertheless, it believes that production can continue there. We see it differently.

We have repeatedly called on Adidas to provide explanations and to end its activities in that Myanmar, but to this day this has not happened.

Adidas keeps saying that otherwise the situation for people would be even worse and that the company has obligations towards the workers employed at supplier factories. Of course, we have often said that such practices must not continue, that human rights must be upheld, and above all trade union rights. One must not conduct business with suppliers if one knows that these rights are not respected. And the pressure has come not only from trade unions, but also from the public, NGOs, human rights organizations, and environmental organizations, all of whom have done a great deal.

Trade unions in Germany, including the IGBCE, have fought politically over many years and decades for stricter enforcement of human rights in the supply chains of global corporations. The Supply Chain Act, which, like European legislation, is currently under strong pressure, is in a sense a final product. In reality, however, we have progressed much further thanks to many other steps.

Now we are seeing a rollback on this issue. Because it is now almost only about reporting obligations and not about how to actually improve the human rights situation. And that is a serious problem. For many years, we were moving toward improving the situation, and now all of this is somehow being reversed.

— Last year, Adidas withdrew from the collective agreement in Germany. Why did this happen, and how does the company explain this step?

— Adidas’s official version is that it wanted to maintain flexibility for its employees, and that the IGBCE collective agreement system, in its previous form, allegedly did not provide sufficient flexibility.

However, this does not correspond to how Adidas acted publicly. The company withdrew from the collective agreement without prior notice and converted its membership in the employers’ association into one without collective bargaining obligations. This means it is no longer required to implement the collective agreement with the union that was negotiated last year in the shoe and leather industry.

We assume that Adidas primarily wanted to free itself from collective bargaining obligations. For example, the IGBCE demanded advantages exclusively for union members, as exist in the chemical industry. At the same time, Adidas says at the international level that it is willing to cooperate and engage in dialogue.

— How did German society react? And politicians?

— Unfortunately, far too weakly so far. Adidas is one of the DAX 40 companies, and it is not acceptable that such a corporation withdraws from collective agreements. Moreover, this is an attack on the model of social partnership in Germany.

— The IGBCE is currently organizing a campaign in Asian countries together with IndustriALL. What are the goals of this campaign?

— We want to oblige multinational corporations to actually comply with their commitments in the supply chain. Last year, at the IndustriALL Congress, we agreed to intensify this work because we wanted to see how the commitments Adidas makes are being implemented and to understand what can be improved.

It became clear that there is scope to improve complaint mechanisms and the situation regarding production in individual countries. And of course, through this we also tried to hold Adidas accountable for its actions in Germany. Because if the company recognizes collective agreements in Cambodia, Indonesia, India, or Pakistan, but not in Germany, then that is inconsistent. One cannot say: we cooperate wonderfully everywhere, most suppliers have collective agreements, that is normal there—but here in Germany we do not do that.

— More and more companies in Germany, which is undoubtedly considered a model of successful social partnership for many countries, are withdrawing from collective agreements. Why is this happening now?

— This is also completely incomprehensible to us, because social partnership proves particularly effective in times of crisis. It is precisely then that it can find instruments, means, and ways to overcome difficulties. It has always been a model element of the German system.

At the moment, the following is happening: due to global overcapacity in industry and worldwide competition, companies are under strong pressure. And in some cases, they respond with measures that, in our view, are entirely antisocial. For example, they say: let us save on wages.

We see that there is a problem in how companies and employers’ associations behave. More and more employers’ associations are offering membership without collective bargaining obligations. This is effectively an attack on their own operating model. Because collective agreements create equal competitive conditions for the companies themselves. But they are not doing that and are de facto allowing this instrument to be taken out of their own hands.

From our point of view, this will not work in the long term. Because if you offer models that are unattractive to workers, you should not be surprised in the end that you cannot find good skilled workers.

Many companies and employers’ associations act unilaterally, make decisions on their own, and terminate compromise and partnership. From our point of view, this is completely unproductive—but that is exactly what is happening now, and we must oppose it.

Yauheni Dzenisenka

Read in ger and rus