In a fiery statement shared on social media, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has sharply criticized global sportswear brand Nike Inc., accusing the company of profiting off what he described as “poverty wages” for factory workers in its overseas supply chain. The remarks have reignited national debate over global labor practices, wage inequality, and corporate ethics.
A Direct Accusation: Poverty Wages in Billion-Dollar Business
Senator Sanders, a long-time advocate for workers’ rights and income equality, took to X (formerly Twitter) to share a personal account from his meeting with a Nike factory worker named Dinar. According to Sanders, Dinar sews 222 labels per hour and receives a monthly wage of approximately $202—a stark contrast to the billions in annual revenue the company reports.
“Nike made $23 billion last year. Its founder is worth $35 billion. But Nike pays just dollars a day to the workers who make its products. This is corporate greed at its worst,” Sanders posted.
While Sanders cited $23 billion in earnings, official data from Nike’s 2024 financial statements show that the company reported $51.4 billion in revenue and $5.7 billion in net income. Nike’s founder, Phil Knight, holds a net worth estimated at $31.2 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
Regulatory and Ethical Scrutiny Grows
Sanders’ comments have intensified scrutiny over Nike’s manufacturing practices, particularly in Vietnam, Indonesia, and China—regions that produce the majority of the company’s goods. Labor advocacy organizations have repeatedly raised concerns about low wages, unsafe conditions, and lack of union protections in these regions.
Bernie Sanders Warns of Billionaire Media Takeover: ‘This Is What Oligarchy Looks Like
The senator’s remarks come amid broader discussions in the U.S. on tariff policies and the offshoring of manufacturing jobs. Two months earlier, President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs targeted companies like Nike, which depend on foreign manufacturing to maintain profit margins.
Economic experts say that Sanders‘ intervention could pressure large multinational corporations to re-examine their wage structures and ethical sourcing commitments.
Nike’s Position and Market Reaction
As of now, Nike has not issued an official response to Sanders’ comments. However, the company has previously stated that it adheres to labor laws in the countries where it operates and monitors supply chain conditions through audits and third-party reviews.
Despite these assurances, Nike’s stock has been under pressure. Shares are down 14.93% year-to-date, and on Thursday, they closed at $62.67, with an additional 2.03% drop after hours. Analysts point to ongoing trade tensions and weakening global demand as contributing factors, alongside concerns over brand reputation.
Labor Advocacy and Global Supply Chains
The conversation around supply chains, wages, and ethical responsibility is not new. Organizations like Fair Labor Association (FLA) and Clean Clothes Campaign have long advocated for “living wages” in global apparel production. Sanders’ intervention underscores a broader trend: consumers and policymakers alike are increasingly holding companies accountable for labor conditions in foreign factories.
How Bernie Sanders and AOC Are Winning Back Disillusioned Voters in a Bold Rebirth
In recent years, Nike has increased its focus on sustainability, digital transformation, and direct-to-consumer sales. However, experts suggest that reputational risk tied to labor practices could affect brand loyalty, especially among younger, more socially conscious consumers.
Broader Implications
Sanders’ criticism also aligns with his broader political platform of challenging income inequality, billionaire wealth accumulation, and corporate lobbying power. His ongoing warnings about “authoritarianism” and economic injustice tie together domestic policy, global labor issues, and the ethics of multinational capitalism.
While Sanders does not hold legislative authority over private corporations, his platform amplifies these issues on the national stage and has the potential to influence legislation, consumer behavior, and investor sentiment.