Footwear Manufacturing in the United States (NAICS 316210)

A Histometrics industry primer for public-market and private investors

---

1. Overview

Footwear manufacturing is the business of physically making shoes, boots, sandals, and slippers — cutting, molding, stitching, and assembling leather, rubber, textiles, and foam into finished pairs. In the United States it is a small, specialized survivor of what was once a major industry. Government statisticians count just 175 firms and about 8,781 workers making roughly $1.6 billion of product a year [1][2]. That is because roughly 99% of the shoes Americans buy are now imported — mostly from Vietnam, China, and Indonesia [3][4].

Why an investor should still care: the manufacturing code is tiny, but the American footwear economy is enormous. U.S. consumers buy about 2.0 billion pairs a year, and footwear imports ran $27.3 billion at customs value in 2024 [3][5]. The money largely accrues to brand-owners, designers, and retailers — who sit in other industry codes — rather than to domestic factories. So there are two very different questions for an investor: (a) how to get exposure to footwear demand (mostly through global brand companies), and (b) whether the thin base of U.S. production is poised to grow (a reshoring, tariff, and defense-procurement story).

• Public-market ways in: shares of global brand-owners and marketers (Nike, Deckers, Crocs, Steve Madden, Wolverine Worldwide, Birkenstock, On) — almost none of which manufacture in the U.S. — plus a couple of small caps that genuinely run American factories (Rocky Brands, Caleres).
• Private ways in: privately held domestic manufacturers (New Balance, San Antonio Shoemakers, Red Wing, Thorogood, Okabashi), private-equity platforms (3G Capital now owns Skechers), and defense-supply contractors that make military boots.

---

2. What it is and how it's structured

Scope. NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) code 316210 covers establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing footwear — athletic shoes, dress and casual shoes for men, women and children, work and safety boots, sandals, slippers, and house shoes [6]. It is defined by the act of production, not by owning a brand or selling shoes.

What it excludes (this is the crux for investors):

• Leather and hide tanning is NAICS 316110 — the upstream material, not the shoe.
• Orthopedic extension footwear is pulled out into NAICS 339113 (Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing) [6].
• Leather shoe soles and cut stock are classified with other leather and allied products rather than finished footwear.
• Footwear wholesaling/importing is NAICS 424340 — this is where a company that designs and imports shoes but makes none domestically is typically counted.
• Shoe stores (retail) are NAICS 458210.
• Corporate brand headquarters that only design and market are usually classified under wholesale or management, not manufacturing.

That last point explains an apparent paradox: Nike, the world's largest footwear company, is not in NAICS 316210, because it does not run U.S. shoe factories — its domestic footprint is design, marketing, distribution, and import. The federal manufacturing code captures only the physical American factories that remain.

Operating model. A conventional shoe passes through cutting, fitting and stitching the upper, lasting it over a foot-shaped form, attaching the sole by cementing, sewing or molding, finishing, inspection, packing and warehousing. OSHA identifies cutting, sewing, gluing, stitching, repetitive-motion injuries and machine guarding as characteristic manufacturing hazards [7]. Production planning is complicated by many sizes and widths, seasonal collections, short product lives and retailer delivery windows. Yue Yuen, a large global OEM, reports that normal manufacturing orders take about 10–12 weeks, while customers increasingly request 30–45-day lead times [8].

Ownership mix. The domestic manufacturing base is fragmented and largely private: family- and founder-owned makers (San Antonio Shoemakers, Okabashi, Red Wing), employee-owned makers (Weinbrenner/Thorogood), one large private athletic maker with a U.S. line (New Balance), and a small number of publicly traded owners with real domestic plants (Rocky Brands, Caleres). The Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America's domestic-production council names Red Wing, Allen Edmonds and H.H. Brown among significant producers [9]. Concentration is low: the four largest firms account for just 36.6% of industry receipts and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI, a standard 0–10,000 concentration gauge) is only 523 — well inside the range regulators call "unconcentrated" [2].

---

3. How big it is

Our ground-truth federal figures for NAICS 316210:

For context, private analysts estimate industry revenue closer to $1.9 billion in 2024 as domestic output ticked up from a low base [12]; treat that as an estimate, not a federal count.

The "undercount" here runs in reverse. In many industries federal business statistics understate activity because it is dominated by tiny sole proprietors or by government. Footwear manufacturing is the opposite case: the NAICS 316210 numbers are essentially accurate for U.S. factories, but they capture only a sliver of the money and jobs tied to footwear in America. The larger economic mass — design, marketing, importing, wholesaling, and retail — sits in adjacent codes (424340, 458210) and abroad. About 99% of shoes sold in the U.S. are imported; only roughly 25 million of the ~2.0 billion pairs sold each year are made domestically [3][4]. (A USITC consumption measure placed the import share at 95.9% in 2021 using different methodology [13].) So the small federal manufacturing figure is not a measurement error — it reflects a genuine, near-complete offshoring of production.

---

4. The investable universe

There is no large publicly traded pure-play U.S. footwear manufacturer. The names investors reach for are global brand-owners that source overseas; a handful run real domestic factories, and the biggest American producer of "Made in USA" athletic shoes is private.

Public brand-owners and marketers (mostly import; not in NAICS 316210):

Formerly public / newly private: Skechers U.S.A. was taken private by 3G Capital on September 12, 2025 in a ~$9.4 billion deal and no longer trades [19][20].

Foreign OEM exposure: Investors willing to buy foreign securities can obtain more direct OEM exposure through Taiwan-listed Pou Chen and its Hong Kong-listed subsidiary Yue Yuen. Pou Chen describes itself as the world's largest branded athletic and casual footwear OEM/ODM and identifies Nike, Adidas, ASICS, New Balance and Salomon as customers [21]. That is genuine manufacturing exposure, but it is overseas and therefore outside U.S. NAICS output.

Major private / other domestic makers (the real NAICS 316210 base):

• New Balance — the standout U.S. producer, with five New England factories (Maine, Massachusetts, and a New Hampshire plant opening 2026) plus one UK factory, making over 4 million pairs a year and employing ~1,300 workers; its "MADE in USA" line requires ≥70% domestic value, though this represents only a limited portion of its U.S. sales [22][23][24].
• San Antonio Shoemakers (SAS) — Texas, fully U.S.-made comfort footwear (private).
• Red Wing Shoe Company — Minnesota work boots; says its plants make hundreds of thousands of pairs of safety and heritage footwear annually and is expanding Arkansas operations (private) [25].
• Weinbrenner/Thorogood — Wisconsin, employee-owned, Berry-compliant.
• Okabashi — Georgia, injection-molded sandals (private).
• Danner — Oregon boots (owned by Japan's ABC-Mart via LaCrosse Footwear).

Takeaway: to own "footwear," public investors buy global brand companies; to own U.S. manufacturing specifically, the cleanest listed proxies are Rocky Brands and Caleres, and the rest is private. The most common analytical error is to describe Nike, Crocs or the total U.S. shoe market as "NAICS 316210" — U.S. footwear consumption is a very large, import-led brand and distribution market, while NAICS 316210 is a small residual domestic manufacturing base concentrated in specialized niches.

---

5. How the money works

Footwear is a consumer-cyclical manufacturing business, so owners make money the way manufacturers do — but the U.S. survivors play a very different game from the offshore giants.

Unit economics. Revenue is pairs sold × average price per pair. The largest cost is materials (leather, rubber, foam/EVA, textiles, adhesives, hardware); the second is direct labor. Common inputs include natural and synthetic rubber, plastic compounds, foam cushioning, natural and synthetic leather, nylon, polyester, natural-fiber textiles, polyurethane films, adhesives, hardware and packaging. Gross margin is revenue minus those production costs; the key operating levers are capacity utilization (fixed factory costs spread over more pairs), input-cost management, and labor productivity/automation.

OEM benchmark. Yue Yuen provides a large-scale OEM cost benchmark (from foreign factories, not U.S. NAICS averages). Its 2025 manufacturing business generated $5.65 billion of revenue and an 18.2% gross margin. Materials represented 43.4% of manufacturing cost of goods sold, while direct labor and production overhead represented 56.6%. Margin fell because of uneven factory loading, below-target line efficiency, higher wages and capacity ramp-up [8].

Why the U.S. base cannot win on cost — and how it survives anyway. American wages, plus environmental and labor standards, make a domestically made pair structurally more expensive than one from Vietnam or Indonesia. Surviving U.S. manufacturers therefore don't compete on price; they compete on four protected or premium niches:

1. Mandated demand. The Berry Amendment requires the Department of Defense to buy wholly American-made boots and textiles, creating a guaranteed domestic market that imports cannot serve (see §7). This is Rocky Brands' and Thorogood's edge.
2. Heritage / "Made in USA" premium. New Balance, Allen Edmonds, and Red Wing charge a price premium for domestic craftsmanship, which supports the higher cost base.
3. Speed and replenishment. Domestic factories can restock a U.S. retailer far faster than an ocean supply chain, valuable for fast-turning or hard-to-forecast styles.
4. Comfort, safety, and specialty — orthopedic-adjacent comfort (SAS), industrial safety boots, and injection-molded niches.

Contract manufacturing margins. Rocky Brands illustrates the economics across segments. Its 2025 contract-manufacturing segment (including U.S. military and private-label work) earned only a 4.8% gross margin, down from 11.9%, which management attributed to reduced scale economies at the Puerto Rico plant. In contrast, Rocky's wholesale margin was 39.1% and retail margin was 47.8% [18]. The value sits in brand and distribution, not factory operations.

For the brand-owners (the import model), the economics are a landed-cost-plus-brand-margin game rather than a factory-utilization game. They contract manufacturing in Asia, so the swing variables are sourcing cost, tariffs and freight (which set landed cost), and brand pricing power (which sets how much of a cost increase can be passed to consumers). Athletic and premium brands run gross margins in the roughly 45–60% range; the durable value is the brand, not the plant. Nike's fiscal 2025 filing shows four manufacturers supplied about 59% of its footwear [14].

Cyclicality. Shoes are a discretionary purchase with a replacement cycle, so volumes soften in downturns and when consumers trade down — but footwear is more defensive than apparel because shoes wear out and must be replaced. Working capital is important because firms commit to materials, sizes and seasonal inventory well before demand is known. Unsold sizes and colors are difficult to redeploy and often require markdowns.

---

6. What drives demand

• Consumer discretionary spending and confidence — the master cycle for a replacement-driven category. U.S. consumer units spent an average of $461 on footwear in 2024 [26].
• Population and replacement cadence — Americans import an average of about 6.3 pairs per person per year, a steady baseline [3].
• Fashion and athleisure trends — the multi-year shift toward sneakers, "dad shoes," and comfort brands (HOKA, On, Crocs) has reshaped demand and winners.
• Channel shift to e-commerce — direct-to-consumer economics favor brand-owners over wholesale.
• Military and government procurement budgets — the demand floor for Berry-compliant domestic makers; potential expansion via pending legislation (see §7).
• Trade policy and relative pricing — tariffs that raise the price of imports can, at the margin, shift demand toward domestic or nearshore production.
• Seasonality — work and military boots can be steadier than fashion footwear, while outdoor, winter and western products can be highly seasonal. Rocky says its weather-oriented mix produces highest sales in the final two quarters and highest inventory in the second and third quarters [18].

Pandemic cyclicality. The pandemic demonstrated the category's sensitivity to macro disruption. U.S. footwear imports fell $6.4 billion, or 23.7%, to $20.7 billion in 2020 as stores and factories closed and demand weakened [27]. Imports then rose $6.5 billion, or 31.4%, to $27.2 billion in 2021 as reopening and pent-up demand lifted consumer footwear spending [13].

---

7. Regulation

Footwear is one of the most trade-exposed and tariff-sensitive consumer categories in the country.

• Tariffs (import duties). Footwear already carries some of the highest "most-favored-nation" duty rates in the U.S. tariff schedule (many lines in the double digits). On top of that, 2025 policy piled on more: a flat 20% tariff on most Vietnamese goods (effective August 7, 2025), a ~30% temporary baseline plus Section 301 duties on Chinese footwear, and a punitive 40% rate on goods transshipped through Vietnam [28]. All 442 footwear-specific tariff-exclusion requests filed with the U.S. Trade Representative were denied [28]. Because Vietnam and China together supply the majority of U.S. shoes, these duties raise landed costs across the industry [4][28].
• The Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. §2533a). A 1941 law requiring the Department of Defense to buy wholly American-made clothing, textiles, and footwear. It is the single most important regulation for the domestic manufacturing base, guaranteeing a home market for combat and work boots [29].
• Pending expansion — the BOOTS Act. Bipartisan legislation ("Better Outfitting Our Troops") would close a loophole and require all combat boots worn with the uniform to be Berry-compliant; the Defense Logistics Agency has also weighed sourcing up to ~250,000 pairs of American-made running shoes a year for recruits [29][30]. If enacted, this would be a direct tailwind for domestic producers — a forward-looking possibility, not a done deal.
• "Made in USA" labeling. The Federal Trade Commission enforces an "all or virtually all" standard for unqualified Made-in-USA claims; domestic assembly of imported uppers or soles may support only a qualified claim. Producers using partial-content lines (e.g., New Balance's ≥70% domestic-value threshold) label them as qualified claims [22][31].
• Children's footwear safety. Children's footwear must comply with applicable lead and certification requirements. CPSC specifically says ordinary children's shoes are not treated as children's toys or child-care articles for the phthalates rule [32].
• Product safety and labor/environmental rules — Consumer Product Safety Commission requirements, plus U.S. workplace and environmental standards that add to domestic cost.

---

8. Competitive dynamics and consolidation

Two structures coexist. At the brand level, the global industry is highly concentrated and consolidating: Nike alone books more revenue than dozens of rivals combined, and 2025 brought a wave of deals — 3G Capital took Skechers private for ~$9.4 billion, and Dick's Sporting Goods bought retailer Foot Locker for ~$2.5 billion [19][33]. Scale in sourcing, marketing, and distribution is the moat.

At the domestic manufacturing level, the picture is the opposite: fragmented and unconcentrated (HHI 523, CR4 just 36.6%) [2], with survival tied to niche protection rather than scale. Offshoring is essentially complete — the competitive battle for volume was lost decades ago — so the remaining domestic players compete less with each other than with the ever-present option of importing.

Sourcing diversification within Asia. U.S. general footwear imports totaled $27.3 billion at customs value in 2024. China supplied $9.8 billion (35.8%), Vietnam $8.8 billion (32.4%), Indonesia $2.5 billion (9.3%), and Italy $1.9 billion (7.0%) [5]. China's share was 57.8% in 2016 [27]. The evidence supports "China-plus-one" sourcing toward Vietnam, Indonesia and Cambodia much more strongly than it supports a mass return to U.S. factories.

The interesting forward question is whether tariffs, reshoring incentives, and defense mandates can slow or reverse the offshoring, and whether automation can finally narrow the labor-cost gap enough to expand the domestic base. Automation can improve cutting, molding and material handling, but flexible upper assembly and finishing remain difficult to automate completely.

---

9. Risks

• Import competition and structural cost disadvantage — the defining risk; domestic pairs cost more to make, permanently.
• Tariff volatility cuts both ways — duties protect finished domestic shoes, but even U.S. factories import leather, components, and machinery, so tariffs and trade disruptions also raise their input costs. Policy is unpredictable and can change abruptly [28].
• Policy dependence — the healthiest domestic niche (military boots) depends on the Berry Amendment; any weakening, or failure to expand it, removes a demand floor [29].
• Input-cost inflation — leather, rubber, and petroleum-based foam prices feed directly into margin. Leather remains an input but is no longer an adequate proxy for the whole industry as synthetic leather, mesh, molded foam and rubber reduce the link between footwear economics and U.S. cattle markets.
• Consumer cyclicality and trade-down — discretionary spending falls in downturns and shifts toward cheaper (usually imported) options.
• Fashion risk — a category built on trends; a missed cycle can strand inventory.
• Labor and skills scarcity — shoemaking is craft-intensive, and the U.S. skilled-labor pool has shrunk with the industry. Domestic shoemaking depends on sewing, lasting, welting, finishing and repairable-construction skills that are not quickly recreated.
• Automation capex risk — the reshoring thesis depends on expensive, unproven-at-scale automation delivering competitive costs.
• Supply chain and compliance risks — overseas supply chains add forced-labor, wage, factory-safety, traceability and customs-detention risk.

---

10. How to invest, and the outlook

Public-market routes. There is no large listed U.S. footwear-manufacturing pure play. Practical exposure comes in two forms:

• Footwear demand, broadly: global brand-owners — Nike (NKE), Deckers (DECK), Crocs (CROX), Steven Madden (SHOO), Wolverine World Wide (WWW), Birkenstock (BIRK), On (ONON), Weyco (WEYS). These are consumer-brand and sourcing stories, not U.S.-production stories, and their key valuation drivers (brand momentum, gross margin, tariff pass-through) belong to those sections above.
• Actual U.S. production: the cleanest small-cap proxies are Rocky Brands (RCKY) — Berry-compliant boots made in Puerto Rico, with additional production in the Dominican Republic and China — and Caleres (CAL), which still makes some Allen Edmonds domestically. Both are small, cyclical, and thinly followed. Even at Rocky, 2025 contract-manufacturing sales were only $12.5 million out of $482 million of total company sales [18].

Private routes. This is where most genuine U.S. footwear manufacturing lives: New Balance (private, the largest domestic athletic producer), San Antonio Shoemakers, Red Wing, Weinbrenner/Thorogood, and Okabashi; private-equity platforms (3G Capital's Skechers); and defense-supply contracting, where Berry-compliant boot makers hold guaranteed government demand. Private investors can also play the reshoring theme through automation and nearshoring (Mexico) suppliers, as well as specialized sole, last, leather, molding or automation suppliers. Any private-market underwriting should separate factory EBITDA from brand/IP, wholesale, e-commerce and retail earnings, and should diligence domestic-content claims, customer concentration, government-contract eligibility, workforce succession, component origin and the replacement cost of specialized machinery.

Near-term drivers to watch (forward-looking).

1. Tariffs. Sustained high duties on Vietnamese and Chinese footwear raise import costs and could tilt sourcing toward domestic and nearshore production — the strongest structural tailwind the domestic base has had in decades [28].
2. The BOOTS Act and defense procurement. Passage would add a meaningful, protected demand stream for U.S. makers [29][30].
3. Automation. Whether domestic producers can automate enough to close the labor-cost gap is the swing factor for any real reshoring.
4. Consumer health. As a discretionary, replacement-driven category, footwear volumes track consumer spending closely.

Bottom line. U.S. footwear manufacturing is a small, resilient niche living on protected demand and premium positioning inside a giant, import-dominated consumer market. The realistic base case is a modestly growing domestic footprint from a ~1% starting share, contingent on tariffs staying high, defense mandates expanding, and automation working. For most investors, "footwear" is a global-brand investment; "U.S. footwear manufacturing" is a smaller, policy-driven, largely private thesis with a couple of listed toeholds.

---

Sources

1. U.S. Census Bureau, "County Business Patterns (CBP), 2023 — NAICS 316210 Footwear Manufacturing" (2023). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html
2. U.S. Census Bureau, "2022 Economic Census — Concentration Ratios / Firm Statistics, NAICS 316210" (2022). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census.html
3. Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America (FDRA), "Footwear industry facts / U.S. footwear imports and consumption" (2024–2025). https://fdra.org/
4. KoalaGains / Eightx, "Footwear Tariff Updates and Import Tracker: where U.S. shoes come from and duty costs" (2025–2026). https://eightx.co/blog/footwear-import-tariff-tracker-2026
5. U.S. International Trade Commission, "Footwear: U.S. trade figures, 2024" (2024). https://www.usitc.gov/system/files/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2024/files/footwear_figures.html
6. NAICS Association / U.S. Census Bureau, "NAICS Code 316210 — Footwear Manufacturing (definition and exclusions)" (2022). https://www.naics.com/naics-code-description/?code=316210
7. OSHA, "Apparel and Footwear Manufacturing — Hazards and Solutions." https://www.osha.gov/apparel-footwear
8. Yue Yuen Industrial Holdings, "2025 Annual Report" (2026). https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2026/0421/2026042100640.pdf
9. Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, "Domestic Footwear Production Council." https://www.domesticfootwear.com/
10. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, NAICS 316200 — May 2022." https://www.bls.gov/oes/2022/may/naics4_316200.htm
11. U.S. Small Business Administration, "Table of Small Business Size Standards, NAICS 316210 (1,000 employees)" (2023). https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards
12. IBISWorld, "Footwear Manufacturing in the US (NAICS 316210) Industry Report" (2024). https://www.ibisworld.com/classifications/naics/316210/footwear-manufacturing/
13. U.S. International Trade Commission, "Footwear: U.S. Trade Shifts, 2021" (2022). https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2021/footwear
14. Nike, Inc., "Form 10-K, FY2025" (2025). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320187/000032018725000047/nke-20250531.htm
15. StatsPanda (summary of company filings), "Top footwear companies by revenue, 2024" (2025). https://www.threads.com/@statspanda/post/DE5rJ6wyE3s
16. Crocs, Inc., "Form 10-K, FY2024" (2025). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1334036/000133403625000009/crox-20241231.htm
17. Caleres, Inc., "Form 10-K, FY2025" (2026). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/14707/000001470726000053/cal-20260131x10k.htm
18. Rocky Brands, Inc., "Form 10-K, FY2025" (2026). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/895456/000143774926007634/rcky20251231_10k.htm
19. CNBC, "Skechers to be acquired by 3G Capital in take-private deal" (2025). https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/05/skechers-to-be-acquired-by-3g-capital.html
20. Skechers, "3G Capital Completes Acquisition of Skechers" (2025). https://about.skechers.com/press-release/3g-capital-completes-acquisition-of-skechers
21. Pou Chen Corporation, "Investor Relations FAQ — Footwear Business." https://www.pouchen.com/index.php/en/investor-relations/faq/8-pcc/7-footwear-business
22. New Balance, "MADE in USA Economic and Social Footprint Report / Made in USA (≥70% domestic value)" (2024). https://newbalance.newsmarket.com/latest-news/new-balance-releases-inaugural-made-in-usa-economic-and-social-footprint-report/
23. Mainebiz, "New Balance's $65 million factory expansion — Skowhegan, Maine" (2023). https://mainebiz.biz/article/new-balances-65-million-factory-expansion-a-boon-for-skowhegan-and-maine/
24. Public Now, "New Balance 2025 Business Update" (2025). https://www.publicnow.com/view/F5750953D1F81EFFB6178CF8FB8F3518BF861878
25. Red Wing Shoes, "Made in USA." https://www.redwingshoes.com/stories/made-in-usa/
26. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Consumer Expenditure Surveys, 2024 — Mean expenditures by selected characteristics." https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean/cu-vets-2024.htm
27. U.S. International Trade Commission, "Footwear: U.S. Trade Shifts, 2020" (2021). https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2020/footwear.htm
28. Fashion tariff summaries (KoalaGains, American Apparel & Footwear Association), "Footwear tariffs 2025: Vietnam 20%, China ~30% + Section 301, transshipment 40%; exclusion requests denied" (2025). https://koalagains.com/industry-tariff-report/footwear/tariff-updates
29. Congressional Research Service, "The Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. §2533a) and military footwear" (2016–2018). https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IN10501.html
30. Stars and Stripes, "Lawmakers want all troops wearing American-made boots (BOOTS Act)" (2025). https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2025-07-02/military-boots-american-made-legislation-18317079.html
31. Federal Trade Commission, "Complying with the Made in USA Standard." https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/complying-made-usa-standard
32. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, "Phthalates FAQ." https://www.cpsc.gov/FAQ/Phthalates
33. WWD (Footwear News), "Biggest footwear M&A deals in 2025 — year-end review" (2025). https://wwd.com/footwear-news/shoe-industry-news/biggest-footwear-mergers-acquisitions-2025-year-end-review-1238430688/