This brings an interesting point though; is it fair in the market for a retailer/distributor to have such sway that not selling with them becomes a riskier proposition then selling with them? Isn't that the sort of thing that we have anti-trust laws for?
I might be wrong, but the way I understand it is that anti-trust relates to abuse of a monopoly position, not the monopoly position itself. So, if Amazon were doing things to force Nike to sell through them or get less money elsewhere, they'd be in violation. However, simply being so big that Nike would lose lots of money by not selling there is not.
To put it another way, if I make a video and I decide that I don't want it on YouTube for whatever reason, Google aren't guilty of anti-trust if I then realise that I'm losing a lot of money by not having it there. They're simply the dominant player with the most customers. If, however, Google did something to reduce my revenue from other sources if I don't also have it on YouTube, they would be guilty of anti-trust.
Flawed analogy and IANAL, etc., but that's my understanding.
Such as buying up Nike products from other sellers so that way Amazon can still sell Nike whether Nike likes it or not?
The trick is not to pay full price, use discounted gift cards, rewards, etc.
I don't do clothing, but I've used similar techniques on many other categories. Plenty of people have large businesses moving goods from retail to Amazon.
What about stuff from Europe - is this mainly an American thing. sorry to be asking about stuff that you probably only know a little bit about, but you obviously know more about it than I do.
I do some of that and some wholesale and try to stay informed on what others are doing.
I know there's a tool called FBA Wizard used by some UK sellers, and tactical arbitrage has UK support as well but I don't know that much.
I have bought stuff from amazon.co.uk and sold on amazon.com when the price difference was large enough in the low 5 figure range, really just a handful of products that I sold a bunch of.
If the re-seller breaches then it is up to the other party in the contract to sue the re-seller. Amazon has nothing to do with it. So then Nike would just sue a bunch of smaller companies when they try to sell on Amazon.
Counterfeits are one issue, but brands have to accept that they cannot control distribution channels as they have in the past. Companies don't like to have their products showcased against similar products, but that's inevitable. Margins will shrink, and they'll just have to compete more on quality, value and reliability. In the end, the consumer benefits. The only solution would be to severely restrict what it means to own a product in a legal sense, which would be very harmful to consumers who value ability to re-sell and donate clothing.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-nike-resisted-amazons-domin... (paywall)