Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Marketing & Brand · Marketing decision · 2025

Adidas and Willy Chavarria called a shoe 'Oaxaca' — then Mexico called it appropriation

Adidas and Willy Chavarria named a shoe after Oaxacan huarache sandals, made it in China, and consulted nobody — sparking a diplomatic crisis.

Adidas · Willy Chavarria · 2025-08-10

What happened

In August 2025, Adidas found itself at the center of an international cultural appropriation controversy. The footwear giant's collaboration with American designer Willy Chavarria had produced the 'Oaxaca Slip-On' — a molded black open-toe shoe inspired by traditional huarache sandals handcrafted by indigenous artisans in Oaxaca, Mexico. The shoe was manufactured in China without any consultation, credit, or compensation to the communities whose design it referenced.

The backlash was swift and reached the highest levels of Mexican government. President Claudia Sheinbaum publicly criticized Adidas at a press conference, stating that 'big companies often take products, ideas and designs from Indigenous communities.' Mexico's Deputy Culture Minister Marina Nunez confirmed the government was exploring legal action to secure 'restitution to the people who were plagiarised.' The controversy was amplified by the shoe's straightforward naming — 'Oaxaca' — which made the cultural reference explicit rather than abstract.

Adidas and Chavarria both issued apologies within days. Chavarria released a statement saying he was 'deeply sorry that the shoe was appropriated in this design and not developed in direct and meaningful partnership with the Oaxacan community.' Adidas publicly apologized and requested a sit-down with Mexican authorities to discuss how to 'repair the damage' to indigenous communities. The company took down promotional images from social media and Chavarria's channels. In a letter to Mexican officials, Adidas stated it 'deeply values the cultural wealth of Mexico's Indigenous people.'

The incident highlighted the risks of cultural appropriation in an era when consumers and governments hold brands accountable for origin stories. Unlike earlier controversies where brands faced consumer boycotts, the Oaxaca case carried the threat of state-level legal action. The shoe was pulled from sale, though Adidas did not disclose the financial impact. For Chavarria — Calvin Klein's former SVP of design and a rising star in fashion — the backlash was a career-defining moment that tested the boundary between homage and exploitation.

Why it happened

  • Adidas and Chavarria chose to name a shoe after a specific indigenous community and replicate its artisan design without any consultation, licensing, or benefit-sharing — framing inspiration as theft
  • The shoe was manufactured in China rather than in Oaxaca, adding insult: the community that originated the craft saw zero economic benefit while a multinational profited from their cultural heritage
  • The Mexican government's direct involvement raised the stakes from a consumer boycott to potential legal restitution — a level of accountability few brands had faced in previous appropriation scandals
  • The straightforward naming ('Oaxaca Slip-On') eliminated any plausible deniability about the source of inspiration, making the cultural borrowing impossible to spin as generic
What it costShoe pulled; reputational damage; legal action threatembarrassing

The lesson

When a design borrows from a living culture, the name on the box is a promise. 'Oaxaca' on a shoe made in China is not homage — it is extraction dressed as inspiration.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →