Why Are Design Rip-Offs Still Relevant in Sneaker Culture?

Fake sneakers are never okay. It’s a phrase you’ll hear time after time in the sneaker industry, as wearing fakes or “replicas” is about as blasphemous as it gets for serious sneakerheads. While most of us will swear blind that we’d never wear fakes, why does the general consensus change when it comes to so-called “rip-off” kicks? We’re not talking about exact copies of specific pairs anymore, we’re referring to companies that profit off the back of real designers' hours of hard work - mimicking popular styles to appeal to the masses.

This is something that has happened for years in the footwear industry and for the most part, it’s generally accepted. Here at The Sole Supplier we’re not here to totally condemn rip-offs, as we know that they have been a huge part of the culture over the years, but we’re ready to explore as to why they’re still around in the present day, so without further ado - let’s get stuck into it.

So where exactly did it all start? It’s hard to pinpoint an exact moment in time when the rip-off culture began, but many people believe it to have really kick-started when Japanese streetwear legends A Bathing Ape launched the Air Force 1 in the early 2000s. Modelled heavily on the Nike Air Force 1, the BAPESTA leaves little to the imagination, swapping out the famous Swoosh logo for a star-shaped motif instead. The sneaker took the scene by storm, releasing in hundreds of different colourways and regularly worn by fashion icons of the era such as Kanye West and Soulja Boy.

Fast forward to 2006 and another iconic rip-off dropped, the Ari “Menthol 10”, once again heavily inspired by the undefined, but also taking inspiration from Newport cigarettes and the familiar-looking “upside-down Swoosh” logo. Ari Saal Forman released a total of 250 pairs that came complete with a cigarette packaging style box, with plenty of sneakerheads still lusting after this ultra-rare pair even today.

The truth is, the hype behind these rip-offs is serious and real. Genuine sneakerheads who are known to turn their noses up at replica pairs consider some of these rip-offs as true grails. This phenomenon isn’t limited to the 2000s either, as even very recently we’ve seen brands profit enormously from these so-called rip-off designs. A fine example in recent times is the Brooklyn-based creative label MSCHF, best known for its unauthorised renditions of the Nike Air Max 97, of which one even contained a drop of real human blood - yes, we’re talking about the Lil Nas X “Satan” sneakers.

While these Air Max 97s caused a whole load of controversy, it clearly wasn’t enough to diminish MSCHF, as the label recently announced the launch of the “Wavy Baby” sneaker in collaboration with Tyga. Essentially a Vans Old Skool but reworked with a waveform style midsole, the sneaker instantly went viral and even includes a disclaimer printed on the sole that warns the wearer of the dangers of walking down stairs while wearing them.

So consumers are absolutely lapping up the knock-offs, seems like a foolproof plan, right? Not quite. The unrivalled success of all these rip-off sneakers doesn’t come without controversy, and even a few lawsuits along the way. The reason Ari Saal Forman only ever made 250 pairs of his famous Ari Menthol 10s is that he received a cease and desist from both Nike and Newport not long after the initial launch, which contributes to the reason as to why they’re so rare. Messing around with trademarked and patented designs from multinational companies isn’t necessarily a smart move, although we’re willing to bet that this publicity wasn’t unplanned.

The MSCHF “Satan” Air Max 97s were also the subject of immense controversy, as not only were they an unauthorised use of the AM97 design, they also contained a drop of real human blood and retailed for well over $1000. Nike issued a cease and desist almost immediately, however the sneakers also angered plenty of religious organisations, with some even arguing that it was inhumane and unhygienic to sell shoes that contained blood (we can’t disagree with that). The two brands eventually came to an agreement which involved the recall of all production pairs, although this didn’t stop the story hitting major news outlets such as the NY Times and Vogue Business. Could the whole thing have been yet another impeccably-planned PR stunt? It certainly seems that way to us.

It’s clear that the rip-offs aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, and we’d go as far as to say they’re even encouraged to be a huge part of sneaker culture. For reasons unbeknown to us, Nike has never issued a cease and desist to A Bathing Ape regarding the BAPESTA, and adidas Originals even ended up officially collaborating with Hender Scheme, a label famed for its luxury leather replications of famous sneaker designs.

So the consensus is in - replica sneakers are a no-go, but rip-offs are red hot right now. If you liked this article then make sure to keep it locked in right here at The Sole Supplier where we regularly cover sneaker-related conversation topics, as well as keeping you up to date with all the latest and greatest footwear news.