<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It is not yet a sale, but deliberations<\/strong> are underway regarding Puma.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sources close to the matter have stated that several companies have recently been approached by the Pinault family<\/strong>, all of which are potential candidates for the purchase of shares in the holding company of the majority shareholders of the luxury group Kering in the sports brand Puma.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The identity of the sportswear companies<\/strong> approached in the United States,<\/strong> as well as<\/strong> that of the sovereign wealth funds<\/strong> consulted based in the Middle East<\/strong>, has not been disclosed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n However, the identity of the Chinese interlocutors<\/b> is known. The Pinault family is said to have contacted two of the giants of sportswear made in China: Anta Sports Product Ltd.<\/b> (owner of Fila, among others) and Li Ning Co<\/b>. (owner of Double Happiness and Kason, among others).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n If the Pinault family is now considering a possible divestment in Puma<\/b>, it is because the sports brand saw its<\/b> market value<\/b> plummet by 50% last year.<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n This decline can be explained by weak demand for sports and fitness equipment, not to mention uncertainty surrounding the consequences of US tariffs. Its net profit fell last year to \u20ac281.6 million, while its turnover reached \u20ac8.8 billion.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The sports brand<\/b> is now valued at just \u20ac2.6 billion ($3 billion)<\/b>, down from \u20ac5.3 billion in 2007 when the Pinaults acquired a 27.1% stake. At the time, the transaction was led by the Pinault-Printemps-Redoute (PPR) group, the former name of the Kering group, which had the ambition to build \u201can iconic sports lifestyle brand\u201d and make it the group’s second pillar.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kering remained the owner of the Bavarian brand until 2018<\/b>, when the luxury group held 86.3% of Puma’s shares before selling 70% of its shares<\/b>. Although the Pinault family’s holding company has since retained 25% of the shares<\/b> (down from 29% previously), the group<\/b> has opted for a strategy of focusing<\/b> on luxury goods<\/b>, divesting itself of its sports-related holdings such as Puma and Volcom.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It should also be noted that the Art\u00e9mis fund is under pressure due to its debt, estimated at \u20ac7.1 billion.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n As one expert on LinkedIn points out, the 16% increase in Puma’s share price is \u201ceither a harbinger of bloodshed or an opportunity.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n With its roots in F1, hip-hop, and fashion through various collaborations<\/strong>, Puma is first and foremost a sports brand linked to soccer<\/strong> (Manchester City in the English Premier League and the Portuguese national team) and handball (the Danish men’s team). A possible sale could, depending on the identity of the buyer, either accelerate the overhaul of Puma or destroy its uniqueness in the sports equipment landscape<\/strong> and therefore its desirability.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The phenomenon of identity dilution had already occurred following the takeover by PPR<\/strong> (now Kering), which wanted to move the brand away from sports. Ultimately, it was Bjorn Gulden, then head of the company, who strengthened its desirability in the face of leaders Adidas and Nike by repositioning it as \u201cthe fastest brand in the world.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\nBavarian brand in difficulty<\/h2>\n
Renaissance or loss of identity?<\/h2>\n