Nike, Adidas and Pepsi NFT Sales: What the $220M Figure Means

The claim that Nike, Adidas and Pepsi recorded $220 million in combined NFT trading volume circulates in articles and social posts, often without a date, a source or a definition of volume. The results available for this guide do not state that exact combined figure for these three brands.

What they do show is narrower. One article describes Adidas's first NFT drop as earning about $23 million. Another reports that a group of popular brands, including Nike, Adidas and Tiffany, made about $260 million in NFT sales. A third says Nike had been paid over $93 million in royalties. Pepsi is described as having launched its own NFT collection, but the sources do not provide a verified sales total for it.

So the honest answer is that the $220 million number cannot be confirmed from these sources. It may be a rounded or recalculated figure from one of the reports, or it may combine different measures. The rest of this guide explains how to tell the difference, so you can judge any similar claim you see.

Brand NFT numbers come from several different calculations, and each one can produce a different total.

• Mint revenue: the money a brand collected when it sold new NFTs.
• Secondary volume: the value of later resales between holders on marketplaces.
• Royalties: fees paid back to the creator on resales, which depend on whether the marketplace or contract enforces them.
• Converted dollar value: sales recorded in crypto and then converted to dollars at a rate on a specific day.

A report may use any of these, and may not say which. Currency conversion alone can move a total by a large amount, because the price of Ether and other tokens changed sharply between 2021 and 2022. Dates also matter. A figure counted over one month will not match a lifetime total.

When you see a combined number, ask four questions: which brands are included, which time period is covered, whether it is mint revenue or resale volume, and what currency or exchange rate was used.

Adidas launched its 'Into the Metaverse' NFT collection in December 2021. The sources describe a limited supply of 30,000 NFTs, each priced at 0.2 ETH. Reports say most of the supply sold within a short period, and they differ on the exact count and proceeds, with figures close to $22 million to $23.7 million. The spread comes from the number sold that the reporter used and from the ETH price when each article was written.

The drop was built on Ethereum and was sold directly by the brand. Buyers received NFTs that could be held, displayed or traded later. Some articles framed the drop as a test of whether an established sportswear company could sell digital goods to a broad audience, which is one reason it received so much coverage.

For a reader, the useful takeaway is the structure of the sale: a fixed supply, a fixed price in ETH and a single launch window. That structure makes the mint total easier to verify than secondary volume, which keeps changing as tokens are resold.

If you want to verify the drop yourself, look up the collection contract on a block explorer for Ethereum and read the mint history. The number of transfers from the original contract will show how many tokens were minted and when.

Nike's NFT activity is often discussed alongside Adidas. One source says Nike moved to bring production of NFTs and other digital goods in-house by acquiring RTFKT, a studio that produced digital sneakers and collectibles, in December 2021. Acquiring a creator studio is a different move from selling a single drop, and it can make later revenue harder to split cleanly between a brand's own sales, partner sales and resales.

The sources also report large sums connected to Nike's NFT work, including a figure of over $93 million in royalties and a claim that Nike NFTs generated about $1 billion on the secondary market. These numbers are not presented with a consistent method, so treat them as reported claims rather than audited results. Royalty totals depend on how much resale volume was recorded and how much of it paid creator fees.

When reading claims about Nike specifically, separate three things: what Nike sold directly, what partners or studios sold, and what holders resold later. Each has a different source of data, and only some of it sits on public blockchains where anyone can verify it.

Pepsi is the least documented of the three brands. One source states that Pepsi launched its first NFT collection and that Pepsi also appeared in a comparison of brands that moved into NFTs around 2021 and 2022. The sources do not provide a verified sales total for Pepsi's collection, or confirm the number of pieces in it beyond a figure that appears to be incomplete.

This is an important gap. If a combined figure includes Pepsi, it cannot be checked against a known amount unless someone publishes the contract address and sales history. Consumer brands often run promotions where NFTs are a small part of a wider campaign, so the NFT revenue may be a fraction of the campaign's total.

When you cannot verify a brand's numbers, say so in your own notes rather than repeating a total. A reliable statement would name the collection, its chain, its date range and the measure used. Without those details, a figure such as '$220 million combined' cannot be traced back to a specific transaction record.

Mint revenue, secondary volume and royalties are different things, and mixing them is the most common reason headline figures look inflated.

Mint revenue is the cash value of the original sale. It is usually the easiest number to verify, because the mint price and supply are set in advance and the transfers are recorded on-chain.

Secondary volume is the total value of later trades. A single NFT can be resold many times, and each resale adds to the volume. So a collection with a modest supply can show a high total if it trades frequently or if the same tokens change hands repeatedly, including through wash trading, where one party trades with itself to inflate activity.

Royalties are a share of resale value paid to the creator. Royalty enforcement has changed over time as marketplaces adopted or dropped creator fee rules. A royalty total therefore reflects both the volume of resales and the rules that applied when they happened.

When a report says a brand 'earned' a figure, check which of these three it means. The answer changes what the number tells you about the brand's direct income.

You can check many brand NFT claims yourself without relying on a single report. The steps below work for most collections on Ethereum and other public chains.

1. Find the official contract address. Use the brand's own announcement or a marketplace collection page, and compare the address across two sources.
2. Open a block explorer for the chain the collection uses. Search for the contract address and open its transaction list.
3. Filter for the mint period to count the original sales. Note the number of tokens and the currency paid.
4. Review resales afterward. Record the dates, prices and the number of unique wallets involved.
5. Convert values at the exchange rate on each date, not the rate on the day you are writing, and state which rate you used.

Marketplace pages, including OpenSea for many Ethereum collections, show recent sales and floor prices, which helps with secondary activity. Those pages can differ from the chain record, so use them as a starting point and check the transactions when a figure matters.

Brand NFT collections raised public interest in 2021 and 2022, but the sources here do not give current prices, holder counts or sales volumes for the Nike, Adidas or Pepsi collections. Any statement about their present value would be guesswork unless you check recent transactions yourself.

The general pattern for many collectibles from that period is that prices depend on demand, and demand can fall sharply once a launch's novelty fades. Some tokens trade well below their original mint price and may have few buyers at any price. Royalty income for a creator can also fall if resales slow or if marketplaces stop enforcing creator fees.

Before treating any brand NFT as a store of value, consider whether you could sell it at a fair price, what fees the marketplace charges, and whether the token's value depends on a community, a utility or the brand's continued support. Many of these collections offer no ongoing product, so their worth rests mainly on resale demand.

This guide does not recommend buying, selling or holding any NFT. It is an explanation of how the numbers are built and how to verify them.

Verifying brand NFT claims involves wallets and websites, so basic security habits matter.

Use your own browser bookmark for the marketplace or explorer rather than clicking links in posts or messages. Phishing sites often copy official pages. Check the domain carefully, and be wary of pop-ups asking you to connect a wallet to verify or claim something.

Never share your seed phrase or private keys with anyone, including people who say they are from a brand, a marketplace or support staff. Legitimate services will not ask for them. Approve only the transactions you understand, and review what permissions a site is asking for before signing.

If you research a collection with a wallet you use for holding assets, consider using a separate wallet for browsing and checks. This reduces the risk that a malicious site drains your main holdings. Finally, remember that a high volume figure can be created by a small group of wallets trading with each other, so the number of unique buyers is often more informative than the total.

When you read a claim like the Nike, Adidas and Pepsi $220 million figure, work through it in order. Start by identifying the source and its date. A report from the time of a drop may use a different ETH price from one written later. Then identify the measure, whether mint revenue, resale volume or royalties. Next, identify the brands included and whether the total is a sum of separate reports, which can double count the same sales.

Then try to trace the number to on-chain data. For the Adidas drop, a block explorer can confirm the supply and the mint activity. For Nike and Pepsi, the sources here do not give contract details, so you cannot verify their totals from them. If a figure cannot be traced, label it as unverified rather than repeating it as fact.

Finally, decide what you need the number for. If you are writing about the brands, cite the specific figures with their dates and measures. If you are assessing a collection, focus on recent sales, unique buyers and the terms of any royalty rules. A clear, sourced answer is more useful than a large but vague total.