Connect with us

Business

A’ja Wilson Now Has a Nike Signature Shoe. Why Did It Take So Long?

Published

on

A’ja Wilson Now Has a Nike Signature Shoe. Why Did It Take So Long?

A’ja Wilson, a center for the Las Vegas Aces, is widely acknowledged as the best player in the Women’s National Basketball Association. She is something like the league’s on-court answer to LeBron James or Michael Jordan.

“I don’t shy away from having conversations with her about being the greatest to ever play,” said Becky Hammon, who has coached the Aces since 2022.

Ms. Wilson was the W.N.B.A.’s Rookie of the Year in 2018, won its Most Valuable Player Award in 2020 and 2022 and won a championship in 2022. But while she racked up achievement after achievement, one marker of basketball stardom eluded her: the shoe.

If Ms. Wilson were playing in the National Basketball Association, she would have long ago gotten a signature shoe, the on-court footwear designed with and for a player. More than two dozen N.B.A. players have them.

For years, marketers largely ignored the women’s game. But Ms. Wilson’s star has risen alongside that of the league she plays in, and in early 2023, Nike finally told her that it planned to create a signature shoe for her.

Advertisement

I probably cried for a couple of days,” she said.

The plan remained secret, and her fans got angry as Ms. Wilson continued to dominate on the court — winning another championship in 2023 — without any news of a shoe. Fans were happy last May, however, when Nike announced that it would release her signature shoe, the A’One, this month, alongside an apparel collection.

(The year in between gave them even more reasons to be happy: Ms. Wilson became the first player in W.N.B.A. history to score 1,000 points in a season, won a third M.V.P. Award, was named one of Time magazine’s women of the year and had her jersey retired by the University of South Carolina.)

The A’One went on sale on Tuesday, with a “Pink Aura” version, making Ms. Wilson the first Black W.N.B.A. player to have a signature shoe since 2011.

“It’s time for people to have a shoe and see a shoe from someone like me, considering it hasn’t been done in a long, long time and it comes from a Black female athlete in this world,” she said. “I’m grateful.”

Advertisement

The 28-year-old was speaking in the Saint-Germain-des-Prés neighborhood of Paris, at a hotel suite overlooking Le Bon Marché, the famous department store. Her 6-foot-4 frame was dressed in the athletes’ off-court uniform of sweats, with jewelry in her ears and on both sides of her nose. She was there on behalf of Nike. It was men’s fashion week, so outside the hotel, photographers waited behind a rope in case celebrities emerged.

W.N.B.A. players are bigger stars now than they ever were before, arguably with more cultural impact than they had even in the league’s heady early days in the 1990s, when players like Lisa Leslie and Sheryl Swoopes became household names. Last season, interest in the league spiked, buoyed by the popularity of the rookies Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese. Brands rushed to play catch-up.

That resurgence has happened in the shoe industry, too, where brands have struggled to monetize products connected to female athletes.

The first W.N.B.A. player to have a signature shoe made for her was Ms. Swoopes in 1995. Nike’s Air Swoopes had a tab on the back that made it easy to put on with the long fingernails she liked to sport. Nike made seven editions of it, the most it has made for any female player to date.

Eight other W.N.B.A. players released signature shoes between 1995 and 2001, according to a database kept by ESPN. In 2005 and 2006, Nike made shoes for Diana Taurasi, who starred at the University of Connecticut, for the U.S. women’s national team and for the Phoenix Mercury. After her shoe, Nike didn’t make another signature shoe with a women’s basketball player until 2023.

Advertisement

Nike wasn’t alone in its hiatus. Between 2011, when Adidas released a product with Candace Parker, and 2022, there were no W.N.B.A. signature shoes, according to ESPN’s database. There just wasn’t much of a market, industry observers say.

Women’s models make up a small portion of the basketball shoe business, said Matt Powell, a retail analyst with BCE Consulting, in part because many female basketball players prefer wearing a men’s shoe.

“It costs a tremendous amount of money to develop a shoe and then to build that shoe,” Mr. Powell said. “If sales are not going to be huge, and that is the history of what we’ve seen, any brand is like, ‘How much of an investment can we make here?’”

That all started to change when women’s college basketball became more popular. Social media allowed players to create personal brands, and in 2021 the National Collegiate Athletic Association shifted its rules to allow athletes to capitalize on name, image and likeness (N.I.L.) deals, increasing their visibility with commercials and other advertisements.

Broadcast channels helped, too: ESPN began televising the N.C.A.A. women’s tournament in 1996 but did not air the championship game on its broadcast network, ABC, until 2023. Ms. Reese’s Louisiana State team defeated Ms. Clark’s Iowa for that title, drawing nearly 10 million viewers.

Advertisement

The 2024 championship game drew 18.9 million viewers, beating the men’s championship game by about four million, according to Nielsen. That interest has trickled up into the W.N.B.A. as the players moved there, too.

In July 2023, Nielsen reported a rise in interest generally in women’s sports. It also said surveyed viewers were frustrated by a lack of access to live women’s sports and a lack of media coverage.

“Sneaker companies are always reactive to the public, and they’re always responsive to what they perceive as popular at a given time,” said Brandon Wallace, an assistant professor at Indiana University who has studied the industry.

Sabrina Ionescu’s shoe came out in 2023, her fourth W.N.B.A. season, all with the New York Liberty. It was Nike’s first unisex shoe and is one of the most popular shoes for N.B.A. players to wear during games. Players have said they like its look, which includes intricate embroidery and customizable colors, and how it feels on their feet. The structure is similar to Kobe Bryant’s shoe, which revolutionized the industry.

Nick Depaula, a journalist who covers the sneaker industry, said he expected Ms. Wilson’s to be popular among the men as well. In part because of its design — he cited “the grip and the support and the lightweight element” — and in part out of solidarity.

Advertisement

“She’s worn LeBrons for years and supported his line,” Mr. Depaula said, referring to the Los Angeles Lakers superstar, who also has a deal with Nike. “There’s an element of players excited for her personally.”

Bam Adebayo of the Miami Heat, who has been romantically connected to Ms. Wilson, has already worn her shoe in a game, before its release.

Mr. Powell, the industry analyst, also said he believed that Ms. Wilson’s shoe would do well among women’s basketball shoes, in part because of the heightened interest in the W.N.B.A. and in part because of its relatively low price. Adult sizes are $110 and children’s $90, compared with $190 for Mr. James’s signature shoes or $130 for the Sabrina 2.

The launch of Ms. Wilson’s shoe has not come without controversy.

Advertisement

In April 2024, when news broke that Nike was planning a signature shoe for Ms. Clark, then heading into her rookie season with the Indiana Fever, it set off a firestorm.

The news of Ms. Wilson’s shoe wasn’t public yet. Her fans wondered if racism played a part in giving Ms. Clark, who is white, a shoe before the much more professionally accomplished Ms. Wilson, especially since the only other active players with signature shoes — Ms. Ionescu and Breanna Stewart, a two-time M.V.P. — are both white.

Others noted Ms. Clark’s exceptional popularity: She was selling out arenas and causing opponents to move their games to bigger venues. Games she played in set viewership records.

Strangers debated Ms. Wilson’s merits. Some said that her personality wasn’t charming enough, or that her style of play lacked charisma. Frontcourt players are sometimes thought to be less marketable because their style of play is often less flashy.

“It was very hard for me to navigate, only because in the back of my mind I’m like, ‘Yes, I know a shoe’s coming, but I really have nothing to share,’” Ms. Wilson said. “And to constantly be in those conversations and constantly having my name dragged through the mud and having my résumé dragged through the mud is really hard.”

Advertisement

When the shoe was announced, Nike leaned into the controversy: Ms. Wilson wore a sweatshirt that had “Of Course I Have A Shoe Dot Com” written on it.

Now some writers and fans are wondering why Ms. Clark isn’t getting her shoe alongside Ms. Wilson.

A prominent Substack sports columnist, Ethan Strauss, suggested that Nike was delaying Ms. Clark’s shoe because of Ms. Wilson’s coming product, calling it “corporate malpractice” to not cash in on Ms. Clark’s popularity.

Tanya Hvizdak, Nike’s vice president of global sports marketing, said Nike was not delaying Ms. Clark’s shoe for Ms. Wilson. She said creating a signature shoe took time and disagreed with the characterization that it had taken too long for Ms. Wilson to be awarded a shoe.

“What I would say is we’ve been supporting our women’s basketball athletes for 40 years,” Ms. Hvizdak said.

Advertisement

Mr. Powell, the analyst, said Nike’s recent struggles as a business and its overhaul last year were instructive as well.

With Nike’s stock price falling and cultural relevance slipping, its board announced the abrupt retirement of its chief executive, John Donahue, in September and said Elliott Hill would replace him. Mr. Hill had spent 32 years with the company before retiring in 2020.

“I think we would have seen the Caitlin shoe a lot faster if Elliott had been at the helm,” Mr. Powell said. “His predecessor just did not appreciate product and the value of endorsement.”

Nike is expected to announce a shoe soon with Paige Bueckers, the first pick in this year’s W.N.B.A. draft. Ms. Reese, who plays for the Chicago Sky, has a shoe in the works with Reebok and has already released lifestyle shoes for day-to-day wear.

It confuses the people close to Ms. Wilson that marketing opportunities have come more slowly than her basketball accolades.

Advertisement

“She’s a supportive person,” said Sydney Colson, a teammate for the last three seasons and one of Ms. Wilson’s closest friends. “And not even just superstars, but people like that are just rare to come by.”

Ms. Wilson decorates the lockers of her teammates for their birthdays and buys a cake celebrating Pride for her gay teammates each year. Last year’s Pride cake was pink with disco balls, rainbow frosting and lettering that spelled, cheekily, “Hooray you gay.”

Ms. Wilson is also outspoken. When Mr. James signed a $154 million contract with the Lakers during her rookie year, she posted a tweet saying the W.N.B.A.’s best were hoping just to reach $1 million. At the time, the league’s top players made salaries of $115,500. Ms. Wilson will make $200,000 this season, which opens on May 16.

Nike and Ms. Wilson declined to comment on the size of their overall deal, but The Wall Street Journal and The Athletic have reported that Ms. Clark’s Nike deal is worth $28 million over eight years.

Ms. Wilson has not shied away from discussing the impact of race on why she is sometimes called not marketable.

Advertisement

“It’s 100 percent about race,” she said. “And it’s one of those things where we can sit there and say that all the time, but there’s going to always be someone that’s like, ‘Well, no you’re just making it about race.’”

As new opportunities have come her way Ms. Wilson has used them to cultivate her image. She has especially leaned into the fashion world’s recent embrace of her; Vogue and GQ, for instance, featured her last month in a spread related to the Met Gala.

The collection with Nike includes single-leg leggings like the ones that Ms. Wilson popularized in the W.N.B.A., made in hot pink, and a hot pink sweatshirt with satin-lined hood (because her mother got tired of seeing her wearing a bonnet at the airport, Ms. Wilson said).

When she went on tour last year for her book, “Dear Black Girls,” her team approached the designer Sergio Hudson, who has dressed Michelle Obama, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Beyoncé, Rihanna and Jennifer Lopez, to outfit her.

He knew Ms. Wilson was stylish, and he liked the idea of supporting a W.N.B.A. player, especially one from his home state, South Carolina.

Advertisement

“When I saw her walk out in the first outfit we made for her, I was like, ‘This girl is a star,’” Mr. Hudson said.

“At that time it wasn’t how it is now,” he said. “It wasn’t that long ago, but it’s like overnight things have shifted and the W.N.B.A. girls are prime celebrities, and everybody wants to dress them.”

Business

Commentary: Trump Media’s financial report revives doubts for investors

Published

on

Commentary: Trump Media’s financial report revives doubts for investors

So much Trump-related news has appeared lately on the airwaves and in web pixels — what with Iran and Epstein and Minnesota and so on — that inevitably a nugget will fall between the cracks.

That seems to have been the fate of the most recent annual financial report of Trump Media and Technology Group, which covered calendar year 2025 and was issued Friday.

Trump Media, which is 52% owned by Donald Trump and trades on Nasdaq with a ticker symbol based on his initials (DJT), is the holding company for Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social.

The value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer.

— A risk factor disclosed by Trump Media

Advertisement

The annual financial disclosure has garnered minimal press coverage. That’s a pity, because it makes fascinating reading, though not in a good way.

Here are the top and bottom lines from the 10-k annual report: Trump Media lost $712.1 million last year on revenue of about $3.7 million. That’s quite a bit worse than its performance in 2024, when it lost $409 million on revenue of about $3.6 million. The company attributed most of the flood of red ink to “loss from investments,” of which more in a moment.

Truth Social isn’t an especially strong keystone of this operation. The platform is chiefly an outlet for Trump’s social media ramblings and the occasional official White House statements. But no one has to sign in to Truth Social to see them — they’re almost invariably picked up by the news media or reposted by users on other platforms such as X.

That might explain Truth Social’s relatively scrawny user base. The platform is estimated to have about 2 million active users, according to the analytical firm Search Logistics. By comparison, X has about 450 million monthly active users and Facebook has more than 2.9 billion.

Advertisement

It’s no mystery, then, why TMTG disdains “traditional performance metrics like average revenue per user, ad impressions and pricing, or active user accounts, including monthly and daily active users,” according to its annual report.

Relying on those metrics, which are used to judge TMTG’s social media rivals, “might not align with the best interests of TMTG or its stockholders, as it could lead to short-term decision-making at the expense of long-term innovation and value creation.”

Instead, the company says it should be evaluated based on “its commitment to a robust business plan that includes introducing innovative features, new products, new technologies.” But it also acknowledges that, at its heart, TMTG is a proxy for “the reputation and popularity of President Donald J. Trump.” The company warns that “the value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer.”

How has that played out in real time? Trump Media notched its highest closing price as a public company, $66.22, on March 27, 2024, the day after its initial public offering. In midday trading Monday, the shares were quoted at $11.08, for a loss of 83% since the IPO.

One can’t quibble with stock market price quotes; nor can one finagle annual profit and loss statements, at least not without receiving questions, and perhaps lawsuit complaints, from attentive investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Advertisement

In recent months, TMTG has engaged in a number of baroque financial transactions.

In May, the company announced that it was planning to raise $3.5 billion from institutions to invest in bitcoin, with the money to come from issues of common and preferred shares. The goal was to climb onto the cryptocurrency train, which Trump himself was fueling by, among other things, issuing an executive order promoting the expansion of crypto in the U.S. and denigrating enforcement efforts by the Biden administration as reflecting a “war on cryptocurrency.”

Under Trump, federal regulators have dropped numerous investigations related to cryptocurrencies. Trump has also talked about creating a government crypto strategic reserve, which would entail large government purchases of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies; a March 3 announcement on that subject briefly sent bitcoin prices soaring by nearly 20%, though they promptly fell back.

Then there’s TMTG’s relationship with Crypto.com, a Singapore-based crypto “service provider” best known to Angelenos unfamiliar with the crypto world as the firm with naming rights to the Los Angeles arena that hosts the NBA Lakers and Clippers, WNBA Sparks and NHL Kings.

In August, Crypto.com and TMTG announced a deal in which TMTG would pursue a crypto treasury strategy consisting mostly of Cronos tokens, a cryptocurrency sponsored by Crypto.com. The initial infusion would consist of 6.4 billion Cronos valued at $1 billion, or about 15.8 cents per Cronos.

Advertisement

As of Dec. 31, TMTG said in its 10-K, it owned 756.1 million Cronos, acquired at a cost of about $114 million, or 15 cents each. By year’s end, they were worth only about nine cents each, for a paper loss of about $46 million. In trading this week, Cronos was quoted at about 7.6 cents, producing a paper loss for TMTG of about $56.5 million, or roughly half the investment.

The financial maneuvering involved in this trade is a little dizzying. The initial transaction was a 50% stock, 50% cash trade in which Crypto.com bought $50 million in TMTG stock and TMTG bought $105 million in Cronos. Who gained in this deal? It’s almost impossible to say.

Crypto.com did gain, if not purely in cash, then arguably through the Trump administration’s good graces.

On March 27, the SEC formally closed an investigation of the company that it had launched during the Biden administration, when the agency was headed by a known crypto skeptic, Gary Gensler. Trump appointed a crypto-friendly regulator, Paul Atkins, as Gensler’s successor.

It’s reasonable to note that as a business model, crypto treasuries have been in vogue over the last year or so, allowing investors to play the crypto market without all the complexities of actually buying and holding the digital assets by buying shares in treasury companies.

Advertisement

I asked Crypto.com whether the steady decline in Cronos’ price suggested that the hookup with TMTG wasn’t bearing fruit. “The fluctuation in value during this time period is consistent with the entire crypto market, which is typical in a bear market,” company spokeswoman Victoria Davis told me by email.

Davis also asserted that the SEC’s investigation of the company had been closed by Gensler, “not the current administration” (i.e., Trump). That’s misleading, at best. Gensler put the investigation on hold after the 2024 election, when it became clear that Trump was going to be in charge.

Crypto.com’s March 27 announcement of the formal end of the case attributed the action to “the current SEC leadership” and blamed the case on “the previous administration.” I asked Davis to explain the discrepancy but got no reply.

TMTG, like Crypto.com, attributed the decline in Cronos’ value to the secular bear market raging in the entire cryptocurrency space, a reflection of “temporary price swings across the crypto market,” said TMTG spokeswoman Shannon Devine. She said the price decline “will not diminish our enthusiasm for the enormous potential of the [CRONOS] ecosystem.”

Trump’s coziness with crypto companies hasn’t gone unnoticed by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, who issued a scathing report on the topic in November. (The White House scoffed at the report, saying in response to the report that Trump “only acts in the best interests of the American public.”)

Advertisement

In mid-December, TMTG launched yet another remaking — this time, plunging into the business of fusion power. The instrument is TAE Technologies, a Foothill Ranch-based company working to develop the technology of nuclear fusion as a clean energy source. According to a Dec. 18 announcement, TMTG and TAE will merge, creating what they say is a $6-billion company.

According to the announcement, TMTG will contribute $200 million to the merged company when the deal closes in mid-2026, and an additional $100 million subsequently. Following the merger, TMTG said last month, it will consider spinning off Truth Social into a new publicly traded company.

These arrangements are murky. TAE is privately held and the value of Truth Social is conjectural at best, so TMTG shareholders could be hard-pressed to assess their gains or losses from the merger and spin-off.

What makes them even murkier is the speculative nature of fusion as an electrical power source. Although numerous companies have leaped into the field — and TAE, which has been backed by Alphabet, the parent of Google, is among the oldest — none has shown the capability of generating electrical power at commercial scale with the elusive technology.

Although some researchers say that fusion could become a technically and economically feasible power source within 10 years, only in 2022 did fusion researchers (at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) achieve the goal of using fusion to produce more energy than is required to sustain a reaction. They were able to do so only for less than a billionth of a second.

Advertisement

Others working on the technology have expressed doubts that fusion could become a viable power source before the 2040s. The technical challenges, including how to convert the energy produced by a fusion reactor into electricity, remain daunting.

All this points to the fundamental question of what TMTG is supposed to be. TMTG’s original mission, according to its own publicity statements, was to build Truth Social into an alternative social media platform “to end Big Tech’s assault on free speech by opening up the Internet.”

Spinning off Truth Social would place that goal on the side. TMTG is on its way too becoming a hodgepodge of crypto, fusion and other investments selected without regard to whether they fit together or are even achievable. The only constant is Trump himself.

If you want to invest in him, TMTG may be the best way to do it. But judging from its latest financial disclosure, that’s not the same as being a good way to do it.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

California gas is pricey already. The Iran war could cost you even more

Published

on

California gas is pricey already. The Iran war could cost you even more

The U.S. attack on Iran is expected to have an unwelcome impact on California drivers — a jump in gas prices that could be felt at the pump in a week or two.

The outbreak of war in the Middle East, which virtually closed a key Persian Gulf shipping lane, spiked the price of a barrel of Brent crude oil by as much as $10, with prices rising as high as $82.37 on Monday before settling down.

The price of the international standard dictates what motorists pay for gas globally, including in California, with every dollar increase translating to 2.5 cents at the pump, said Severin Borenstein, faculty director of the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business.

That would mean drivers could pay at least 20 cents more per gallon, though how much damage the conflict will do to wallets remains to be seen.

Advertisement

“The real issue though is the oil markets are just guessing right now at what is going to happen. It’s a time of extreme volatility,” Borenstein said. “We don’t know whether the war will widen or end quickly, and all of those things will drive the price of crude.”

President Trump has lauded the reduction of nationwide gas prices as a validation of his economic agenda despite worries about a weak job market and concerns of persistent inflation.

The upheaval in the Middle East could be more acutely felt in the state.

Californians already pay far more for gas than the rest of the country, with the average cost of a gallon of regular at $4.66, up 3 cents from a week ago and 30 cents from a month ago, according to AAA. The current nationwide average is about $3 per gallon.

The disruption in international crude markets also comes as refiners are switching to producing California’s summer-blend gas, which is less volatile during the state’s hot summers. The switch can drive up the price of a gallon of gas at least 15 cents.

Advertisement

The prices in California are largely driven by higher taxes and a cleaner, less polluting blend required year-round by regulators to combat pollution — and it’s long been a hot-button issue.

The politics were only exacerbated by recent refinery closures, including the Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington in October and the idling and planned closure of the Valero refinery in Benicia, Calif., which reduced refining capacity in the state by about 18%.

California also has seen a steady reduction in its crude oil production, making it more reliant on international imports of oil and gasoline.

In 2024, only 23.3% of the crude oil refined in the state was pumped in California, with 13% from Alaska and 63% from elsewhere in the world, including about 30% from the Middle East, said Jim Stanley, a spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Assn.

“We could see a supply crunch and real price volatility” if the Middle East supply is interrupted, he said.

Advertisement

The Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which about 20% of the world’s oil passes, was virtually closed Monday, according to reports. Though it produces only about 3% of global oil, Iran has considerable sway over energy markets because it controls the strait.

Also, in response to the U.S. attack, Iran has fired a barrage of missiles at neighboring Persian Gulf states. Saudi Arabia said it intercepted Iranian drones targeting one of its refinery complexes.

California Republicans and the California Fuels & Convenience Alliance, a trade group representing fuel marketers, gas station owners and others, have blamed Gov. Gavin Newsom’s policies for driving up the price of gas.

A landmark climate change law calls for California to become carbon neutral by 2045, and Newsom told regulators in 2021 to stop issuing fracking permits and to phase out oil extraction by 2045. He also signed a bill allowing local governments to block construction of oil and gas wells.

However, last year Newsom changed his stance and signed a bill that will allow up to 2,000 new oil wells per year through 2036 in Kern County despite legal challenges by environmental groups. The county produces about three-fourths of the state’s crude oil.

Advertisement

Borenstein said he didn’t expect that the new state oil production would do much to lower gas prices because it is only marginally cheaper than oil imported by ocean tankers.

Stanley said the aim of the law was to support the Kern County oil industry, which was facing pipeline closures without additional supplies to ship to state refineries.

Statewide, the industry supports more than 535,000 jobs, $166 billion in economic activity and $48 billion in local and state taxes, according to a report last year by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

Bloomberg News and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Block to cut more than 4,000 jobs amid AI disruption of the workplace

Published

on

Block to cut more than 4,000 jobs amid AI disruption of the workplace

Fintech company Block said Thursday that it’s cutting more than 4,000 workers or nearly half of its workforce as artificial intelligence disrupts the way people work.

The Oakland parent company of payment services Square and Cash App saw its stock surge by more than 23% in after-hours trading after making the layoff announcement.

Jack Dorsey, the co-founder and head of Block, said in a post on social media site X that the company didn’t make the decision because the company is in financial trouble.

“We’re already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company,” he said.

Block is the latest tech company to announce massive cuts as employers push workers to use more AI tools to do more with fewer people. Amazon in January said it was laying off 16,000 people as part of effort to remove layers within the company.

Advertisement

Block has laid off workers in previous years. In 2025, Block said it planned to slash 931 jobs, or 8% of its workforce, citing performance and strategic issues but Dorsey said at the time that the company wasn’t trying to replace workers with AI.

As tech companies embrace AI tools that can code, generate text and do other tasks, worker anxiety about whether their jobs will be automated have heightened.

In his note to employees Dorsey said that he was weighing whether to make cuts gradually throughout months or years but chose to act immediately.

“Repeated rounds of cuts are destructive to morale, to focus, and to the trust that customers and shareholders place in our ability to lead,” he told workers. “I’d rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome.”

Dorsey is also the co-founder of Twitter, which was later renamed to X after billionaire Elon Musk purchased the company in 2022.

Advertisement

As of December, Block had 10,205 full-time employees globally, according to the company’s annual report. The company said it plans to reduce its workforce by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2026.

The company’s gross profit in 2025 reached more than $10 billion, up 17% compared to the previous year.

Dorsey said he plans to address employees in a live video session and noted that their emails and Slack will remain open until Thursday evening so they can say goodbye to colleagues.

“I know doing it this way might feel awkward,” he said. “I’d rather it feel awkward and human than efficient and cold.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending