new York The announcement of Adidas to stop paying rent for its stores due to the corona crisis has met with little understanding among politicians and the general public. Federal Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer (CSU) said the “picture”: “I am disappointed with Adidas. I am very disappointed. ”The announcement of the group is a completely unacceptable message, said Scheuer. Adidas has made huge profits in the past few years. “It is not only the large real estate facilities, but also small ones that rent to Adidas as private individuals – and which then remain at their own expense,” said Scheuer.
In addition to the sporting goods manufacturer, retail chains such as Deichmann and H&M as well as competitor Puma have also discontinued the rental payments. Adidas refers to the lack of sales as stores worldwide are closed. Deichmann spoke of a “preventive measure to maintain the company’s ability to act economically”.
The criticism is directed primarily against the sporting goods manufacturer. Federal Minister of Justice Christine Lambrecht (SPD) is also outraged: “If financially strong companies simply no longer pay their rents, this is indecent and unacceptable,” she said on Saturday in Berlin.
The Corona Aid Laws provide no basis for this. It continues to apply: “Of course, tenants have to pay their rent. If they actually experience serious payment difficulties as a result of the crisis, they can only be terminated for a limited period. “
Courts could check whether the prerequisites for this exist, Lambrecht added. Tenants are well advised to look for a friendly solution with their landlords if they are actually experiencing payment difficulties.
Calls for boycott
The hashtags #Adidas, #AdidasBoykott and #NiemehrAdidas became popular on Twitter this weekend. Many Twitter users were outraged by the announcement of the group and partially called for the boycott of the sporting goods manufacturer.
The two SPD MEPs Katarina Barley and Timo Wölken also announced on Twitter that they will boycott Adidas from now on. “As a global corporation with a profit of 3.2 billion, exploiting a protection rule for tenants in need of existence is shabby,” Barley wrote on Twitter. Wölken tweeted that the behavior of the sporting goods manufacturer was “under all sow”.
With agency material.
More: Double drama: Adidas and Nike have to close shops and do without events