@drgnslayr, I want to take a second and address your use of the term "conspiracy theorizing" to characterize my post.
For what its worth, I avoid conspiracy theorizing like the plague. And if what I write sounds like conspiracy theorizing in either connotative, or denotative meanings of the term, then I want to make clear that I have no intent to express, or imply, a conspiracy theory.
In fact, I sometimes try to poke fun at conspiracy theories in my writing.
The connotative meaning of conspiracy theory is that it is an already proven explanation of a conspiracy, either legal, or illegal. If a conspiracy theory were already proven you would not be wondering about it and I would not be exploring it hypothetically.
The denotative meaning of a conspiracy theory is all negative. It refers to some nut asserting something covert and illegal is going on without throughly verifiable facts to support the claim. I am not suggesting anything illegal is going on. And I am not suggesting a conspiracy is going on. I most certainly have no interest touching conspiracy theory with this denotation with a ten foot pole.
To reiterate, from what I can see as a layman, I don't think anything illegal, or covert, is going on with shoe companies in sports, though being a layman, I am not sure that I would recognize subtle kinds of illegal behavior were it in fact going on.
There appear to me to be lots of things that firms do that they do not explain to the public; that does not mean they are illegally conspiring, or that they are engaging in conspiracy of any kind.
I cannot see how Adidas wanting (hypothetically speaking) Wigs and Embiid to come out different years, or the same year from a marketing stand point, could possibly be viewed as illegal conspiracy. But again, I am a layman in that regard and so make no claims to knowing such things. Note: I am not saying what Adidas wants. I am not saying they have any influence in fact over these players decisions. I am hypothesizing only that it might be better for Adidas if they came out in series, rather than simultaneously, from a marketing strategy.
I am analyzing the possible role of shoecos from the point of view of producer oligopoly, firm incentives, and strategy, not from conspiracy--legal, or illegal.
And again I don't know what would be legal, or illegal, in these regards and so I have no interest in trying to analyze from a legal perspective.
Next, I don't wish to say what Adidas actually wants in this regard, because I don't know.
What I am trying to do is hypothesize an explanation about what might make sense from Adidas angle, given certain hypothetical assumptions about Adidas possible situation?
Adidas may have no situation like what I am hypothesizing. I don't know.
I have no idea what Adidas is actually doing and have no reason to think they would be doing anything wrong.
I mean this to be about as far from either connotative, or denotative notions of conspiracy theorizing as I can make it.
Rock Chalk!