I know, and you said how could that be possible because those companies aren't traded companies. Perhaps I misunderstood you, all good if so. My larger point was, whether it was Nike or Footlocker or Nvidia or whoever, the fact a company doesn't trade on a stock exchange doesn't mean another company doesn't "own shares" in it. OK, it's not shares per se, but that doesn't change the real point that when Footlocker (in this case) has a massive stake in a resale company, it looks a little fishy and like a potential conflict of interest. Footlocker has incentive to participate in actions that lead to sneakers it sells for MSRP ending up on the GOAT.