In 2017, Nike shattered the traditional boundaries of endurance running with Breaking2, an audacious attempt to crack the two-hour marathon barrier. Eliud Kipchoge’s near-miss in Monza not only launched a cultural phenomenon but also heralded the arrival of the Vaporfly super shoe, permanently altering the landscape of competitive running. Breaking2 was an experiment with low expectations from the public and media. Few believed Kipchoge or Nike would succeed, allowing the brand to control the narrative regardless of the outcome.
Eight years later, Nike is returning to the staged challenge format with Breaking4 — an attempt to break the four-minute mile barrier with a team of elite female runners, led by Faith Kipyegon. But this time, the stakes for Nike are far higher.
Breaking4 isn’t just about chasing history. It’s about Nike reasserting its relevance in a running market it once dominated — and now finds itself fighting to keep up in.
Then and Now: Breaking2 vs. Breaking4
In 2017, Nike was not the brand most trusted by competitive runners. Regional staffers were dispatched to count shoes at marathons, and the numbers weren’t flattering. Nike needed to reposition itself not just as a lifestyle giant, but as a performance leader. Breaking2 served dual purposes: it nearly delivered an unthinkable human feat and, just as crucially, showcased the Vaporfly, a shoe that would change marathon running forever.
Since then, Nike’s influence has extended beyond the roads. The innovations pioneered in the Vaporfly — carbon plates, responsive foams, higher stack heights — have birthed a “super spike” market on the track. Once an afterthought, spikes have undergone a renaissance. Today’s elite sprinters and distance runners alike have a portfolio of hyper-engineered options. This market, too, has become crowded, with Adidas, New Balance, Puma, and others vying for dominance. Nike has lost considerable ground, particularly in sprinting events where it was once the unchallenged leader. At Breaking4, we are likely to see a super spike breakthrough—a necessary innovation given the microscopic margins Kipyegon must bridge.
Fast forward to 2025. Super shoes are now standard. Other brands have caught — and in some cases, arguably surpassed — Nike’s innovations. Under Armour and Asics shoes carried winners at the Boston Marathon just a day before Breaking4 was announced. Puma unveiled a shoe it claims is superior to Nike’s flagship Alphafly, and On demonstrated a radical new onsite manufacturing technology that can spin up a pair of shoes in just three minutes. Even smaller brands like Tracksmith are vying for a slice of the super shoe market with bold claims of outperforming the legacy giant.
Nike, once the clear disruptor, now finds itself disrupted.
The Super Shoe (And Spike) Arms Race
The marketplace Nike helped create has grown more crowded and competitive. In response, Nike has diversified its super shoe lineup with both the Vaporfly and Alphafly models. Yet the brand is no longer the solitary leader; it’s one of many companies racing to deliver the next incremental advantage.
Recent major marathons and big moments on the track have become symbolic flashpoints. For the first time in years, Nike was not the predominant victor’s choice. Rivals celebrated innovation and victories that didn’t involve a swoosh, signaling a pivotal shift in the competitive landscape.
Breaking4, then, can be seen as a calculated attempt to reclaim prestige, presenting Nike not only as a champion of women’s athletics but as an enduring technological pioneer.
Why Women, Why the Mile, Why Now
Choosing women to headline Breaking4 is a meaningful and strategic move. Faith Kipyegon is arguably the greatest miler in history, owning multiple world records and championship titles. Yet no woman has ever run a sub-four-minute mile — an achievement historically reserved for the best male runners.
Unlike Breaking2, where the unknown fostered cautious optimism, Breaking4 arrives burdened with expectation. Kipyegon is already the mile world-record holder, with a best of 4:07.64. She must surpass her own best—significantly. To run under 4:00, she will need to close a daunting gap of nearly eight seconds. In tangible terms, this equates to running about two seconds per 400m lap faster than her current best.
Visualize it: at the end of each 400m lap on a standard track, Kipyegon would be approximately 12 meters behind a runner pacing for an even 3:59.99 mile. After two laps, the gap would widen to about 25 meters. By three laps, it stretches beyond 37 meters, and with just 9 meters remaining to a full mile, Kipyegon would still be nearly 50 meters adrift if she maintained her previous world-record pace. These are not small deficits; they represent significant territory to make up on each loop, underscoring the magnitude of the challenge she faces.
The timing of Breaking4 may also carry deeper corporate subtext. Last spring, Lululemon hosted “Further,” a women’s-only ultrarunning event positioned as a response to the lack of research into women’s sports science. Lululemon enlisted prominent researchers to collect data throughout the event, emphasizing that traditional athletic brands had long ignored female-specific physiology and needs. The brand also launched a women’s-specific running shoe in conjunction with Further, effectively arguing that the running industry’s leaders—Nike included—had failed women by designing gear primarily for male athletes and retrofitting it for women later.
For a company like Nike, which has built its identity on innovation, social progressivism, and athlete-first storytelling, Lululemon’s initiative could only have landed as a sharp critique. Nike and Lululemon’s rivalry has a long, litigious history: the two giants have sued one another over everything from sports bras to sneaker designs, and routinely poach executive and design talent from each other’s ranks.
Breaking4, then, may function as Nike’s emphatic rebuttal—a reassertion that it remains the true innovator, capable of centering women in the most audacious ways possible, and advancing the sport not only through slogans, but through science and spectacle. (And perhaps a women’s specific shoe launch?)
Nike, too, faces heightened scrutiny. Anything less than a sub-four-minute result could be perceived as a letdown. The legacy of Breaking2 looms large, and if Kipyegon comes close but falls short, critics will undoubtedly question whether Nike’s technologies have plateaued, or whether the brand miscalculated the limits of human performance.
Beyond optics, though, there’s pragmatism. Nike needs an audacious, resonant story to showcase its innovation and brand relevance. Breaking4 gives them both.
More Than a Race
Breaking4 is not simply another barrier-breaking attempt. It’s a mirror held up to Nike itself. Can the brand that once redefined “fast” still set the pace for the industry? Or is it now sprinting to catch up?
As Faith Kipyegon and her cohort toe the line in Paris this June, they will be racing against the clock — and Nike will be racing against the shifting sands of the running world it helped create. Either way, the finish line will reveal much more than a time.
