In This Story
Charlotte Hornets
Aug 22, 2025 10:40 PM EDT
This year marks the 40th anniversary of Michael Jordan’s first signature shoe released by Nike. The milestone was supposed to introduce an elite mainline Jordan after roughly 20 years of models that failed to move the needle. There was the typical tight-lipped approach to no leaks, followed by intentional leaks.
Multiple players associated with Nike if not Jordan Brand posted images of themselves practicing in the shoe, with the shoe blurred out. The buildup wasn’t long, but in Nike terms, the promotional buildup was noteworthy. Especially in a time when Nike rarely does much to promote a drop short of confirming a release date and providing images.
The immediate response from the sneakerhead community was shockingly very positive. That response is more than shocking when this model is put up against what Nike and Brand Jordan have spent decades building. 40 years of adhering to specific design standards and motifs to provide a line of shoes that is consistent, but also ever changing… “within the design standards previously established”.
Anyone can like anything. An individual that likes a specific model is fine and no sneakerhead or consumer has any right to rain on their parade. However, there is a Grand Canyon sized gap between shoes an individual likes aesthetically and what qualifies as “heat” or something worthy of the sneakerhead conversation. Not to sound completely rigid, but there are rules to this that were established long before 2025 and are not subject to change. That’s how a design empire is built. The sneakerhead conversation is nothing like a fashion conversation. Trends and what’s considered “in style” can change season to season in the fashion world. That concept does not apply to the sneaker culture. Certain models, design principles, materials, shapes and contours are “goated” and that status cannot be changed by the whims of changing fashion sense.
Nike and Jordan are the manufacturing brands, but they live within a product empire created for them by the consumers who built the empire they operate. Most of which came during the Jordan run of 1-14 (or as far as 20 for some) that also includes Air Max, Barkleys, Pennys, Griffeys, Diamond Turfs, and other sneaker giants developed between the mid 80s to late 90s.
Most of which heavily influenced by design master Tinker Hatfield. Mr. Hatfield was not just some designer. He literally created the design principles we associate with high end Nike. Nike does not dictate year to year what works and what doesn’t within the sneakerhead community. The sneakerheads who built that empire based on purchased models over decades are who dictates that. Nike makes everything they make, but the sneakerheads dictate which are successful. Based on the previously established rules or concepts. In the last decade plus, there has been a shift in this ideology based in large part to younger sneakerheads who think liking what they like is good enough, the cost envy of a model is more important than the design, and resale value is king. All three of those concepts are direct violations of what the culture created starting 40 years ago.
Combo Jordans don’t count
For decades starting in the 1990s, the sneaker culture established that there is most certainly a difference between mainline Jordans and combo Jordans. Any model made by Brand Jordan that utilizes multiple design concepts in previously popular models, put into one shoe, is in fact “below the line”. It’s a simple concept. They simply repurposed something old instead of creating something new. At its simplistic core, a combo Jordan is lazy. From a design standpoint, it’s a Jordan model where the company phoned in any effort to make it of a quality synonymous with the Jordan name. It’s a shortcut. Plain and simple. Which the culture has viewed accordingly. Some models that fall under the heading of “Combo Jordans” would include but are not limited to the “Jordan DubZero” and the “Jordan Spizike”. Both models use multiple design concepts from previous models to create one shoe that feels ‘repurposed’.
Team Jordans are below the line
Team Jordans was a nice idea with less than poor execution. At a time when Brand Jordan sponsored ‘some’ college teams in various sports, it seemed logical to create a team line of shoes that fit the Jordan brand, manufactured at a lower cost to outfit entire teams. The issue is that they were never given the same treatment, high end designers, or a budget to really make something that feels like a Jordan on a team level. In most examples, Team Jordans took recent design features and asked, how can we use that but make it uglier or clunkier. Removing the silhouette types that made the mainline models extremely popular. Even signing well known players to Team Jordan deals still did not move the needle as Nike would have hoped.
Carmelo Anthony at the peak of his time with the Nuggets had a signature Team Jordan shoe. Randy Moss while with the Vikings and Raiders had a Team Jordan signature. That did not matter in the least because the design is the key. Not the name wearing them. If a model is made without the care and attention given to the mainline Jordans, sneakerheads will know. In unrelated context, what Team Jordans were when compared to mainline Jordans was like expecting The Lion King and getting Lion King II: Simba’s Pride. Is it better than no Lion King? Yes. Is it even in the same stratosphere as the original Lion King? Absolutely not. One was one of the greatest movies in Disney’s catalogue. The other was a low budget straight to video sequel that doesn’t feel like it deserves to have the same name.
Fusions Jordans should’ve died on the design table
This one is a little tricky. Was it an intriguing concept? Yes. It even has a small fanbase of people that don’t understand the hate fusions get. Essentially, fusions were the idea of taking the colorways and various panels from known Jordan models and laying it over (typically) Air Force Ones to give the illusion of an “Air Force One Jordan”. The issue with Fusions is they are a contradiction in design. The colorways and panels of those previous Jordans don’t fit the shape and panels of an Air Force One. The AF1 is admittedly a boxy, clunky shoe. Jordans as almost a design requirement does not fit that style of shoe. In the end, fusions had a moment of intrigue that probably didn’t last 3-6 months and they came across as just a hodgepodge of a cluttered mess. They didn’t look like Jordans. They barely looked like AF1s. With the combination of the two not satisfying either.
Nike admitted the Jordan 40 is a combo Jordan
Combo Jordans don’t count and Nike did not hesitate to confirm that it is in fact, a combo Jordan. In Nike’s promotional approach to the Jordan 40 they made a grave mistake that should’ve ended any such hype behind this model. It’s a combo Jordan plain and simple. Or a collection of other models previously made famous long before the era of the 40. Most combo Jordans limit the influence to 3-4 models at the most. The Jordan 40 didn’t just phone in a new mainline model, they made a super combo Jordan. If a combo Jordan is bad, a super combo Jordan should be conceptually unacceptable. The Jordan 40 takes its aesthetic inspiration from: The Jordan 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 18. There’s virtually nothing original on the outside of the shoe. It is a complete rehash of 8 different models. Taking the idea that a combo Jordan doesn’t count and multiplying it by almost a factor of 3.
The Jordan 40 is a betrayal of established design concepts
The first big design feature that is urgently unavoidable is the use of points. With very little exception, Jordan has never utilized sharp corner or points in virtually any model ever. Rounded corners are a design staple. From the side profile, there are two noticeable ‘points’. If those points were rounded, it would dramatically change the overall look and would make it much more “Jordan-like”. The points become an egregious misstep with the heel counter. There is a badge like piece that has a raised “NIKE” logo with the swoosh. That piece looks like an upside-down baseball home plate. Creating a massive point just below the Achilles. As the material that holds the lacing system moves to the back, two black opposing points are created. Creating a total of 7 points on a shoe in a line that has never utilized points at all.
The Jordan 40 comes only a month after the divisive decision to release the Jordan 10 Steel with the toe cap. This is a massive area of contention between the levels of sneakerheads. The toe cap was a real thing that Jordan wore in games. That is not up for debate. However, to every single sneakerhead I’ve spoken to who can remember 1996, not one of them remembers seeing a toe capped AJ10 in the wild. One of the most common design motifs is a smooth round toe box. Thankfully Nike did not allow that design choice to overflow into other areas, as of yet. The Jordan 40 does have a clean toe box. However, the toe box almost feels AJ11-like if the toe box to side panel moved around like the patent leather of the AJ11 around the base of the upper.
There is ribbing around the side panels, but only the inside ribbing includes a vent. Making the shoe very asymmetrical. Now Jordans have often been asymmetrical (AJ12 being the biggest example of this), but not when it comes to functionality. The laces are flat and resemble the laces found in the AJ37 and 38, even though not specifically referenced as an influence. The tongue takes inspiration from the Jordan 5… if they wanted to ruin the most iconic tongue detail in the line. What makes the Jordan 5 tongue feature so impressive is its unmistakable “keystone” shape and the reflective silver color (this is also why not every sneakerhead gets up for the Jordan 5 ‘black tongue’). The Jordan 40 takes the AJ5 tongue and chops off every aspect that made it iconic.
The AJ40 is the first mainline to completely abandon traditional colorways
Colorways are highly subjective. Case in point, recently Nike released the Undefeated Jordan 4. Commemorating the first ever Jordan x Celebrity artist collab. The colorway of that shoe is objectively ugly. The offspring of Army Green and Split Pea Soup green against a matte black sole and triangle, offset with bright orange laces and details. In any other realm of possibility, the Undefeated 4s are objectively ugly. Since it has historical relevance and was released with a low allocation volume, ‘hype’ made an ugly shoe desirable. The AJ40 has been announced with 3 primary colorways (two of which fall way outside the normal expectation). Every model doesn’t have to have a White/Black, a Bred (Black/Red), a white cement/black cement, Carolina and navy, but what Nike is rolling out for the AJ40 read like they are rolling out 50 different colorways but are releasing the strangest 2-3 first.
“The Classic”
The classic is the base white with black as the secondary color. The lacing system and the aforementioned ‘points’ are black. The home plate detail is a light grey, with the remainder of the shoe being typical white. There’s nothing categorically wrong with the “classic” other than the black on white magnifies their design missteps.
“Blue Suede”
The lacing system and points appear to be a bluish grey instead of black. The midsole is white. Part of the outsole is an ice sole (kudos for not abandoning the ice sole). Yet the bulk of the upper is almost periwinkle blue. Not a Carolina Blue, that at least would be understandable. The type of blue you’d choose if you don’t want a ‘typical’ blue or want to really challenge your ability to coordinate this shoe with literally anything.
“Dusty Rose”
The short version is “Dusty Rose” might as well be called Pepto Bismal pink. No shade to any pink lovers, but A) pink is not a primary sneaker color and B) like the blue suede, it’s as if they tried to pick a pink that doesn’t go with anything. The one saving grace about the Dusty Rose, is it removes the ‘points’ dynamic by putting pink next to pink. While the Dusty Rose is a Jordan colorway I wouldn’t pay 25% of the retail cost for, it does provide some hope of what a solid colorway of a different sort might look like. If the Dusty Rose was a “Cool Grey” or a “winterized” or even a “black cat” colorway, the quality of the AJ40 aesthetic would go up measurably.
Floated recycled colorways
Nothing has been more infuriating that recycling coloways to dupe consumers into thinking a shoe is more than it is. The depressingly bad Nike Book line started this, and it should’ve ended there. The Nike Book line tries to make a performance shoe look like a classic. A fundamental problem. Nike performance basketball shoes look like performance basketball shoes for a reason. To counter the bad design to appeal to more than the ironically different consumers, Nike decided to adopt various colorways of other shoes to make that shoe more appealing. The Nike Book Forrest Gump Cortez colorway. The Nike Book Shattered Backboard AJ1 colorway. Repurposing another shoe’s well-known colorway is one step away from calling it a fusion. In Nike Book 1 fashion, an image has been floated online (authenticity still unknown) of six additional AJ40 colorways. All of which are a thievery of other elite Jordan colorways.
AJ8 Aqua
AJ5 Chicago
AJ5 Grape
AJ13 Flint Grey
AJ7 Bordeaux
AJ7 Hare
Inside tech could be as advertised
Every issue with the Jordan 40 is aesthetic. It’s all the surface appearance of the shoe related. Structurally, the latest mainline Jordans have had some interesting advances in technology and fit of the AJ38 and 39. Both were very good but seemed to go just a tad too far. The 38 feels like a dream the first time it’s worn. Over time some of the inner details lose their structure and the shoe becomes less desirable to wear. The 39 was a bold change of direction but offers an impressive inner fit. The Jordan 40 admittedly is incorporating something never done before in a Jordan. The first full length Nike Zoom X foam with a full Zoom Strobel. Providing “unparalleled responsiveness” heel counter to toe box.
The fit
Without testing the AJ40 this is entirely speculation. Everything about the design of the AJ40 suggests that it should have a superior fit. In a shoe that takes inspiration from previous models, it’s surprising the AJ7 or Huarache style ‘inner sock’ wasn’t used to ensure a supreme fit. However, the structure, the panels as laid out, the lacing system all would suggest a solid if not top shelf fit. Early reports from sneakerhead content creators who have gotten their hands on the shoe claim the fit is good but runs small. If you’re interested in this shoe, you are advised to try them on first or at least size up 0.5-1.0.
Why the AJ40 doesn’t work
Ultimately the AJ40 is a colossal, missed opportunity. This could be the last tenth anniversary (10, 20, 30, 40, etc) where Michael Jordan-62 years old, might still care to have design input. The AJ39 was the first model in a long time where the namesake weighed in on the design process. The biggest mistake was making it a combo Jordan. The logic is self-explanatory but falls flat when one realizes that the combo Jordan approach has never had wide scale success within that larger sneakerhead conversation.
Instead of design elements taken from other models, they could have and should have reused previous ‘conceptual’ inspirations. For example, cars and jets. The Jordan 5 was inspired by the World War 2 Mustang Fighter Jet. The Jordan 6 was inspired by Jordan’s Porche 911. The Jordan 14 was inspired by Ferrari (thus the Ferrari 14s that released earlier this year). The Jordan 15 was inspired by the X-15 Fighter Jet. The Jordan 17 was inspired by Aston Martin. Rehashing old models has proven to be a bad choice and rejected by the sneakerhead community. Inspiring the AJ40 with conceptual design inspirations like cars and jets, would have inevitably led to a shoe that any sneakerhead anywhere on any level would have identified as universally “Jordan-like”.
The measure of a sneakerhead is the ability to see a model without logos and identifying markings and can discern whether this model is “heat”, really good, average, or below the line. The AJ40 is a prime example of looking below the line or not Jordan-like based on a design choice that the culture has already established as not good enough. It’s a great example of trying to reinvent a wheel that Jordan already perfected.
Different is not always better and what has always worked does not need to be reinvented. This was a design shift that at minimum was ill-advised, if not unconscionable. The fact that a portion of sneakerheads are celebrating his model as anything other than a failure is an indictment on a portion of the sneakerhead consumer base. The approach is as logical as Lamborghini making a model that looks exactly like a Honda Civic and telling you it’s the new Countach you’ve waited 40 years to see.
About the Author
Jason C. Jones