Been following Formula 1 much more recently (thanks to the Netflix documentary Drive to Survive - highly recommended) and there seems to be quite an interesting parallel in the sport to the current super spikes debate in track.
For those unaware, in Formula 1 drivers are on teams sponsored for the most part by car companies but some others (Mercedes, Ferrari, Aston Martin, McLaren, Red Bull, etc.). There are huge inequities in spending and quality of the car. Yet this is just accepted as a given. Before the race, over half the field not only has no chance of winning - they have no chance of making the podium because their car is not even close to the quality of Mercedes or Red Bull. They are satisfied with finishing 10th or whatever and see that as a huge success.
The reason I bring this up is because in track, the competing brands for Nike are all just accepting that Nike spikes are better, but instead of continuing to try and improve their "car" (aka spikes) to beat Nike - they are just telling their athletes to compete in the Nike spikes. It is frequently mentioned on this site that Adidas athletes just have no shot - similar to how a driver from say Haas has no shot. But Haas does not go out and say "just go drive Mercedes today and we should be good".