The store also doesn't generally review the boxes of shoes and ensure there's no references to nike.com on them, and if they did, there's plenty of other stores for Nike to sell at.
If you want the analogy to make sense, let's assume there's exactly two places that sell shoes and they have a stranglehold on the market, and they both mark shoes up the same amount and far more than they would if there was competition between them on price, and they refused to allow any reference to nike.com and how you can get shoes far cheaper there on or in any of the packaging.
That would be a very dysfunctional market, and I think the reason would clearly be the anticompetitive practices that prevented competitors and that resulted from them not competing on price.
It is even worse than this, btw, as the markets are disjoint: there are two places to buy shoes, but virtually all customers shop at either one store or the other store (for practical reasons of cost and convenience that are similar to those seen with someone having to buy things from a store in a different physical region of the country than where they chose to live), making each store separately a monopoly over its relevant market.
If you want the analogy to make sense, let's assume there's exactly two places that sell shoes and they have a stranglehold on the market, and they both mark shoes up the same amount and far more than they would if there was competition between them on price, and they refused to allow any reference to nike.com and how you can get shoes far cheaper there on or in any of the packaging.
That would be a very dysfunctional market, and I think the reason would clearly be the anticompetitive practices that prevented competitors and that resulted from them not competing on price.