On Thursday, news broke that Stefano Gabbana, one of the co-founders of the 41-year-old Italian luxury brand Dolce & Gabbana, had resigned from the company in January. But the story quickly evolved: Gabbana had resigned as chair of the company and was considering options for his 40% stake of the company, but he would be remaining in a creative role alongside co-founder Domenico Dolce. Bloomberg also reported that the company is considering hiring former Gucci CEO Stefano Cantino for a senior role.
The confusion over Gabbana’s role and its evolution coincides with an uncertain future for Dolce & Gabbana. Like many independent luxury brands, it has faced a slowdown, impacts from the war in the Middle East and rising costs of business, all without the backing of a major conglomerate. As luxury evolves, independent brands like Dolce & Gabbana continue to struggle compared to conglomerate giants like LVMH and Kering.
David Ratmoko, founder of the Swiss modeling agency Metro Models, said he has had an inkling that changes were happening at D&G for months, based on conversations with models and other agencies about bookings from the company. But Ratmoko said Gabbana leaving his role on the business side of the company isn’t the biggest issue.
“It’s losing him while the house is sitting on millions in debt and attempting to refinance with banks that are demanding millions in new capital before they will lend it,” Ratmoko said. “That is a very narrow spot to be in for any brand, but particularly one that has never been a conglomerate-backed brand.”
In March, regulatory filings showed that D&G had over $520 million in debt with creditors and had been negotiating a new round of refinancing to keep the brand independent. Gabbana himself owns 40% of the company, while Dolce owns another 40%. The remaining 20% is held by Dolce’s brother Alfonso, who has replaced Gabbana as the chair of the company, and his sister Dorotea.
The debt is a significant issue for the brand. It is reportedly considering selling off real estate assets and licensing the brand name to raise money. Its creditors are reportedly seeking $176 million in new capital. Dolce & Gabbana operates over 200 global stores. The company declined to comment on this story.
Dolce & Gabbana has also invested heavily in the Middle East in recent years, particularly with its fragrance business. It opened four stores in the Gulf region in just the last quarter of 2025, including a standalone beauty store in Dubai. But now, the war in Iran is putting pressure on luxury retail in the region.
“The refinancing of upcoming debt obligations last year gives the brand some breathing space, but they are very exposed in the Middle East and, through their own missteps, not as strong in China,” said David Yan, founder of the brand consultancy Medinge Group and the international fashion magazine Lucire.
Dolce & Gabbana suffered damage to its reputation in China after releasing a 2018 ad campaign deemed racist by much of the Chinese public, after which a DM of Gabbana disparaging China was leaked — the designers later apologized. Since then, China has become a smaller, though still significant part of the business, accounting for roughly 16% of total sales in 2024. Dolce & Gabbana’s total revenue last year was over $2 billion.
But with mounting debt, leadership shakeups and war putting pressure on sales performance in the Middle East, what does the future hold for Dolce & Gabbana?
Ratmoko said the squeeze on independent brands like Dolce & Gabbana is very real. Competition from major conglomerates like LVMH has already driven a number of brands to either seek outside investment, like Valentino with Mayhoola in November, or be acquired by larger conglomerates — Prada bought Versace and Kering acquired the Raselli Franco Group, both in December.
“Luxury is absolutely in a contraction period,” he said. “I have seen it on the agency side where we are booking talent to do campaigns — the briefs have been getting sluggish in the last year. Brands are reducing editorial spending, cutting campaign budgets and reducing investment in new talent.”