Adidas Faces Boycott Calls Over Israeli Soldier Campaign
· marketing
Adidas Faces Boycott Calls Over Campaign Featuring Former Israeli Soldier
Adidas’ latest advertising campaign has sparked controversy, with activists calling for a boycott over its use of a former Israeli soldier in promoting its single-shoe service for amputees. Shalev Biton, a former Israeli army soldier who lost his leg during the 2021 Israel-Gaza conflict, features in the advertisement.
The World Health Organization estimates that between 5,000 and 6,000 people in Gaza have undergone amputations as of early October 2025, largely due to Israeli attacks. This makes Gaza the place with the highest number of child amputees per capita, with children accounting for a quarter of all amputations in the past two years.
Pro-Palestine activists argue that campaigns like Adidas’ “normalize Israel’s crimes against Palestinians and allow it to continue committing them with impunity.” Critics also point out that using Biton’s story trivializes the experiences of thousands of Palestinians who have suffered similar injuries. Javier Bardem, Susan Abulhawa, and Fatima Bhutto are among those who have spoken out against Adidas’ decision.
The controversy highlights a broader problem: the normalization of Israeli aggression. By promoting a former soldier’s story without acknowledging the context of Israel’s occupation and blockade on Gaza, Adidas has sparked outrage. The company’s response to criticism has been inadequate, raising questions about its values and commitment to social responsibility.
Adidas is not the first company to face boycott calls over its treatment of Palestinians, nor will it be the last. Veolia, G4S, and SodaStream have all faced similar campaigns in the past. As brands navigate the complex landscape of marketing and politics, they must consider the consequences of their actions on communities affected by conflict.
The use of Biton’s story for promotional purposes is a symptom of a deeper problem – one that involves the exploitation of people’s stories for profit. Adidas’ decision to feature a former soldier without acknowledging the broader context of Israeli aggression has exposed a troubling trend in marketing: the willingness to prioritize profit over politics and people’s lives.
As the controversy unfolds, it is essential to remember that this is not just about Adidas or its advertising campaign; it is also about our society’s tolerance for injury and injustice. The stories of amputees like Shalev Biton deserve to be told with respect and sensitivity, not used as a marketing tool to sell products.
Ultimately, the decision on what to do next rests with Adidas. Will it take a stand against the boycott calls or cave in to pressure? Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: this controversy has exposed a deeper problem that requires attention from brands, policymakers, and society at large.
Reader Views
- ABAriana B. · marketing consultant
The controversy surrounding Adidas' campaign featuring Shalev Biton highlights the challenges of navigating complex geopolitics in marketing. While I understand the intent behind promoting accessibility for amputees, the decision to feature a former Israeli soldier without acknowledging the occupation's impact on Gaza raises questions about the company's values and social responsibility. A crucial aspect missing from this discussion is the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in mitigating brand risk: could Adidas have benefited from partnering with local organizations in Palestine or advocating for policy changes that address the root causes of amputations?
- TSThe Stage Desk · editorial
Adidas' campaign is less about promoting inclusivity and more about exploiting a tragic story for brand visibility. The company's failure to acknowledge Israel's occupation and blockade on Gaza reveals a glaring disregard for the human cost of its actions. What's concerning is that Adidas seems to be oblivious to the fact that using a former soldier's narrative without context perpetuates the normalization of Israeli aggression, further emboldening a regime accountable for countless human rights abuses. The company's response has been woefully inadequate.
- MDMateo D. · small-business owner
It's ironic that Adidas is being accused of normalizing Israeli aggression by promoting a former soldier's story without acknowledging the occupation and blockade on Gaza. But what's even more telling is how this campaign reflects the broader issue of militarism in sports sponsorship. We've seen it with the US military's presence at Super Bowl events, and now we're seeing it with Adidas' partnership with Israeli security forces. The line between marketing and complicity is getting blurred faster than a soccer jersey on a muddy field.