Adidas is facing a new wave of boycott calls after featuring former Israeli soldier Shalev Biton in a campaign promoting its “Single Shoe Service” for amputees. What might normally be presented as an accessibility and inclusion campaign has become politically explosive because of Biton’s military background and the devastating number of amputations reported in Gaza. The controversy raises a much bigger question: where should global brands draw the line between marketing, politics and corporate responsibility?
Adidas Has a Branding Problem, Not Just a Boycott Problem
At first glance, Adidas’ campaign appears straightforward. Its Single Shoe Service allows customers who need only one shoe to purchase a single shoe rather than a pair, addressing an important need for people living with limb differences.
But the choice of ambassador has transformed an accessibility campaign into a political controversy.
Biton, a former Israeli army soldier, lost his left leg after being wounded during the 2021 Israel-Gaza conflict. Adidas subsequently featured him using the company’s single-shoe service and running outdoors.
The problem for Adidas is not necessarily the existence of an accessibility service. The controversy centers on who was selected to represent it and the context in which the campaign appeared.
At a time when Gaza has experienced a huge number of conflict-related amputations and life-changing injuries, critics argue that presenting an Israeli military veteran as the face of an amputee-focused campaign creates a deeply uncomfortable contrast.
That contrast has become the story.
The Gaza Context Makes the Advertisement Far More Political
The timing is crucial.
The World Health Organization has estimated that between 5,000 and 6,000 people in Gaza had undergone amputations by October 2025, according to the report. UNICEF has separately reported that about 42,000 Palestinians suffered life-altering injuries, including approximately 11,000 children.
These are not simply statistics.
Behind those figures are children who have lost limbs, athletes who can no longer compete in the same way, and families facing years of rehabilitation in a territory where healthcare infrastructure has been devastated.
That is why the Adidas campaign has generated such an intense response.
The controversy is essentially built around a painful juxtaposition:
One amputee is being used to tell a story of recovery and mobility, while thousands of Palestinian amputees are struggling to access prosthetics, medical treatment and rehabilitation.
The Most Important Question Is Not Whether Amputees Deserve Representation
Critics of the campaign need to be distinguished from critics of disability inclusion itself.
The Single Shoe Service addresses a legitimate accessibility problem. People with one amputated limb, congenital limb differences or other conditions may genuinely benefit from being able to buy footwear individually.
The more difficult question is whether Adidas understood the geopolitical meaning of selecting a former Israeli soldier for that particular campaign.
That is where the company’s communications strategy becomes vulnerable.
A global brand does not operate in a political vacuum.
When it markets products across countries and communities directly affected by a conflict, symbolism becomes part of the product’s meaning.
Adidas therefore faces a communications dilemma that goes beyond the advertisement itself: was the company treating disability simply as a marketing category, without sufficiently considering the political circumstances surrounding its chosen ambassador?
Gaza’s Amputee Crisis Changes the Meaning of the Campaign
The Gaza war has created an extraordinary humanitarian crisis for people with limb injuries.
According to the reporting, children account for roughly a quarter of amputations in Gaza over the previous two years, while rehabilitation services and prosthetic access remain severely constrained.
This creates an uncomfortable irony for a sports brand.
Adidas is selling an image of movement.
Running.
Recovery.
Independence.
Sport.
But for many injured Palestinians, those same concepts have become symbols of what has been taken away.
Palestinian amputee football players have attempted to return to sport despite devastating injuries, turning football into a form of physical and psychological recovery.
The company therefore finds itself caught between two completely different narratives about disability.
One is about individual recovery and consumer accessibility.
The other is about mass injury, war and the struggle to obtain basic medical assistance.
Why Activists Are Calling for a Boycott
Pro-Palestinian campaigners argue that Adidas’ decision risks normalising the Israeli military experience while Palestinians are experiencing the consequences of the war.
Stephanie Westbrook, a sports boycott campaigns coordinator with the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, sharply criticised the campaign and argued that featuring a former soldier in this context was offensive to Palestinians who had lost relatives or limbs.
Other public figures have joined the criticism.
Spanish actor Javier Bardem has promoted boycott messaging, while Palestinian-American author Susan Abulhawa, Pakistani author Fatima Bhutto and Palestinians on social media have also called for boycotting Adidas products.
The boycott campaign demonstrates how modern activism has changed.
Consumers no longer need to wait for governments or traditional institutions to apply pressure.
They can attack a company’s most sensitive asset:
its brand.
Adidas Has Already Learned How Dangerous Palestine Politics Can Be
This is not Adidas’ first controversy involving Israel and Palestine.
In 2024, the company faced intense criticism over its treatment of Palestinian-American model Bella Hadid after she was selected for a campaign connected to Adidas’ SL72 shoe, which referenced the 1972 Munich Olympics.
The controversy eventually led Adidas to apologise to Hadid and other campaign partners, saying the company had made an unintended mistake and would review the campaign.
That history makes the current controversy particularly significant.
Adidas cannot reasonably claim that the political sensitivity surrounding Palestine is an entirely unexpected issue.
The company has already experienced the commercial and reputational risks involved in navigating this subject.
The latest controversy therefore raises an uncomfortable question:
Did Adidas learn the wrong lesson from its previous crisis?
The Bigger Issue: Can Corporations Really Stay Apolitical?
Global companies frequently insist that they are not political actors.
But their marketing decisions increasingly say otherwise.
Choosing a celebrity is political.
Choosing an athlete is political.
Choosing a military veteran is political.
Choosing where to advertise is political.
And deciding which voices receive global visibility can itself become a political statement.
Adidas may not have intended to make a statement about Israel or Gaza.
But intent does not completely determine public interpretation.
In today’s highly polarised information environment, corporate neutrality can disappear the moment a brand enters a politically charged conversation.
The Double Standard Question
This controversy also raises a broader question about how corporations portray people affected by war.
Would a company promote a Russian military veteran in an accessibility campaign while Russia’s war in Ukraine was dominating international headlines?
Would it feature a soldier from another conflict without addressing the political context surrounding that person’s military service?
These comparisons are not perfect, but they expose the underlying issue.
Companies increasingly use stories of personal resilience to sell products.
But when that personal story is connected to military service, occupation or war, the company must understand that resilience can coexist with political responsibility and public controversy.
A compelling personal story does not automatically erase the circumstances surrounding it.
The Palestinian Side of the Accessibility Debate Is Being Ignored
Perhaps the most damaging criticism of the Adidas campaign is that it could have highlighted Palestinians living with amputations.
Gaza has one of the world’s most severe concentrations of conflict-related limb injuries.
There are Palestinian amputee football teams.
There are children learning to live without limbs.
There are athletes attempting to rebuild their lives through sport.
There are families struggling to access prosthetic devices.
For a sports company that wants to position itself as a champion of movement and inclusion, these stories represent a powerful opportunity.
Instead, Adidas chose an Israeli former soldier.
That decision has allowed critics to argue that the company is missing an opportunity to connect accessibility with the people most visibly affected by the current regional crisis.
This Is Where Corporate Responsibility Gets Complicated
Adidas is not responsible for the Gaza war simply because it operates in Israel.
Nor does featuring a former Israeli soldier automatically prove that the company supports Israeli military policy.
Those claims would require evidence.
But corporations can still be criticised for poor judgment, insensitive messaging or failure to anticipate foreseeable consequences.
That distinction is important.
The strongest criticism of Adidas does not need to establish that the company deliberately supports military actions.
It can instead ask a simpler question:
Why choose this particular person, for this particular campaign, at this particular moment?
That is a legitimate corporate accountability question.
Boycotts Are Becoming a New Form of Political Pressure
The Adidas controversy also illustrates the growing importance of consumer boycotts.
In the past, boycotts were often temporary campaigns with limited reach.
Social media has changed that.
A single advertisement can be turned into a global political debate within hours.
Activists can identify a company’s campaign, circulate screenshots, mobilise supporters and pressure retailers and consumers before a corporation has time to respond.
The objective is not necessarily to destroy the company.
It is to make the company calculate the reputational cost of remaining associated with a controversial issue.
That calculation can influence advertising strategies, sponsorships, partnerships and future campaigns.
The Sports Industry Is No Longer Separate From Politics
Sport has traditionally attempted to present itself as a universal language.
But major sporting brands are deeply embedded in politics.
They sponsor national teams.
They work with athletes.
They participate in international competitions.
They operate in countries affected by wars and occupations.
And they sell products whose symbolism extends far beyond footwear.
Adidas therefore cannot completely separate its sports identity from global political realities.
When an athlete or campaign ambassador has a military background, that history can become part of how consumers interpret the brand.
The Real Damage May Be to Adidas’ Reputation
The immediate boycott may or may not have a significant effect on Adidas’ global sales.
But the longer-term reputational consequences could be more important.
The company has spent decades building a brand around sport, youth culture, performance and social identity.
A controversy involving Israel and Palestine can divide consumers along intensely emotional political lines.
That is especially dangerous because brands depend on emotional loyalty.
Once consumers begin viewing a company as politically aligned with one side of a conflict, changing that perception can be extremely difficult.
Adidas Has a Chance to Change the Conversation
The company still has an opportunity to move the debate away from political symbolism and toward genuine accessibility.
It could expand its single-shoe initiative.
It could work with amputee athletes from different communities.
It could support rehabilitation programmes.
It could invest in prosthetic access.
And it could demonstrate that its commitment to people living with limb differences is not merely an advertising strategy.
Such steps would not necessarily satisfy every critic.
But they would provide something that a marketing campaign alone cannot:
measurable corporate responsibility.
Adidas Is Facing a Test Bigger Than One Advertisement
The Adidas controversy is ultimately not about one pair of shoes.
It is about what happens when commercial storytelling collides with the realities of war.
The company’s Single Shoe Service may be a meaningful accessibility initiative. But choosing a former Israeli soldier to promote it while Gaza faces an enormous amputee and rehabilitation crisis has created a political and ethical controversy that Adidas cannot dismiss as ordinary social-media criticism.
The central question is not whether Shalev Biton deserves to rebuild his life after losing a leg. He does.
The harder question is whether Adidas should have recognised that thousands of Palestinians have also lost limbs—and that their stories carry a radically different meaning in the context of the Gaza war.
For Adidas, the lesson is increasingly clear:
In an age of global conflict, brands do not control the political meaning of their advertising once it enters the public sphere.
And when a company chooses to tell a story about disability, recovery and sport during a war that has left thousands of people disabled, the choice of whose story gets told becomes a statement in itself.
