Adidas Has a Serious Brand Problem. Its Amputee Campaign Has Collided With Gaza

EBM Newsdesk Analysis — September 2026

Adidas has found itself facing a serious reputational backlash over an Israeli campaign for its Single Shoe Service after featuring Shalev Biton, a former IDF soldier who lost his leg in 2021. The service itself is difficult to criticise: it allows people who need only one shoe, including amputees and people with limb differences, to buy a single shoe rather than a pair. The problem is the timing and symbolism. Biton lost his leg after an anti-tank missile struck his military vehicle near the Gaza border in 2021 and later returned to running using a prosthetic limb. For Adidas, that may have looked like an obvious story of resilience. But in 2026, putting a former Israeli soldier at the centre of an amputee campaign inevitably carries a much heavier meaning because of what has happened to Palestinian civilians — particularly children — in Gaza.

The Contrast Adidas Failed to Anticipate

The contrast is extraordinarily difficult to ignore. The World Health Organization has reported thousands of traumatic amputations and more than 22,000 major extremity injuries in Gaza since October 2023, while the destruction of the territory’s health system has left survivors facing severe shortages of rehabilitation, prosthetics and specialist care. More disturbing are the accounts from doctors who have treated children. Orthopaedic surgeon Dr Mark Perlmutter described performing an amputation on a five-year-old Palestinian girl while she remained conscious because adequate anaesthesia was unavailable; according to his account, an anaesthesiologist sang to her during the procedure as doctors hoped she would lose consciousness. Earlier reporting has documented similar cases involving Palestinians, including children, undergoing amputations or other major procedures without adequate anaesthesia or pain relief.

These are not abstract statistics. They are children losing limbs under circumstances that are almost unimaginable in a functioning healthcare system. That makes the Adidas campaign particularly vulnerable to criticism because the product being promoted is specifically designed around the experience of limb loss. The company may have intended to tell a story about an amputee returning to sport; critics see an image of an Israeli military veteran being celebrated in an amputee campaign while Palestinian children are suffering catastrophic injuries in Gaza.

This Is About Judgement, Not Biton’s Disability

Biton’s story is legitimate, and his disability should not be diminished because he served in the IDF. The issue is Adidas’ judgement in placing that particular story inside a campaign about amputees at a moment when the word itself carries an entirely different emotional weight in relation to Gaza. The company has effectively placed an uplifting commercial message — an amputee athlete overcoming disability and returning to sport — alongside a humanitarian catastrophe in which Palestinian children have lost limbs through war injuries and, according to medical testimony, some have undergone surgery without adequate pain relief.

Adidas did not create that contrast. But it has become responsible for managing it because of the marketing decision it made. That distinction is important. This is not an argument that Adidas should exclude Israeli athletes, former soldiers or people with particular political backgrounds from advertising. It is an argument about whether a multinational brand properly considered the context in which its imagery would be received.

Adidas’ Apology May Not Be Enough

Adidas has apologised for the offence caused and stressed that the campaign was a local activation rather than a global advertising campaign. It has also pointed out that the Single Shoe Service is a wider accessibility initiative being expanded across multiple international markets, including countries in the Middle East. Those explanations may be accurate, but they do not entirely answer the criticism.

The backlash is about perception and judgement rather than simply intention. Saying the initiative is global does not explain why this particular ambassador was selected in Israel, while saying Biton appeared alongside other disabled athletes does not remove the significance of his military background. Once the image escaped its original Israeli marketing context and began circulating globally alongside images and stories of Palestinian child amputees, Adidas lost control of the narrative.

Adidas Has Been Here Before

The company also has an unfortunate history here. In 2024, Adidas faced another controversy involving Palestinian-American model Bella Hadid after removing her from a campaign linked to the 1972 Munich Olympics. Adidas subsequently apologised and said it had made an “unintentional mistake”.

The recurrence matters. Global brands are judged not only on individual campaigns but on whether they appear to learn from them. A second major controversy involving Israel and Palestine makes it harder for Adidas to characterise the latest episode as simply an unforeseen social-media reaction.

The Global Brand Problem

There is a broader business lesson. Adidas operates in a world where advertising is no longer consumed within the boundaries of the market for which it was produced. A campaign created for Israel can be photographed, reposted and interpreted in London, New York, Dubai or Paris within hours.

That is particularly important for a company whose commercial proposition is built around sport, culture and inclusivity. A boycott campaign does not automatically translate into lost sales, and there is no evidence yet that this episode represents a material threat to Adidas’ global business. But reputational damage rarely arrives neatly on a quarterly results statement. It can accumulate through repeated controversies, consumer distrust and increasingly difficult decisions around ambassadors and campaigns.

The Irony Is That the Product Makes Sense

The Single Shoe Service itself is arguably exactly the kind of programme a sports company should be promoting. Making footwear accessible to people who require only one shoe is practical, inclusive and commercially sensible. The problem is that Adidas appears to have underestimated the political and emotional context surrounding the person it chose to represent that idea.

In an ordinary year, a former soldier who lost a limb and returned to running might be an uncomplicated story of sporting resilience. In the present environment, the same image inevitably invites comparison with Palestinian children who have lost limbs in Gaza, including those whose amputations have taken place amid catastrophic medical shortages.

The Bigger Question for Adidas

Adidas cannot undo the circumstances that created that comparison. Nor should it be expected to exclude Israeli athletes or former soldiers from advertising simply because of their nationality or background. The lesson is more basic: global brands have to understand the context in which their images will be consumed, not merely the intention behind them.

Adidas wanted its campaign to say that disability should not prevent people from participating in sport. Instead, it has opened a much more uncomfortable debate about whose experience of disability gets celebrated and whose suffering gets seen.

The company has not necessarily created a commercial crisis. But it has created a brand-management problem it could have avoided. Its apology may contain the immediate backlash, but the longer-term answer will have to be more than an explanation of what the campaign was supposed to mean.

For Adidas, the smartest response would be to demonstrate that its accessibility programme genuinely applies to everyone living with limb loss — rather than allowing an initiative designed to make sport more inclusive to become remembered for the controversy surrounding one image.

The campaign was meant to be about inclusion. The problem for Adidas is that the world is now asking whether its definition of inclusion was broad enough.