A new Adidas advertising campaign has ignited a fierce debate over the relationship between sport, corporate marketing and the war in Gaza.

The campaign promotes Adidas’ service that allows amputees to purchase a single shoe rather than a pair. At the centre of the advertisement is Shalev Biton, a former Israeli army soldier who lost a leg after being wounded during the 2021 Israel-Gaza conflict. The campaign shows him trying on a shoe in an Israeli Adidas store before running outdoors.

What might ordinarily be presented as a story about resilience and returning to sport has instead triggered criticism from Palestinian rights activists and calls to boycott the German sportswear company.

A campaign caught in a much wider conflict

For critics, the controversy is not simply about the choice of an individual featured in an advertisement.

They argue that placing a former Israeli soldier at the heart of a campaign about limb loss carries particular significance at a time when thousands of Palestinians in Gaza have also lost limbs during the conflict.

According to figures cited in the report, the World Health Organization estimated that between 5,000 and 6,000 people in Gaza had undergone amputations by early October 2025. Tens of thousands more Palestinians have reportedly suffered life-changing injuries.

That has made the Adidas campaign deeply uncomfortable for activists, who say the advertisement presents one person’s journey back to physical activity while largely ignoring the vastly larger Palestinian experience of injury, disability and loss.

Stephanie Westbrook, a boycott campaigns coordinator with the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, described the campaign as an “affront” to Palestinians.

Her criticism reflects a broader argument from pro-Palestinian campaigners: companies operating in politically sensitive environments cannot always separate commercial messaging from the realities surrounding the people they portray.

The symbolism of running again

Sport is often associated with recovery.

For people who have lost limbs, being able to walk, run or play sport again can represent independence, dignity and a return to everyday life. Adidas’ single-shoe initiative is designed to address a very practical problem faced by amputees: someone with one foot may not need to purchase a complete pair of shoes.

But the symbolism changes when the campaign appears against the backdrop of Gaza.

Palestinian athletes and civilians have suffered devastating injuries during the conflict. The article notes that more than 1,000 Palestinian athletes have been killed, while aspiring footballers have lost limbs and, in some cases, formed amputee football teams.

For these athletes, sport can also be an act of rebuilding. Football and other physical activities offer a way to regain a sense of community and identity after enormous personal and collective loss.

That creates an uncomfortable contrast: one amputee is being celebrated by a global sports brand for his return to running, while thousands of Palestinians with similar injuries face shortages of medical treatment, rehabilitation and prosthetic equipment.

The struggle for prosthetics in Gaza

The controversy is also connected to the wider humanitarian situation.

Humanitarian organisations and rights campaigners have repeatedly raised concerns about access to medical supplies in Gaza. The destruction of healthcare infrastructure, combined with restrictions on the movement of humanitarian goods, has made treatment and rehabilitation extremely difficult.

Prosthetic limbs are particularly important for amputees hoping to regain mobility and independence. Yet campaigners say that restrictions on supplies have contributed to severe shortages.

The International Rescue Committee has also reported that children make up a significant proportion of amputees in Gaza. UNICEF has reported that tens of thousands of Palestinians, including thousands of children, have suffered life-changing injuries since the war began.

For someone recovering from an amputation, the injury is only the beginning. Surgery, rehabilitation, physiotherapy, psychological support and access to a properly fitted prosthesis can all be essential to rebuilding a life.

When those services are unavailable, surviving an injury does not necessarily mean returning to anything resembling normality.

Boycott calls gain momentum

The Adidas campaign has consequently become the focus of an online boycott movement.

Pro-Palestinian activists and public figures have criticised the advertisement and encouraged consumers to reconsider purchasing Adidas products. Spanish actor Javier Bardem has publicly highlighted the boycott campaign, while writers including Susan Abulhawa and Fatima Bhutto have also been associated with calls to boycott the brand.

The campaign is part of a broader movement that seeks to pressure companies through consumer action rather than relying solely on governments or international institutions.

For supporters, boycotts provide ordinary consumers with a way to express opposition to corporate decisions and perceived political complicity.

For companies, however, controversies such as this present a difficult communications challenge. A marketing campaign intended to communicate inclusion, accessibility or resilience can acquire an entirely different meaning when audiences interpret it through the lens of an ongoing conflict.

When advertising becomes political

The Adidas controversy raises a bigger question: can international brands really remain separate from geopolitics?

Global companies routinely market themselves around universal themes such as equality, perseverance, diversity and sport. But those themes can become politically charged when an advertisement involves a conflict in which millions of people have personal connections to the issues involved.

The criticism directed at Adidas demonstrates how quickly a seemingly straightforward campaign can become part of a much larger political conversation.

The issue is not necessarily whether an amputee should be allowed to tell his story. Rather, critics are questioning why this particular story was chosen, how it was presented and whether the company adequately considered the broader context surrounding disability and limb loss in the region.

A painful contrast

At its core, the debate is about more than one advertisement.

It is about whose stories are amplified, whose suffering receives attention and how global brands navigate a world in which commercial decisions can carry political meaning.

For many amputees, sport can be transformative. Being able to put on a shoe, walk independently or return to running can represent an extraordinary personal achievement.

But in Gaza, thousands of amputees are confronting a very different reality — one shaped not only by physical injury but by destroyed hospitals, limited rehabilitation services, shortages of medical supplies and the continuing consequences of war.

That contrast explains why the Adidas campaign has generated such strong reactions.

The controversy is unlikely to disappear simply by treating the advertisement as another piece of sports marketing. In an era where consumers increasingly scrutinise the social and political implications of the brands they support, companies are being forced to consider not only what their campaigns say, but also what they may symbolise to people living through conflict.

For Adidas, a campaign intended to celebrate mobility and resilience has instead opened a difficult conversation about war, disability, representation and corporate responsibility.