Adidas’ Single‑Shoe Service Campaign Triggers Boycott After Showcasing Israeli Soldier

In January, Adidas rolled out a new initiative across more than twenty European markets – the Single Shoe Service – which lets anyone who needs just one shoe pay only half the price of a full pair. The idea, on its face, seemed simple and compassionate: amputees often buy two shoes even though they wear only one.

When the program reached Israel, the company chose to put a face to the campaign: Shalev Biton, a former Israeli Defence Forces soldier who lost his left leg during the 2021 military offensive in Gaza. Biton, now fitted with a prosthetic, posted about the launch on Instagram, saying the project fulfilled a personal goal after he repeatedly had to buy complete running‑shoe sets despite using only one.

That decision, however, ignited a firestorm on social media. Pro‑Palestinian activists argued that showcasing a soldier linked to Gaza’s war ignored the suffering of thousands of Palestinians who have endured amputations and other permanent injuries since the conflict escalated in 2023. The criticism quickly turned into boycott calls, with public figures such as writer Susan Abulhawa and journalist Fatima Bhutto adding their voices.

Sports journalist Leyla Hamed took to Twitter, pointing out that the campaign seemed tone‑deaf given the “estimated thousands of traumatic limb amputations” among Palestinians. Others, like commentator Guy Christensen, urged consumers to stop buying Adidas until the brand re‑evaluated its choice of spokesperson.

The controversy also revives memories of Adidas’ earlier misstep in 2024, when it pulled Palestinian‑American model Bella Hadid from a shoe campaign after pro‑Israeli pressure. The company later apologised, saying the removal was an “unintentional mistake.”

Humanitarian groups have warned that the war has crippled Gaza’s already fragile health infrastructure, making access to prosthetics and rehabilitation services almost impossible. By featuring an Israeli veteran, Adidas has unintentionally linked its charitable‑looking program to a painful political narrative, prompting a broader discussion about whether global brands can truly separate marketing from the geopolitical realities of the people they depict.

At this stage, Adidas has not issued a formal response to the boycott calls. The company’s next move – whether to keep Biton as the face of the service or to pivot to a less controversial figure – could determine how it is perceived by consumers in both Europe and the Middle East.