Adidas Faces Boycott Over Inclusive Shoe Campaign Featuring Israeli Amputee Veteran
Adidas is under mounting boycott pressure after activists targeted its disability-inclusion campaign for featuring Shalev Biton, an Israeli veteran who lost his leg while serving in the IDF in 2021.
Adidas launched a 'single shoe' service letting amputees buy one shoe at half price. When activists discovered the campaign features Shalev Biton, an Israeli veteran who lost his leg in 2021, boycott calls surged online. Critics argue Adidas ignored Palestinian amputees; supporters say the backlash punishes disability inclusion.
Should Adidas stand behind its campaign featuring Biton despite the boycott pressure?
- Yes
- No opinion
- No
Adidas runs an in-store service that allows customers with a limb difference to buy a single shoe at half the listed price. To promote it, the company partnered with Shalev Biton, who lost his left leg in May 2021 during Operation Guardian of the Walls while serving in the IDF's Nahal Brigade. According to The Jerusalem Post, the campaign drew little attention until Spanish actor Javier Bardem and a range of pro-Palestinian advocacy accounts amplified Biton's involvement on social media, triggering widespread calls for a boycott and videos of people discarding their Adidas products. Critics contend that by choosing an Israeli soldier as the face of inclusion, Adidas overlooked Palestinian amputees - particularly those injured during the war in Gaza. A joint statement from several advocacy groups, as reported by The Jerusalem Post, argued that Adidas "featured former Israeli soldier Shalev Biton while thousands of Palestinians have suffered amputations." Some posts also incorrectly claimed Biton served during the current conflict in Gaza. Supporters of the campaign push back on a different basis: they argue the backlash effectively punishes a disabled athlete for his nationality and undermines a program designed to help all amputees access affordable footwear. Biton himself described the response as "an absolutely insane wave of hatred" amounting to tens of thousands of messages and reports directed at him personally. At the center of the debate is a question brands increasingly face - whether commercial partnerships that cross geopolitical flashpoints can survive coordinated online pressure, and whether standing firm or stepping back better serves the people the campaign was meant to help.
Voting yes means you believe Adidas should not drop or distance itself from Biton or the campaign - that an inclusive service for amputees should not be withdrawn because of a person's national or military background. Voting no means you think Adidas should reconsider the partnership, whether because of the reputational risk, the argument that the choice of ambassador overlooked other amputee communities, or both. The poll is trying to surface where public sympathy lies: with the principle of standing firm against boycott pressure, or with the view that the brand made a poor and politically insensitive choice.