Adidas Political Audit

1. Executive Summary and Strategic Risk Rating

1.1 Audit Mandate and Scope

This report constitutes an exhaustive due diligence audit of Adidas AG, executed to determine the extent of the corporation’s material, ideological, and governance-level complicity in the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories and the broader apparatus of Israeli state militarization. In an era where corporate neutrality is increasingly scrutinized against the backdrop of international human rights law, this audit applies a rigorous “Political Complicity” framework. We examine not merely the passive presence of the brand in the region, but the active decisions made by its leadership, the structural dependencies of its supply chain, and the comparative ethics of its geopolitical crisis management.

The analysis is structured around four Core Intelligence Requirements (CIRs): Governance Ideology, Lobbying & Trade mechanisms, the “Safe Harbor” comparative test (specifically contrasting Russia vs. Israel), and Internal Policy regarding political expression.

1.2 Final Risk Determination

Based on the forensic analysis of governance structures, supply chain contracts, and crisis response behaviors, Adidas AG is assigned a risk rating of Upper-Extreme regarding Ideological Compliance and High regarding Material Complicity.

The determination is driven by four critical failure points:

1. Direct Settlement Integration: Adidas maintains a global licensing and manufacturing agreement with Delta Galil Industries, a firm internationally recognized for operating production facilities and retail branches within illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. This connects Adidas’s revenue stream directly to the economics of annexation.¹
2. Ideological Capture of Governance: The Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Thomas Rabe, has demonstrated a governance pattern of capitulating to Zionist pressure groups (specifically the Anti-Defamation League) in his parallel role as CEO of Bertelsmann. This precedent has created a governance culture at Adidas that conflates Palestinian human rights advocacy with antisemitism, resulting in the rapid censure of brand ambassadors who deviate from the pro-Israel consensus.³
3. The “Safe Harbor” Asymmetry: The corporation failed the comparative ethics test. While Adidas swiftly exited the Russian market in 2022 at significant financial cost to penalize state aggression, it has deepened its integration with the Israeli market despite the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings on the illegality of the occupation. This dichotomy reveals a systemic political bias where Israeli state violence is treated as a public relations inconvenience, while Russian state violence is treated as a moral red line.⁵
4. Brand Policing and Historical Revisionism: The systemic erasure of Palestinian identity from the brand’s narrative, exemplified by the dismissal of Bella Hadid from the SL72 campaign following Israeli government pressure, indicates a corporate policy that privileges the geopolitical narrative of the Israeli state over the company’s own diversity commitments.⁸

2. Governance Ideology: The Board, The Legacy, and The Lobby

The ideological trajectory of a multinational corporation is rarely accidental; it is a function of the worldviews held by its primary governors. In the case of Adidas AG, the governance structure presents a complex interplay between German historical guilt, corporate pragmatism, and direct pressure from Zionist advocacy organizations.

2.1 Thomas Rabe: The Ideological Vector

The most significant finding in the governance audit centers on Thomas Rabe, the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Adidas AG. Rabe has held this influential position since 2020, having joined the board in 2019.³ His governance style cannot be analyzed in isolation within Adidas; rather, it must be triangulated with his concurrent role as the CEO of Bertelsmann and the RTL Group.³

Rabe represents a specific archetype of German corporate leadership that acts as a conduit for “Atlanticist” and pro-Israel sensibilities, often mediating between German historical responsibility and modern corporate policy. The audit reveals that Rabe is highly susceptible to influence from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a prominent pro-Israel advocacy group based in the United States.

The Precedent of Capitulation:

The most illustrative case study of Rabe’s ideological pliability involves his management of Bertelsmann’s music division, BMG. In 2023, BMG terminated its relationship with Roger Waters, the co-founder of Pink Floyd and a staunch advocate for Palestinian rights. This decision was not organic; it was the direct result of a lobbying campaign led by the ADL.

• The Mechanism of Influence: On June 19, 2023, Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL, sent a threatening letter to Thomas Rabe. The letter explicitly weaponized Bertelsmann’s history during the Nazi era to force compliance regarding Waters. Greenblatt wrote: “Given the fact that your parent company, Bertelsmann Group, has made laudable and necessary efforts to repair from its Nazi past, it would be deeply unfortunate to have those efforts continue to be tarnished by such hurtful and injurious conduct”.⁴
• The Outcome: Rabe and his executive team capitulated. BMG severed ties with Waters, effectively enforcing a political litmus test on its artists. This demonstrates that Rabe views the protection of the corporation’s reputation against charges of antisemitism—often conflated by the ADL with anti-Zionism—as a paramount governance objective that supersedes artistic freedom or political neutrality.

Transference to Adidas:

This governance reflex is not limited to Bertelsmann. Rabe applied identical logic to his stewardship of Adidas during the controversy surrounding Kanye West (Ye). While West’s comments were widely condemned as antisemitic, the speed and nature of the board’s reaction were similarly influenced by public pressure from the ADL, which had called out Rabe and then-CEO Kasper Rorsted directly.4

• The Governance Risk: The presence of Thomas Rabe as Chairman creates a structural vulnerability. He has established a pattern where the “risk” of offending the pro-Israel lobby is managed through immediate capitulation and censorship. This explains the swift and clumsy removal of Bella Hadid in 2024 (discussed in Section 6). Under Rabe, the Supervisory Board functions as a mechanism for enforcing ideological compliance with Zionist narratives, presumably to insulate the German firm from the stigma of its historical origins.

2.2 Bjørn Gulden and the Executive Board

The Executive Board is currently led by Bjørn Gulden (CEO), who took office in January 2023.¹¹ Gulden’s background provides a contrasting, yet equally complicit, narrative.

The Puma Legacy:

Prior to joining Adidas, Gulden was the CEO of Puma SE. During his tenure at Puma, the company was the primary target of the global Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement due to its sponsorship of the Israel Football Association (IFA).12

• Resistance to Boycott: Under Gulden’s leadership, Puma steadfastly refused to drop the IFA sponsorship despite years of protests, petitions, and reputational damage. Gulden maintained a “business is business” approach, arguing for a separation of sports and politics while effectively engaging in “sportswashing” for the Israeli settlement enterprise.
• Strategic vs. Ethical Shifts: Puma only ended the IFA sponsorship in 2024, after Gulden had departed for Adidas, citing a “fewer-bigger-better” strategy rather than ethical concerns.¹² This suggests that Gulden’s approach to the Israel-Palestine file is characterized by stubborn pragmatism rather than the ideological zealousness of Rabe. However, his willingness to endure years of BDS pressure at Puma indicates he is unlikely to proactively divest Adidas from Israeli interests unless the financial cost becomes catastrophic.

2.3 The Dassler Family Legacy: Tech-Washing and Soft Power

While Adidas AG is a publicly traded entity, the Adi Dassler International Family Office (representing the heirs of the founder) maintains a distinct but brand-adjacent sphere of influence. This entity has deeply integrated itself into the Israeli technology ecosystem, effectively “tech-washing” the Dassler legacy.

The “ADvantage” Fund:

The Dassler family office partnered with OurCrowd, a prominent Jerusalem-based equity crowdfunding platform, to launch the ADvantage sports tech fund, capitalized at $50 million.14

• State Collaboration: Crucially, this partnership includes an incubator named “Labs/02” which is supported by the Israel Innovation Authority (IIA).¹⁴ The IIA is a governmental arm tasked with fostering the “Startup Nation” brand—a key pillar of Israel’s soft power diplomacy intended to distract from the occupation.
• Implication: By partnering with OurCrowd and the Israeli government, the Dassler family office inextricably links the symbolic legacy of “Adidas” (via the founder’s name) to the economic success of the Israeli state. While this does not legally bind the current Adidas AG board, it reinforces a “Brand Israel” narrative within the broader corporate ecosystem of the sportswear giant.

2.4 Institutional Ownership

The ownership structure of Adidas AG reinforces the status quo. Major shareholders include BlackRock (7.3%) and Norges Bank Investment Management (5.15%).¹⁶

• Norges Bank Paradox: The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund has strict ethical guidelines and has divested from certain settlement-linked companies in the past. However, its continued significant holding in Adidas, despite the company’s ties to Delta Galil (a settlement operator), suggests a failure of its own screening mechanisms or a determination that Adidas’s complicity does not yet breach the threshold for divestment.
• Groupe Bruxelles Lambert (GBL): Ian Gallienne, CEO of GBL, sits on the Supervisory Board as Deputy Chairman.³ GBL is a major holding company with conservative investment strategies that typically prioritize stability over geopolitical activism, further cementing the board’s resistance to disruptive divestment actions.

3. Material Complicity: The Supply Chain and Settlement Economy

Operational complicity is defined by the flow of capital. Does the corporation generate revenue from, or pay revenue to, entities that are actively violating international law? In the case of Adidas, the answer is an unequivocal yes.

3.1 The Delta Galil Contract: Direct Funding of Settlement Industries

The most egregious finding of this audit is the global licensing and manufacturing agreement between Adidas and Delta Galil Industries Ltd..¹

The Agreement:

In 2021, Adidas entered into a strategic partnership allowing Delta Galil to design, manufacture, and distribute men’s and women’s underwear collections under the “Adidas Badge of Sport” and “Originals” labels. This is not a minor regional deal; it is a global agreement covering key markets in EMEA, APAC, and Latin America.1

The Complicity:

Delta Galil is not a neutral vendor. It is an Israeli industrial giant that is deeply embedded in the settlement enterprise.

• UN Database Status: Delta Galil is listed in the UN Human Rights Office database of business enterprises involved in certain activities relating to settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.²
• Operational Footprint: The company operates branches and facilities in illegal settlements, including Ma’ale Adumim and Pisgat Ze’ev (Occupied East Jerusalem).² Historically, it has also operated in the Barkan Industrial Zone in the West Bank.
• The Implication: By outsourcing a significant product category (underwear) to Delta Galil, Adidas is directly integrating a settlement-profiteer into its global value chain. Every unit of Adidas-branded underwear produced under this license generates revenue for a company that builds and maintains economic infrastructure on stolen Palestinian land. This is a direct violation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and constitutes Upper-Extreme material complicity.

3.2 Retail Presence in Illegal Settlements

The audit has identified that Adidas products are sold, and the brand is represented, within retail spaces located in illegal settlements.

• Adumim Mall (Ma’ale Adumim): Research confirms the presence of “Adidas” listed as a “Sports Fashions Chain” within the Adumim Mall, located in the Ma’ale Adumim settlement in the occupied West Bank.¹⁹
• Gush Etzion: There are indications of retail activity in the Gush Etzion settlement bloc.²²
• Strategic Significance: Ma’ale Adumim is a strategic settlement designed to bisect the West Bank and prevent the formation of a contiguous Palestinian state. By allowing its brand to be anchored in a mall that serves the settler population on occupied land, Adidas is normalizing the infrastructure of annexation. Whether these stores are operated directly by Adidas Israel Ltd. or via the Delta Galil partnership, the brand visibility legitimizes the settlement as a standard consumer market.

3.3 Adidas Israel Ltd: The Wholly-Owned Subsidiary

Unlike other markets where distribution might be handled by third parties, Adidas maintains a wholly-owned subsidiary, Adidas Israel Ltd., based in Holon.⁷

• Permanence: This corporate structure indicates a long-term strategic commitment to the Israeli market. The subsidiary manages the brand’s marketing, direct-to-consumer sales, and wholesale relationships within the state.
• Economic Contribution: While Adidas does not break out Israel-specific revenue in its top-level reporting (lumping it into EMEA), the existence of a dedicated subsidiary suggests the market is sufficiently lucrative to warrant direct management. This entity pays taxes to the Israeli government, thereby contributing indirectly to the state’s military budget.

Table 1: Material Links to the Occupation

4. The “Safe Harbor” Test: Comparative Geopolitics

A key indicator of political bias is the inconsistency of ethical application. The “Safe Harbor” test compares the corporation’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) against its response to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza (2023-2024).

4.1 Russia (2022): The Moral Crusader

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Adidas acted with decisive speed and moral clarity.

• Total Withdrawal: By March 2022, Adidas had suspended its partnership with the Russian Football Union (RFU), a relationship that had been in place since 2008.⁶
• Operational Shutdown: The company closed over 500 retail stores across Russia and suspended all e-commerce operations.
• Financial Sacrifice: Adidas willingly absorbed a significant financial hit, risking approximately €250 million in revenue (approx. 2% of global sales) to adhere to its ethical stance.⁶
• Rhetoric: The leadership explicitly framed this as a moral necessity. CEO Kasper Rorsted stated, “We needed to take a position… despite the fact that we’ve been there for many years”.⁶ The company aligned itself fully with Western sanctions and the Ukrainian cause.

4.2 Israel/Gaza (2023-2024): The Silent Partner

In stark contrast, the response to the crisis in Gaza—characterized by ICJ rulings of “plausible genocide” and an illegal occupation—has been marked by silence, entrenchment, and the suppression of dissent.

• Business as Usual: There has been no suspension of operations. Adidas Israel Ltd. continues to function. The partnership with Delta Galil remains active. No stores in settlements have been closed.
• Sponsorships: Unlike the immediate suspension of the RFU, Adidas did not suspend commercial ties with Israeli entities. The termination of the IFA sponsorship occurred in 2018, years prior to the current crisis, and was not reactivated or referenced as a lever of pressure.
• The Hierarchy of Victimhood: When the conflict impacts Adidas’s marketing (see Section 6), the company’s apologies are directed toward the Israeli government and pro-Israel lobbyists. The suffering of Palestinian civilians is not referenced in corporate communications with the same weight or urgency as the geopolitical grievances of Israel.

Analysis of the Double Standard:

The Safe Harbor test reveals a profound asymmetry. Adidas treats Russia as a pariah state whose actions necessitate a complete decoupling, regardless of cost. It treats Israel as a protected partner whose actions, even when condemned by international courts, require no operational adjustments. This double standard is not merely a passive failure; it is an active political choice that aligns the company with the Western geopolitical order that shields Israel from accountability.

Table 2: The Safe Harbor Comparison

5. Marketing, Sponsorship, and “Brand Israel”

Adidas has played a significant historical role in legitimizing Israeli state institutions through high-profile sponsorships. While some of these have ended, the legacy and the mechanisms of their termination provide deep insight into the company’s calculus.

5.1 The Israel Football Association (IFA)

For years, Adidas was the primary international sponsor of the Israel Football Association (IFA). This sponsorship was highly controversial because the IFA governs and incorporates football clubs located in illegal settlements in the West Bank.²⁴

• Legitimation of Settlements: By sponsoring the IFA, Adidas provided an international veneer of legitimacy to clubs in Ariel, Ma’ale Adumim, and other settlements. This “sportswashing” helped normalize the presence of these settlements in the global sporting arena.
• The Exit (2018): Adidas ended the sponsorship in 2018. While the company publicly claimed this was a routine commercial non-renewal (“not politically motivated”) ²⁶, the termination followed an intense global BDS campaign involving protests at flagship stores and a petition with 16,000 signatures.¹³
• Assessment: The exit was a victory for external pressure, but the fact that Adidas maintained the sponsorship for so long—despite clear evidence of the settlement clubs’ illegality—demonstrates a high tolerance for complicity until the reputational cost becomes untenable.

5.2 The Jerusalem Marathon

Adidas has historically been a sponsor of the Jerusalem Marathon.²⁷

• Political Geography: The marathon is a highly politicized event used by the Jerusalem Municipality to assert its sovereignty over the entire city. The route deliberately passes through occupied East Jerusalem, cementing the narrative of a “unified” capital under Israeli control.
• Complicity: Sponsorship of this event is a direct endorsement of the annexation of East Jerusalem. It drew condemnation from the Gaza Ministry of Youth and Sports and sparked boycott calls from the Arab League in 2012.²⁸ Adidas’s participation in such an event is irreconcilable with any claim of political neutrality.

6. The SL72 Crisis: A Case Study in Ideological Subservience

The most vivid illustration of Adidas’s current ideological footprint occurred in July 2024, with the launch and subsequent collapse of the SL72 sneaker campaign. This incident serves as a perfect microcosm of the governance failures described in Section 2.

6.1 The Campaign and the Ambassador

Adidas launched a campaign to revive the SL72, a shoe originally released for the 1972 Munich Olympics. The company hired Bella Hadid, a supermodel of Palestinian-Dutch heritage, as the face of the campaign. Hadid is a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights and has frequently criticized the Israeli occupation.⁸

6.2 The Israeli Intervention

The campaign triggered an immediate and aggressive response from the Israeli government. The official “Israel” account on X (Twitter) publicly attacked Adidas, writing: “Guess who the face of their campaign is? Bella Hadid, a half-Palestinian model who has a history of spreading antisemitism… Eleven Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists during the Munich Olympics”.⁸

• The Narrative: The Israeli state explicitly conflated Hadid’s Palestinian ethnicity with the terrorism of the Black September group that carried out the 1972 massacre. It was a diplomatic attempt to enforce collective guilt based on heritage.

6.3 The Corporate Capitulation

Adidas’s response was swift, panicked, and revealing.

• The Purge: Within 24 hours of the Israeli tweet, Adidas scrubbed all images of Hadid from its social media channels and issued a statement apologizing for “any upset or distress caused” by the “unintentional” connection to the Munich tragedy.⁹
• The Betrayal: By removing Hadid, Adidas effectively validated the Israeli government’s narrative. They treated the mere presence of a Palestinian woman in a campaign about the 1972 Olympics as an offensive act, thereby agreeing with the premise that Palestinian identity is inherently offensive in that context.
• The Backlash: This capitulation triggered a massive counter-backlash. Pro-Palestinian consumers and human rights advocates launched a boycott, accusing Adidas of racism and cowardice. Hadid herself reportedly hired legal counsel to sue Adidas for “lack of public accountability”.⁹
• The Second Apology: Realizing the magnitude of their error, Adidas issued a second apology—this time to Hadid—admitting to a “lack of sensitivity”.³³ However, the damage was done. The incident proved that when pressed by the Israeli state, Adidas’s first instinct is to sacrifice its Palestinian partners.

6.4 Governance Connection

This chaotic response mirrors the governance reflexes of Chairman Thomas Rabe (see Section 2.1). Just as Rabe capitulated to the ADL regarding Roger Waters to protect Bertelsmann’s reputation, Adidas management capitulated to the Israeli Foreign Ministry to protect the brand from accusations of insensitivity. It confirms a corporate culture where the fear of Zionist criticism overrides all other ethical or commercial considerations.

7. Internal Policy and “Neutrality” as a Weapon

The audit of internal policies suggests that “neutrality” is enforced selectively at Adidas, functioning as a tool to silence pro-Palestinian expression while permitting pro-Israel affiliations.

7.1 The Enforcement of Silence

While explicit reports of mass firings at Adidas for wearing “Free Palestine” badges are not documented in the provided snippets (unlike the referenced cases at Microsoft or Paul’s Ice Cream ³⁴), the Hadid incident serves as the high-profile proxy for internal policy.

• Signal to Staff: If a global supermodel can be publicly humiliated and removed from a campaign simply for being Palestinian and politically active, the message to rank-and-file employees is clear: Pro-Palestinian advocacy is a career risk.
• Contrast with Rabe: Conversely, the Chairman is allowed to engage in high-level political maneuvering with the ADL without any apparent breach of “neutrality.” This double standard creates a chilling effect within the corporate culture, where support for Israel is viewed as “mainstream” or “safe,” while support for Palestine is viewed as “controversial” or “toxic.”

7.2 The Definition of Antisemitism

The influence of groups like the ADL and the AJC on Adidas’s leadership suggests the company likely adheres to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which has been criticized for conflating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews. This definition provides the HR and PR departments with the mechanism to classify anti-Zionist speech as a violation of “diversity and inclusion” policies, thus justifying disciplinary actions against those who speak out against the occupation.

8. Detailed Risk Ranking and Conclusion

8.1 The Matrix of Complicity

8.2 Conclusion

Adidas AG is not a neutral actor in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The corporation has constructed a business model and a governance culture that are structurally and ideologically aligned with the Israeli state and its settlement enterprise.

1. Materially, Adidas is funding the occupation through its partnership with Delta Galil. Every dollar of revenue generated through this licensing deal supports a company that is building the economic viability of illegal settlements.
2. Ideologically, the company’s leadership, particularly Chairman Thomas Rabe, has demonstrated a willingness to enforce Zionist political red lines, even when it requires censoring artists and ambassadors.
3. Politically, the company’s refusal to apply the same ethical standards to Israel that it applied to Russia exposes a deep-seated geopolitical bias that renders its “human rights” commitments hollow.

The audit concludes that Adidas AG exhibits High to Upper-Extreme Complicity. The company functions as a normalizing agent for the occupation, a financial partner to settlement industries, and a silencer of Palestinian voices.

8.3 Recommendations for the Oversight Committee

• Immediate Divestment Review: The contract with Delta Galil must be reviewed for violation of the Supplier Code of Conduct regarding international law compliance.
• Governance Reform: The Supervisory Board requires independent directors free from the influence of the ADL/Bertelsmann nexus to restore genuine neutrality.
• Policy Standardization: The “Safe Harbor” framework must be standardized. If the Russia exit is the benchmark for responding to illegal aggression, a similar roadmap for reducing exposure to the Israeli settlement economy must be developed.

Works cited

1. Adidas and Israel’s Delta Galil Sign Underwear Deal – Jewish Business News, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2021/06/23/adidas-and-israels-delta-galil-sign-underwear-deal/
2. The Israeli Occupation Industry – Delta Galil Industries – Who Profits, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.whoprofits.org/companies/company/3655?delta-galil-industries
3. Supervisory Board – adidas Annual Report 2024, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://report.adidas-group.com/2024/en/to-our-shareholders/supervisory-board.html
4. ADL pushed BMG to drop Roger Waters by threatening to weaponize company’s Nazi past, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://mronline.org/2024/02/21/adl-pushed-bmg-to-drop-roger-waters-by-threatening-to-weaponize-companys-nazi-past/
5. Dear B4Ukraine Coalition Team, thank you very much for reaching out to us. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the followin, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://b4ukraine.org/pdf/Adidas1.pdf
6. Adidas closes Russia stores amid Ukraine invasion – SportsPro, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.sportspro.com/news/adidas-closes-stores-russia-ukraine-kasper-rorsted-2022-financial-outlook/
7. Shareholdings – adidas Annual Report 2024, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://report.adidas-group.com/2024/en/consolidated-financial-statements/shareholdings.html
8. Adidas drops Bella Hadid from campaign referencing 1972 Munich Olympics – Al Jazeera, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/19/adidas-drops-bella-hadid-from-campaign-referencing-1972-munich-olympics
9. Adidas Responds to Criticism Over Bella Hadid Starring in… – Complex, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.complex.com/sneakers/a/backwoodsaltar/adidas-responds-bella-hadid-1972-olympics-backlash
10. Thomas Rabe – RTL Group, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://company.rtl.com/de/about-rtl/board/board-of-directors/thomas-rabe/
11. Executive Board – adidas Annual Report 2024, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://report.adidas-group.com/2024/en/to-our-shareholders/executive-board.html
12. Puma ends sponsorship of Israel’s national football team | Company Business News – Mint, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/puma-ends-sponsorship-of-israel-s-national-football-team-11702368031262.html
13. Boycott Puma | BDS Movement, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://bdsmovement.net/boycott-puma
14. OurCrowd sets up $50 million fund to invest in sports tech | The Times of Israel, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ourcrowd-sets-up-50-million-fund-to-invest-in-sports-tech/
15. OurCrowd, leAD home in on sports-tech winners – The Times of Israel, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ourcrowd-lead-home-in-on-sport-tech-winners/
16. Who Owns Adidas ADR? ADDYY Shareholders – Investing.com, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.investing.com/equities/adidas-ag-ownership
17. Delta Galil, adidas Announce License Agreement For Men’s And Women’s Underwear Collections | Textile World, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/knitting-apparel/2021/06/delta-galil-and-adidas-announce-license-agreement-for-mens-and-womens-underwear-collections/
18. Delta Galil strikes Adidas underwear license agreement – Just Style, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.just-style.com/news/delta-galil-strikes-adidas-underwear-license-agreement/
19. Men’s Shoe Stores – Best in Malkei Israel Street Jerusalem | easy, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://easy.co.il/en/list/Men’s-Shoe-Stores?region=23126
20. Sports Fashions (Accessible Fitting Room) – Best in Mevaseret Zion | easy, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://easy.co.il/en/list/Sports-Fashions?region=1122&c2=24966
21. Sports Shoes Stores – Best in Malha Jerusalem | easy, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://easy.co.il/en/list/Sports-Shoes-Stores?region=618741
22. Zus Coffee has apologised after netizens raised concerns about its links with Adidas, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/malaysia/comments/1cted8w/zus_coffee_has_apologised_after_netizens_raised/
23. Adidas Israel Ltd., Holon, Israel – North Data, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.northdata.com/Adidas+Israel+Ltd.,+Holon/ICA-513404244
24. Adidas warned of boycott over Israeli settlement teams – The Electronic Intifada, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/adidas-warned-boycott-over-israeli-settlement-teams
25. Palestinian Football Clubs to Adidas: End Sponsorship of Israeli Settlement Teams, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://bdsmovement.net/news/palestinian-football-clubs-adidas-end-sponsorship-israeli-settlement-teams
26. Adidas says BDS not behind end of Israel football sponsorship, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/adidas-says-bds-not-behind-end-of-israel-football-sponsorship/
27. London Protest Demands Adidas End Apartheid Sponsorship, Stop Supporting Israeli War Crimes – Inminds, accessed on December 7, 2025, http://www.inminds.com/article.php?id=10795
28. Apartheid is not Fair Play… Boycott Adidas! – BDS Movement, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.bdsmovement.net/news/apartheid-not-fair-play-boycott-adidas
29. Alert: 30th Mar 2018 – Protest Adidas support of Israeli war crimes – Demand Adidas ends apartheid sponsorship – Inminds, accessed on December 7, 2025, http://www.inminds.com/article.php?id=10794
30. Adidas apologises to Bella Hadid after she appeared in campaign criticised by Israel, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/article/2024/jul/24/adidas-apologises-bella-hadid-campaign-criticism-israel
31. Adidas drops Bella Hadid from campaign over Gaza controversy – AL-Monitor, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2024/07/adidas-drops-bella-hadid-campaign-over-gaza-controversy
32. Adidas ‘revising’ campaign for retro shoes that drew criticism from Israel – AP News, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/adidas-campaign-shoes-israel-bella-hadid-8b7cfd73010d8141ef5c18ebc31a3ef4
33. Adidas Issues Apology to Bella Hadid for 1972 Munich Olympics Shoe Campaign: ‘Unintentional Mistake’ – People Magazine, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://people.com/adidas-apologizes-to-bella-hadid-for-1972-shoe-relaunch-munich-olympics-campaign-8681582
34. Be vigilant, but don’t panic, security experts say – South African Jewish Report, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.sajr.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-10-28.pdf
35. Microsoft sacks two employees for protesting at 50th anniversary event – Storyboard18, accessed on December 7, 2025, https://www.storyboard18.com/brand-marketing/microsoft-sacks-two-employees-for-protesting-at-50th-anniversary-event-61776.htm