ASICS

Key Findings

• Economic: ASICS has a current Israeli consumer-market presence through the third-party I.A.IL / Original’s distribution network, which identifies itself as the official ASICS importer, operates several dedicated ASICS-branded locations, and ran an ASICS promotion in 2026.^{1, 2, 3}
• Political: ASICS itself maintains Israel-facing consumer infrastructure, including an ASICS FrontRunner Israel page and an Israel-specific privacy framework under which ASICS Japan Corporation is the database owner for Israeli users. The reviewed record did not identify stronger forms of political advocacy, state partnership, political funding or suppression activity.^{4, 5, 6, 7}
• Digital: ASICS uses several Israeli-origin or Israel-domiciled commercial technology providers, including AppsFlyer, Forter, Dynamic Yield and Global-e. The audits found these relationships in consumer attribution, ecommerce fraud control, personalization and logistics, but no evidence that ASICS supplies digital technology to Israeli military, intelligence or security bodies.^{8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13}
• Not found: No public evidence identified of a current ASICS military contract, weapons or defence-system supply, ASICS-controlled settlement operation, Israeli military donation programme, or settlement-specific ASICS store or subsidiary.^{14, 15, 16, 17}

Target Profile

Key Facts:

• ASICS’s current group-location directory lists Middle East subsidiaries in the UAE and Saudi Arabia but no Israeli ASICS subsidiary or office.²²
• Original’s describes itself as the official ASICS importer in Israel, while I.A.IL Ltd. states that it distributes ASICS products in Israel.^{1, 3}
• ASICS Ventures announced an investment in Seevix Material Sciences in Jerusalem in May 2020 for joint development of sporting goods using Seevix’s synthetic-spider-silk material. The investment amount and ownership percentage were not disclosed, and current ownership remains unresolved.^{21, 23}
• This audit’s review of the BDS National Committee’s current corporate-priority guide did not identify ASICS among the listed priority targets.²⁴

Executive Summary

ASICS is a Japan-headquartered sporting-goods company with a documented, continuing Israeli consumer-market nexus. The strongest current economic evidence is its third-party distribution channel through I.A.IL / Original’s. Distributor materials describe Original’s as the official ASICS importer, identify I.A.IL Ltd. as distributing ASICS products, show dedicated ASICS-branded locations in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Netanya, and document a summer-2026 ASICS promotion operated by I.A.IL.^{1, 2, 3} The audits did not establish that I.A.IL or Original’s is owned or controlled by ASICS, and ASICS’s own corporate directory does not list an Israeli subsidiary.²²

ASICS also directly maintains Israel-facing consumer infrastructure. Its legal material identifies ASICS Japan Corporation as database owner for Israeli users under Israeli privacy law, while the company maintains an ASICS FrontRunner Israel community page.^{4, 5} These current ASICS-controlled activities formed the principal basis for the Political finding of ordinary business-as-usual normalization. The political audit found no stronger evidence of ASICS lobbying on Israel policy, political contributions relating to Israel, donations to the IDF or military-welfare organizations, settlement sponsorship, suppression of pro-Palestinian speech, or an official corporate statement endorsing Israeli government or military policy.^{6, 7}

The digital record establishes commercial relationships with Israeli-origin or Israel-domiciled technology businesses. Runkeeper identifies AppsFlyer as a module used for attribution and product-improvement data; ASICS describes Forter as part of ecommerce fraud decisioning; Dynamic Yield appears in ASICS’s multi-locale commerce stack; and ASICS identifies Israeli-incorporated Global-e in parts of its ecommerce and logistics chain.^{8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13} These are documented commercial technology relationships. The digital audit found no public evidence that ASICS supplies technology to Israeli military, intelligence or policing bodies, participates in Project Nimbus, operates an Israeli data centre, or deploys an ASICS-controlled surveillance system in occupied territory.^{15, 16}

The military audit found no public evidence of a current qualifying ASICS military relationship; this is a bounded no-evidence finding and does not constitute comprehensive clearance.^{14, 15} A 2015 Israeli Ministry of Defense tender named ASICS as one of seven acceptable commercial running-shoe brands in a retailer-operated voucher scheme for combat soldiers, but the notice does not show that ASICS Corporation bid for, won or performed the contract.¹⁴ The audits found no verified post-2015 ASICS-specific military procurement, no ASICS defence-prime supply relationship, no weapons or tactical product line, and no current ASICS military contract.^{14, 15} Similarly, the reviewed OHCHR materials and store records did not establish an ASICS-controlled settlement operation.^{16, 17}

Under the fixed, human-vetted V6.5 scoring, ASICS receives Military 0.00, Digital 0.00, Economic 2.90 and Political 3.31. The resulting Complicity Index score is 292, placing ASICS in Tier D (Moderate Complicity). The score is driven by current Israeli commercial distribution and ASICS-controlled Israel-facing consumer activity, while military, digital-security and settlement allegations that did not satisfy the evidence threshold remain unscored.

Timeline of Relevant Events

Corporate Overview

ASICS Corporation is headquartered in Kobe and describes its principal business as the manufacture and sale of sporting goods. It is publicly listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange Prime Market and reported 9,455 consolidated employees and ¥810,916 million in consolidated annual sales for 2025.¹⁸ Its disclosed group structure includes Japanese and overseas subsidiaries, but the current location directory does not identify an ASICS-owned Israeli subsidiary, office or R&D centre.²²

The current Israeli retail relationship is therefore treated as third-party distribution. Original’s calls itself the official importer of ASICS Israel, while I.A.IL Ltd.’s terms identify the company as a distributor of ASICS products. Current retailer materials list dedicated ASICS-branded stores in Haifa, TLV Mall and Tel Aviv Port, plus an ASICS outlet in Netanya.^{1, 2, 3} Those stores demonstrate an active branded retail channel but do not establish ASICS Corporation ownership of the local retailer.

ASICS does maintain direct corporate-facing infrastructure for the Israeli market. ASICS Japan Corporation identifies itself as the database owner for Israeli users under the company’s Israel-specific privacy notice, and ASICS operates an ASICS FrontRunner Israel page for its running community.^{4, 5} Some online-purchase logistics and related data functions are handled by Global-e, which is incorporated in Israel and headquartered in Petah Tikva.^{4, 11}

A separate historical capital relationship began in 2020 when ASICS Ventures invested in Seevix Material Sciences, a Jerusalem-based advanced-materials startup, and announced joint sporting-goods development with the ASICS Institute of Sport Science.²¹ The original announcement did not disclose investment size, ownership percentage or control rights. Seevix is absent from ASICS Ventures’ current displayed portfolio; the audits therefore treat the current equity position as unresolved rather than assuming either continued ownership or divestment.²³

Domain Summaries

Military: Military

Mechanism of Involvement

The military audit found no qualifying current military-involvement frame. The principal target-specific military record is a 6 January 2015 Israeli Ministry of Defense notice for professional running shoes for compulsory-service combat soldiers. ASICS appeared alongside six other acceptable commercial footwear brands. The tender structure required a retail chain carrying multiple listed brands, with soldiers purchasing against military vouchers.¹⁴

That document establishes brand eligibility in a military procurement scheme, but it does not establish that ASICS Corporation submitted a bid, won an award, contracted directly with the Ministry, received payment or supplied any specific quantity of footwear.¹⁴ Later Ministry procurement notices reviewed in the audit did not identify ASICS specifically.

The audit also examined ASICS’s 2020 investment in Seevix because later Seevix material refers to potential aerospace and defence applications for its advanced material.^{21, 28} ASICS’s own announcement framed the collaboration as sporting-goods development. No public evidence identified an IDF or Ministry of Defense end user, an ASICS-funded defence-specific Seevix programme, or an ASICS supply relationship with Rafael, IAI, Elbit or another Israeli defence prime.^{21, 15, 28}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that the only ASICS-specific military procurement record found is an old brand-eligibility reference rather than evidence of an ASICS military contract. No post-2015 award, direct military payment or manufacturer contract was identified.¹⁴

The Seevix relationship also cannot be converted into an ASICS military relationship by association. Seevix’s later reference to defence as a potential market and the presence of former Rafael chief and retired Israel Navy commander Yedidia Yaari as a Seevix adviser are Seevix facts. They do not establish ASICS participation in a military programme.^{28, 29}

No public evidence identified of ASICS weapons production, tactical or mil-spec footwear supplied to Israel, military logistics, defence-prime components, military software, export licences for Israeli military end users, or military donations. Exact-name checks also found no ASICS entry in the reviewed 2025 OHCHR settlement-business update or the BDS National Committee’s current corporate-priority guide.^{16, 24}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• Israel Ministry of Defense: 2015 tender named ASICS as an acceptable commercial running-shoe brand; no direct ASICS award established.¹⁴
• Seevix Material Sciences: ASICS Ventures investee from a 2020 sporting-goods R&D announcement; current ownership unresolved.^{21, 23}
• Rafael / Yedidia Yaari: Yaari is a Seevix strategic adviser and former Rafael president/CEO; no ASICS-Rafael transaction was established.²⁹
• IDF / Israeli security bodies: No public evidence identified of a current direct ASICS contract or qualifying supply relationship.¹⁵

Digital: Digital

Mechanism of Involvement

ASICS has several verified commercial relationships with Israeli-origin or Israel-domiciled digital suppliers. ASICS Runkeeper identifies AppsFlyer Ltd. as a third-party module receiving specified device and application metadata for advertising-effectiveness measurement and product improvement.⁸ AppsFlyer is an Israeli company, but the audit found no evidence establishing that ASICS-specific Runkeeper data is processed in Israel.

ASICS’s Japanese privacy materials identify Forter in fraud detection for ASICS and Onitsuka Tiger online stores and list the United States, Canada, Israel, the United Kingdom and Singapore as countries in which personal information for that fraud-detection service may be stored; the disclosure does not identify which ASICS records are stored in which listed country or the tenant routing for a given transaction.⁹ Forter’s ASICS case material describes automated ecommerce transaction decisioning integrated with Salesforce Commerce Cloud.³⁰ Forter maintains a Tel Aviv presence and provides commercial identity and fraud-decision services.³¹

Dynamic Yield, founded in Tel Aviv, appears in the technology stack used for ASICS’s commerce replatform across more than 20 locales.^{10, 32} ASICS also names Global-e in connection with some online-purchase logistics, customer support, shipping, returns and associated personal-data processing; Global-E Online Ltd. is incorporated in Israel and headquartered in Petah Tikva.^{4, 11} Global-e states that its service-data servers are in the EEA and that service data is stored and processed in Ireland, while its framework permits transfers to Israel, the United Kingdom, the EU and the United States; together with ASICS’s disclosure, this identifies possible transfer locations and does not establish that every ASICS order is processed through Israel.^{4, 33}

These relationships establish commercial procurement of Israeli-origin digital services. The documented uses are civilian attribution, ecommerce fraud control, personalization and ecommerce/logistics; the audited evidence did not establish that ASICS used these services to provide an Israeli state or occupation-related digital capability, or that they produced an anti-Palestinian digital-harm outcome.^{8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The documented systems are consumer and ecommerce technologies: mobile attribution, fraud control, personalization and cross-border shopping/logistics. Their Israeli corporate origin does not by itself establish military or state-security use.

The audit specifically found no public evidence that ASICS participates in Project Nimbus, supplies AI or digital systems to Israeli state bodies, operates an Israeli data centre, uses Israeli predictive-policing or facial-recognition systems, or provides autonomous targeting, offensive-cyber or surveillance technology.^{15, 16}

Runkeeper can collect sensitive consumer information including health metrics and precise running-route information, but the AppsFlyer disclosure identifies a narrower feed of device, language, operating-system, network and installation metadata. No public evidence identified that ASICS sends Runkeeper heart-rate, biometric-photo or precise-route data to AppsFlyer.^{8, 34}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• AppsFlyer: Current Runkeeper attribution/product-improvement module.⁸
• Forter: Ecommerce fraud and identity decisioning used by ASICS.^{9, 30}
• Dynamic Yield: Israeli-founded personalization technology in ASICS’s global commerce stack.^{10, 32}
• Global-e: Israeli-incorporated ecommerce/logistics provider used for some ASICS online-purchase services.^{4, 11}
• Israeli military/intelligence bodies: No public evidence identified of ASICS technology provision.^{15, 16}

Economic: Economic

Mechanism of Involvement

The strongest current economic nexus is the I.A.IL / Original’s distribution relationship. Original’s identifies itself as the official ASICS importer in Israel; I.A.IL’s current terms identify it as distributing ASICS products; its retail directory lists multiple dedicated ASICS locations; and I.A.IL operated a summer-2026 ASICS promotion.^{1, 2, 3} The examiner characterized this as sustained trade by a foreign exporter with a close, current commercial distribution relationship.

ASICS also maintains Israel-specific ecommerce and customer-data infrastructure through ASICS Japan Corporation and Global-e.^{4, 11} This demonstrates continuing participation in the Israeli consumer market beyond passive third-party resale.

The other direct capital link is the 2020 ASICS Ventures investment in Seevix. ASICS described the investment as supporting joint sporting-goods development with its Institute of Sport Science.²¹ Because neither the ownership percentage nor current status was established, the audit does not treat Seevix as a controlled ASICS subsidiary or assume that the investment remains active.²³

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The local retail network is not shown to be ASICS-owned. ASICS’s current group directory contains no Israeli subsidiary, and the audits found no evidence of ASICS equity ownership of I.A.IL / Original’s.^{22, 1, 3}

No Israel-specific ASICS revenue, profit, royalty, wholesale margin or tax-contribution figure was identified. Nor was public evidence found of an ASICS-owned Israeli factory, warehouse, logistics hub, data centre or R&D centre.^{18, 22}

No public evidence identified that ASICS products are manufactured in Israeli settlements, sourced from settlement suppliers, or sold through an ASICS-controlled settlement store. Exact-name checks of the reviewed OHCHR settlement-business material did not identify ASICS, although non-appearance is a bounded finding and not proof that every reseller or commercial pathway has been assessed.^{16, 17}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• I.A.IL Ltd. / Original’s: Current Israeli distributor/importer and operator of ASICS-branded promotions and retail locations.^{1, 2, 3}
• ASICS Japan Corporation: Database owner for Israeli users under ASICS’s Israel-specific privacy framework.⁴
• Global-E Online Ltd.: Israeli-incorporated provider involved in some ASICS ecommerce/logistics services.^{4, 11}
• Seevix Material Sciences: 2020 ASICS Ventures investment and sporting-goods development partner; current stake unresolved.^{21, 23}
• Settlements: No verified ASICS-controlled settlement operation or settlement-origin supply chain identified.^{16, 17}

Political: Political

Mechanism of Involvement

The governing political frame is ASICS’s continued, company-controlled Israel-facing consumer activity. ASICS maintains a FrontRunner Israel page and Israel-specific legal/privacy infrastructure, while its products remain actively distributed and promoted through the local importer network.^{1, 3, 4, 5} The examiner treated this as business-as-usual normalization at an impact level of 4.0, with high proximity because the key FrontRunner and legal/privacy acts are performed by ASICS itself.

The political audit did not find evidence that ASICS has made a corporate statement specifically addressing the Gaza war, Palestinian civilian harm, Israeli settlements or a ceasefire. It did find a broader board-approved Human Rights Policy and other public humanitarian initiatives, including sponsorship of the World Athletics Athlete Refugee Team.^{25, 35} Those initiatives establish that ASICS has publicly addressed humanitarian and displacement themes in other settings, but they do not constitute a position on Israel/Palestine.

The 2020 Seevix investment is also relevant politically because Seevix later received Israel Innovation Authority support and has advisers with prominent Israeli state and defence backgrounds.^{21, 28, 29} Those facts remain attributed to Seevix. No public evidence identified that ASICS itself received Israeli state funding, chose Seevix’s advisers, financed a defence application or participated in an Israeli military programme.

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

No public evidence identified of ASICS corporate lobbying on Israel policy, anti-BDS legislation or settlements; corporate contributions to the IDF, Friends of the IDF, JNF/KKL or settlement organizations; political donations concerning Israel; suppression of pro-Palestinian employee speech; or sponsorship of an Israeli government public-relations or military institution.^{6, 7}

ASICS reported no political contributions in FY2025, and its anti-bribery policy states that donations or support may not be provided to political or religious organizations or communities.^{6, 7}

The BDS National Committee’s reviewed corporate-priority guide does not list ASICS.²⁴ An informal boycott site does cite the Seevix investment, but the political audit rejected that site’s inaccurate ownership characterization and used it only as evidence that informal boycott advocacy exists.³⁶

The audits also found no verified ASICS-controlled settlement presence. Current retailer records identify ASICS locations in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Netanya, while separate multi-brand retailer locations were not treated as controlled ASICS operations.^{2, 16}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

• ASICS Corporation / ASICS Japan Corporation: Direct operator of Israel-facing privacy/legal and FrontRunner community infrastructure.^{4, 5}
• I.A.IL / Original’s: External distributor and retailer supporting current Israeli market activity.^{1, 2, 3}
• Seevix Material Sciences: Historical ASICS Ventures investee; later Israeli state innovation support and adviser relationships belong to Seevix rather than ASICS.^{21, 28, 29}
• BDS National Committee: Current reviewed priority-target guide does not identify ASICS.²⁴
• Israeli political or military organizations: No public evidence identified of ASICS political funding, military donations or institutional sponsorship.^{6, 7}

Complicity Index Score

Method: V6.5.

• V_MAX: 3.31 Avg_OTHERS: 0.97
• BRS Score: 292 Tier: D (Moderate Complicity)

V_MAX is driven by Political, where ASICS’s own current Israel-facing FrontRunner and consumer/legal infrastructure produced the strongest qualifying frame. Economic reflects sustained current distribution and branded commercial activity, while Military and Digital remained at zero because the audited evidence did not establish qualifying military or security-technology conduct.

The V6.5 method is scale-free and evidence-only: the fixed human-vetted scores reflect the documented type of activity, its scale and its directness rather than company size or unsupported allegations.

Methodology Note

• Evidence is restricted to findings established in the four completed domain audits. Claims marked unresolved, unverified or uncertain remain qualified in this dossier.
• V6.5 is scale-free: Impact (I) represents the type of qualifying activity, Magnitude (M) its scale, and Proximity (P) the directness of the target’s relationship to the conduct.
• Temporal status matters. Divested, exited, obsolete or historical operations are mitigated rather than automatically treated as current; the 2015 military tender and 2020 Seevix investment are therefore distinguished from documented 2026 activity.
• Entity attribution is bounded. Conduct by distributors, investees, vendors, advisers or shareholders is not transferred to ASICS without evidence of control or participation; no transitive guilt is applied.
• A verified settlement operation may engage both Economic and Political under the methodology, but no such ASICS-controlled settlement operation was established in these audits.
• Where targeted checks produced no qualifying evidence, the audits use “No public evidence identified”. This denotes the bounded result of the documented searches and is not a claim that contrary evidence could never exist.