Mizuno

Key Findings

• Economic: Mizuno maintains documented Israeli commercial channels through Different Pro 2627 Ltd, its Israel-facing contact and local online-store operator, and MGS Sport Trading Ltd, separately listed as a distributor in Mizuno’s corporate locator. Their precise wholesale relationship and Mizuno’s equity ownership of either intermediary are not established.^{1, 2, 3, 4}
• Political: Israeli consumer retail remained observable in October 2026. The political audit identified no public evidence of an explicit corporate endorsement of Israeli military operations or settlement policy; the documented nexus is continued commercial participation.^{5, 2}
• Settlements: No public evidence identified of a Mizuno-operated settlement shop, warehouse, factory, franchise, or completed settlement-specific supply contract. General delivery terms do not establish completed deliveries to settlements.^{2, 6}
• Not found: No public evidence identified of Israeli military procurement, weapons supply, or defence-specific digital provision. The documented products and technology implementations concern civilian sporting goods, commerce, product development, and customer engagement.^{2, 7, 8, 9, 10}

Target Profile

Executive Summary

Mizuno’s documented Israel/Palestine nexus is commercial. Its Israel-facing EMEA contact page names Different Pro 2627 Ltd at 2 Dotan Street, Yavne, while the local storefront’s legal terms identify that company, registration number 517139242, as the online-store operator. The storefront offers sporting goods in Israeli shekels, supported by local delivery, returns, and customer-service arrangements. Product listings include footwear identified with the 2026 collection, establishing public offers after both 19 July 2024 and November 2024.^{1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 15}

A second distribution relationship is independently documented. Mizuno Corporation’s Global Office Locator lists MGS Sport Trading Ltd as an Israeli sports distributor in Holon. MGS’s company profile identifies Mizuno within its imported and marketed brand portfolio and describes a broader retail and wholesale network. Those disclosures substantiate distribution, but do not identify every outlet stocking Mizuno, the chain connecting MGS to Different Pro, exclusive distribution rights, or Mizuno Corporation’s ownership of either business.^{3, 4, 1, 2}

The strongest substantiated vector is therefore participation in the Israeli consumer market through identifiable commercial intermediaries. The political record also documents a published consumer-boycott assessment based on that presence. It does not establish an explicit Mizuno endorsement of Israeli military operations, settlement expansion, or occupation policies. No public evidence identified of a Mizuno-operated settlement facility or completed settlement-specific supply contract; the Yavne address and general shipping policy do not establish either.^{1, 2, 6, 16}

The military and digital audits found no qualifying Israeli military or defence-technology nexus. Sports footwear is not established as military equipment merely because it could have civilian and military purchasers. Mizuno’s documented cloud, enterprise-software, and analytics relationships concern commercial operations; no public evidence identified of Israeli military deployment, Israeli cloud-region processing, or participation in Project Nimbus. The fixed, human-vetted V6.6 result is BRS 311, Tier D (Moderate Complicity), with economic and political domain scores of 3.50 and military and digital domain scores of zero.^{7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18}

Timeline of Relevant Events

Corporate Overview

Mizuno is a Japanese sporting-goods company, with Japanese incorporation and an Osaka corporate address documented in the reviewed registry. Its shareholder disclosure identifies a material foundation holding alongside institutional and custody registrations. No public evidence identified in the audited ownership record of a separately disclosed controlling position held by an Israeli state body, defence enterprise, or political organisation.^{11, 12, 13}

The UK entities require precise attribution. MIZUNO CORPORATION UK LIMITED, company 13657239, is recorded as an active company incorporated on 1 October 2021. It is distinct from Mizuno (UK) Limited, company 03357656, dissolved in February 2026, and from the Japanese parent’s overseas registration, FC018291. The latter’s establishment closure became effective on 30 June 2026 and was filed in July; these records do not establish that Mizuno Corporation ceased operating globally.^{23, 20, 21, 11}

In Israel, Different Pro is established as a commercial contact and storefront operator. Its legal terms distinguish the operator from holders of relevant brand rights. No public evidence identified establishing it as a wholly owned subsidiary, joint venture, or equity-controlled affiliate of Mizuno. Its customs importer-of-record role and the wholesale route supplying it remain unresolved.^{1, 2}

MGS is separately recognised by Mizuno as a distributor. Its profile describes approximately 130 stores across its various retail networks and wholesale distribution to approximately 600 points of sale. These are group-wide figures, not Mizuno-specific outlet counts. The accessible evidence does not substantiate the reported ownership percentages for a 2025 Sport and More transaction, establish Mizuno’s participation in that transaction, or show that Mizuno holds shares in Israeli retail operations.^{3, 4}

Domain Summaries

Military: Military

Mechanism of Involvement

No public evidence identified establishing a direct Mizuno procurement contract with the Israeli Ministry of Defence, IDF, Israel Prison Service, or Border Police. The military audit likewise found no verified relationship involving Israeli defence-prime components, weapons systems, military logistics, base services, or military construction. The positively identified Israeli channel is consumer retail operated by Different Pro.^{1, 2, 6}

The products examined support that distinction. Wave Rider TT 4 is marketed as trail-running footwear and Wave Exceed Tour 7 AC as tennis footwear. The audited materials establish neither a military-specific configuration nor an identified Israeli military purchaser. No public evidence identified of tactical boots, ballistic protection, military uniforms, or purpose-built tactical variants supplied to Israeli security end-users.^{7, 24}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is the civilian character of the verified activity and the absence of an identified military contract. Published delivery and returns policies describe ordinary consumer fulfilment. Neither the usability of sports shoes by service personnel nor a retailer’s general customer base establishes corporate military supply.^{2, 6, 25}

No public evidence identified of a military end-user certificate, Israeli defence-specific export licence, named weapons platform, or Mizuno-specific military-supply enforcement proceeding. These are bounded research findings, not proof that every individual purchaser has been identified. The dossier therefore makes no military attribution from consumer availability alone.^{2, 7, 24}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Digital: Digital

Mechanism of Involvement

Mizuno has substantial commercial technology implementations. Centric PLM supports product planning, development, production, and supply-chain processes. Mira Commerce documents AWS-hosted applications and microservices within Mizuno USA’s commerce architecture, alongside BigCommerce and other commerce providers. SAP’s customer case describes customer-data consolidation and personalised marketing.^{8, 9, 10}

JBS documents Microsoft 365 support extending into Azure-related matters. Other audited cases describe Korean-market commerce using Salesforce Commerce Cloud and AWS, and a Google Cloud-supported badminton-racket recommendation application. These disclosures establish enterprise and retail technology use, not an Israeli defence deployment.^{17, 18, 26}

No public evidence identified of Israeli-origin enterprise technology procurement, Israeli military or intelligence technology contracts, Project Nimbus participation, an Israeli data centre or R&D facility, or customer-data processing in an Israeli cloud region. Mizuno’s use of global technology vendors does not independently establish any of those relationships.^{8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 26}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is the documented commercial purpose of the systems and the absence of a Mizuno-specific Israeli deployment. Customer profiling, enterprise collaboration, and sporting-product recommendations do not establish military intelligence, predictive policing, or targeting activity.^{8, 10, 17, 18}

Mizuno USA’s privacy policy discloses commercial data collection and in-store CCTV. It does not identify an Israeli facial-recognition supplier or biometric platform. It also does not provide a comprehensive inventory of hosting regions and subprocessors, so the audit’s data-residency conclusion remains “No public evidence identified,” rather than a universal assurance about every data flow.²⁷

A Google Play listing associates the Mega Sport retail application with M.G.S. Sport Trading Ltd. It does not establish that Mizuno developed, commissioned, operates, or controls the application, or that Mizuno-controlled customer systems are connected to it. Historical AWS operations beginning in 2015 are separately documented; the current contractual status of the historical managed-service arrangement is unknown.^{28, 29}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Economic: Economic

Mechanism of Involvement

The economic mechanism is documented market access through local distribution and retail. Different Pro operates the Israeli storefront, handles consumer transactions and associated information, and publishes delivery and returns arrangements. Local product offers, including 2026-collection footwear, demonstrate continuing commercial availability after the audit’s July and November 2024 temporal thresholds.^{2, 6, 7, 15, 25, 30}

Mizuno’s own locator identifies MGS Sport Trading as an Israeli sports distributor. MGS independently identifies Mizuno within a multi-brand import, marketing, retail, wholesale, and ecommerce business. This corroborates a distribution relationship beyond the Different Pro contact, while leaving the precise wholesale chain unresolved.^{3, 4}

The record establishes commercial participation, but not its financial magnitude. Advertised shekel prices do not establish actual unit sales, Mizuno’s wholesale revenue, royalties, profit transfers, or tax receipts. No public evidence identified quantifying Mizuno Corporation’s Israel-specific annual revenue or its capital investment in either intermediary.^{2, 7, 24, 30}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that the verified activity consists of civilian goods sold through separately identified intermediaries. No public evidence identified of a Mizuno-owned Israeli factory, data centre, research facility, acquired operating company, or separately incorporated Israeli office. The Yavne contact address does not establish ownership of the premises or equity control of its operator.^{1, 2, 11, 23}

Settlement attribution is also unsupported. The shipping policy provides a general delivery framework and recognises access restrictions; it identifies neither completed settlement deliveries nor a settlement-specific distributor. No public evidence identified of settlement-origin Mizuno goods, a settlement warehouse or franchise, or a settlement-product mislabeling enforcement finding.^{2, 6, 7, 24}

MGS’s profile mentions government institutions among its overall wholesale customers. It does not establish a Mizuno-specific government order, military procurement, or supply to every retail location. Similarly, its network totals cannot be used as Mizuno’s outlet count. Unverified transaction diagrams and ownership percentages are excluded.⁴

No public evidence identified of Israeli sovereign-debt purchases, Israel Bonds underwriting, military lending, or settlement-specific financing by Mizuno in the audited records. These absent financial mechanisms are not inferred from consumer trade.^{11, 23, 13}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Political: Political

Mechanism of Involvement

The political audit’s substantiated Israel-related conduct is continued commercial presence. The storefront, local operator, and delivery framework remained observable in October 2026. No public evidence identified that Mizuno presented that presence as an explicit political declaration supporting Israeli military operations or settlement policy.^{5, 2, 6}

BYKT’s August 2026 assessment documents a consumer-boycott classification based on Israeli commercial presence. Its own reported findings did not establish verified military supply, settlement infrastructure, or explicit occupation-policy endorsement. The audit did not establish that Mizuno is an official BDS Movement priority target or identify a Mizuno response to that particular assessment.¹⁶

The reviewed UN settlement-business database material and accompanying coverage did not establish a Mizuno-specific listing or proceeding. No public evidence identified of a Mizuno-funded settlement project, Israel-Palestine lobbying campaign, anti-BDS expenditure, or direct Israeli military donation in the reviewed corporate, ownership, and charitable disclosures.^{31, 32, 13, 33}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is the absence of an identified political commitment beyond commercial participation. No public evidence identified of official corporate endorsement of Israeli military operations, settlement policy, or an Israeli government advocacy programme. The audit also identified no dated official ceasefire statement; that absence does not establish support for military conduct.^{2, 5, 33, 34}

Mizuno USA discloses support for Operation Homefront Georgia and the Wounded Warrior Project, alongside its selected charitable partner, the North Metro Miracle League. The former relationships concern US military-family or veteran support. They do not establish donations to the IDF, FIDF, Israeli reservists, or settlement bodies; contribution amounts and specific payment dates were not disclosed.³³

No public evidence identified of named executives making qualifying Israeli military or settlement donations, holding relevant political-organisational board roles, or advocating Israeli military conduct. The foundation’s shareholding establishes ownership, not an Israel-related political funding channel. UK corporate closures likewise have no established conflict-related motive.^{13, 14, 20, 21}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Complicity Index Score

Method: V6.6. The following values are the fixed, human-vetted results supplied for this dossier.

• V_MAX: 3.50 Avg_OTHERS: 1.17
• BRS Score: 311 Tier: D (Moderate Complicity)

The economic and political domains jointly set V_MAX through the documented, continuing Israeli commercial relationships; the audited record does not support recasting them as military supply, settlement operations, or explicit political endorsement.^{1, 2, 3, 6} The resulting BRS 311 and Tier D are retained exactly as vetted, alongside zero military and digital scores. The method is scale-free and evidence-only: Impact concerns the activity type, while Magnitude and Proximity describe scale and directness; these fixed values do not establish undisclosed revenues, contracts, or customer identities.

Methodology Note

• This dossier compiles only the four supplied domain audits. Their October 2026 research findings remain bounded by the records examined; a cited source does not independently prove an exhaustive negative.
• The V6.6 scores are fixed, human-vetted inputs. Impact measures activity type on a scale-free basis; Magnitude concerns scale, and Proximity concerns directness.
• Temporal attribution distinguishes current activity from historical, exited, or divested operations. The UK establishment closure is retained with its effective and filing dates; historical cloud-service continuity is not assumed.^{21, 29}
• Entity attribution requires a documented relationship. MGS group-wide activities, the Mega Sport application, intermediary ownership, and vendors’ wider business relationships are not automatically attributable to Mizuno.^{2, 3, 4, 28}
• A verified settlement operation would count in both Economic and Political. No such operation was established here; a general delivery policy cannot substitute for settlement-specific evidence.⁶
• “No public evidence identified” records checks yielding no verified finding. Unresolved ownership, transaction structures, financial flows, and customer destinations remain unresolved rather than being converted into allegations.^{2, 4, 6, 30}