Under Armour

Key Findings

• Economic: Under Armour maintains an Israeli consumer retail presence through an active online store operated by Sport & More Ltd and six locations listed in its Israeli store directory. The records establish commercial activity, without disclosing Israel-specific revenue or demonstrating that Under Armour owns the local operator or stores.^{1, 2, 3}
• Military: Tactical Zone advertises Under Armour-branded merchandise alongside IDF Stars/Points purchasing arrangements. Separately, Under Armour director Eric T. Olson publicly endorsed Palladyne AI’s June 2026 loitering-munitions partnership with Israel Aerospace Industries in his capacity as a Palladyne director. Neither relationship establishes a direct Under Armour defence contract.^{4, 5, 6, 7, 8}
• Settlements: The reviewed store listings do not establish a settlement location. A third-party allegation concerning sourcing from Delta Galil remains unverified; no independently verified Under Armour factory relationship or settlement-origin supply connection was established.^{2, 9, 10, 11}
• Not found: No public evidence identified of Under Armour supplying Israeli military or intelligence organisations with digital infrastructure, surveillance systems or targeting technology. Its former MapMyFitness platform was sold in August 2024 and cannot be treated as a currently owned Under Armour GPS-data business.^{12, 13, 14}

Target Profile

Executive Summary

Under Armour’s clearest documented Israel nexus is commercial. Its Israeli online store offers branded sporting merchandise and identifies Sport & More Ltd as the website operator and seller. The Israeli store directory lists six locations, corroborated by the company’s international locator. These records establish continuing branded market activity observable in October 2026, including activity after July and November 2024. They do not disclose Israel-specific turnover, the brand owner’s contractual receipts, or ownership of the individual stores.^{1, 2, 17}

The military record contains two distinct relationships. Tactical Zone carries Under Armour-branded athletic merchandise and advertises IDF purchasing benefits and military-base delivery. Under Armour also sells purpose-designed tactical footwear through ordinary retail channels. Separately, director Eric T. Olson simultaneously serves on Palladyne AI’s board and publicly endorsed its June 2026 partnership with Israel Aerospace Industries concerning HARPY-family loitering munitions. The named defence partners are Palladyne and IAI; Under Armour is not identified as a manufacturer, subcontractor or customer in that programme.^{4, 5, 6, 18, 19, 7, 8}

The strongest limitations are substantive. No public evidence identified of a direct Under Armour Israeli defence procurement award, weapons-component supply relationship, military logistics contract, or Israeli military digital-services agreement. The digital audit documents consumer commerce and historical fitness technology, rather than an attributable Israeli surveillance or military technology business. MapMyFitness was sold to Outside Interactive in August 2024, so its subsequent operation must be excluded from Under Armour’s current ownership footprint.^{12, 8, 13, 14}

Settlement-related claims also remain bounded. The six locations in the reviewed Israeli store directory do not establish a settlement store. A boycott-directory allegation that Under Armour sources from Delta Galil lacks independently verified contracts, supplying factories or shipment records in the audited evidence. Reviewed Delta Galil disclosures do not independently substantiate the relationship, although their non-exhaustive customer lists cannot conclusively exclude it. The allegation therefore remains unverified and cannot establish settlement sourcing.^{2, 9, 10, 11}

The fixed, human-vetted V6.5 outcome is BRS 295, Tier D (Moderate Complicity). Economic activity supplies the highest domain score, 3.50; the military score is 0.57, with the distinction between retail availability, overlapping governance and direct corporate contracting preserved. Digital and political domain scores are both 0.00. The classification does not convert the unresolved sourcing allegation or another company’s defence agreement into proven Under Armour conduct.

Timeline of Relevant Events

Corporate Overview

Under Armour is a Maryland-incorporated consumer sporting-goods company headquartered in Baltimore. Its FY2026 filing describes branded apparel, footwear and accessories manufactured substantially through independent contractors. It reports serving Middle Eastern and African markets through independent distributors. This model supports the documented Israeli distribution context without establishing ownership of the local distributor.¹²

Sport & More Ltd identifies itself as an Israeli importer and distributor representing Under Armour among several international sports brands. The Israeli storefront’s legal documentation names it as operator and seller, with Israeli company number 516794161. Its reported approximately 150 employees cover its wider multi-brand business; that figure cannot be attributed solely to Under Armour. The audited records do not establish that Sport & More is an Under Armour-owned subsidiary or identify the importer of record for individual shipments.^{1, 3}

Historical sources name Grundman & Co., including reporting from approximately 2012 and April 2021. Contemporary records identify Sport & More. The audits did not establish whether the entities are legally identical, whether one succeeded the other, or when any distribution rights transferred. A continuous, unchanged contractual relationship must therefore not be inferred.^{20, 23, 1, 3}

The significant-subsidiaries exhibit lists entities in the Netherlands, Maryland, Hong Kong and Cyprus, without naming an Israeli-incorporated significant subsidiary. Because smaller subsidiaries may be omitted under the exhibit’s reporting threshold, this is not proof that no smaller Israeli entity exists. No public evidence identified of an Israeli company acquired or controlled by Under Armour.²⁶

Plank’s voting control arises from the company’s multi-class share structure. Independent institutional shareholders’ portfolios are not Under Armour assets, and their separate investments cannot establish Under Armour investment in Israel. The reviewed ownership record did not establish Israeli beneficial control or a special Israeli state governance right.⁷

Domain Summaries

Military: Military

Mechanism of Involvement

Tactical Zone’s Under Armour catalogue lists branded clothing and footwear with references to IDF Stars/Points benefits. The retailer describes itself as an authorised supplier to the IDF and security forces and advertises military purchasing arrangements and delivery to military bases. This establishes a military-facing retail channel carrying the brand. It does not identify Under Armour as the contracting party to a particular state purchase order or disclose the retailer’s upstream procurement arrangements.^{4, 5, 6}

Under Armour’s own catalogue establishes purposeful tactical product design. Its tactical footwear range includes Valsetz and Stellar models; the cited Valsetz product incorporates abrasion-resistant materials, a Vibram outsole, a slip-resistance rating and a fast-rope-compatible arch. These are commercially available products sold through ordinary retail facilities. The manufacturer’s product descriptions do not independently establish Israeli procurement or operational use.^{18, 19}

The governance connection is separately documented. Under Armour’s July 2026 proxy and Palladyne’s biography establish Olson’s simultaneous board roles. IAI’s June announcement identifies him as a Palladyne director endorsing a partnership to manufacture, integrate and market HARPY, HAROP and Mini HARPY systems for the US Department of War. The announcement names Palladyne and IAI as the commercial participants.^{7, 27, 8}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The company’s strongest defence is the absence of a verified direct Israeli defence contract and the limited attribution supported by each source. Athletic merchandise available through a military-benefit retailer does not establish bespoke military production, corporate management of base deliveries or a direct Ministry of Defence supply agreement. No public evidence identified of Israeli military end-user certificates or acceptance specifications for the cited products.^{4, 6, 18, 19}

Olson’s external directorship does not make Under Armour a participant in Palladyne’s defence programme. No public evidence identified of Under Armour equity in Palladyne, component supply to IAI, or contractual participation in the announced agreement. The overlap is a governance fact; weapons manufacture remains attributable to the named partners.^{7, 8}

No public evidence identified of Under Armour supplying munitions, strategic weapons systems, military targeting software, heavy construction equipment or contracted installation services to Israeli forces. Its US military and first-responder discount programme is also distinct: the documented eligibility arrangement does not establish Israeli military procurement.^{12, 28}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Digital: Digital

Mechanism of Involvement

The documented digital activity is consumer and operational technology. Under Armour’s annual filing describes information systems supporting design, inventory, ecommerce, transactions and distribution. Merkle documents a Salesforce Commerce Cloud implementation expanded across 35 storefronts in three regions. Its case study does not identify an Israeli-origin surveillance or security component in that architecture.^{12, 13}

The Israeli storefront provides online shopping, accounts, order handling and customer-support functions. These establish an Israeli-facing commercial digital service. Public support material does not disclose server locations, database regions or the full subcontractor chain, and does not establish intelligence access to customer information.^{1, 29}

Historical fitness technology requires temporal separation. IBM’s 2016 announcement concerned consumer coaching based on personal fitness information. Outside acquired MapMyFitness in August 2024, and Under Armour’s FY2026 filing confirms the disposal. Those historical records do not establish a current Under Armour-owned Israeli surveillance or GPS-data operation.^{21, 14, 12}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that the audited digital record establishes ordinary commerce and fitness functions without an attributable Israeli military technology relationship. No public evidence identified of Under Armour supplying Israeli state bodies with cloud infrastructure, surveillance, offensive cyber tools, military AI or targeting systems. No public evidence identified of participation in Project Nimbus or an Under Armour-operated Israeli data centre.^{12, 13, 29}

Vendor disclosure is incomplete, so absence of an identified relationship is not a comprehensive certification of every supplier. Equally, undisclosed hosting locations cannot be converted into a positive claim of Israeli hosting or state access. MapMyFitness’s disposal further limits current attribution: subsequent platform activity belongs outside Under Armour’s ownership record.^{12, 14, 29}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Economic: Economic

Mechanism of Involvement

The principal mechanism is continuing Israeli market participation through distribution, ecommerce and branded retail. Sport & More is the named online seller and publicly describes importing, logistics, merchandising, marketing and retail functions across its brand portfolio. These records establish commercial transactions involving Under Armour products, without quantifying the division of receipts between the operator and brand owner.^{1, 3}

The Israeli directory lists Haifa Bay, Ashkelon, Nof HaGalil, Zichron Yaakov, Holon and Beersheba. The international locator independently lists six Israeli stores. These are contemporary evidence of market presence, but do not establish each location’s opening date, corporate ownership or Under Armour-specific staffing.^{2, 17}

Historical Grundman reporting supplies earlier distribution context. It cannot establish the current agreement’s terms or an uninterrupted legal relationship with Sport & More. Under Armour’s global and regional accounts do not separately disclose Israeli revenue, royalties, taxes or profit repatriation.^{20, 23, 1, 12}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that the documented economic activity concerns civilian sporting goods sold through a local commercial intermediary. No public evidence identified of a verified settlement store, settlement warehouse, settlement-origin Under Armour product, Israeli sovereign-debt financing or direct settlement lending. The reviewed six-store directory does not establish an occupied-territory location.^{12, 2}

The Delta Galil claim remains unresolved. A boycott directory alleges a supplier relationship, but the audit found no independently verified dated purchase order, supplying factory, shipment record or contractual value. S&P’s assessment and Delta Galil’s financial announcement name other customers without independently substantiating Under Armour as a customer. Because those lists are non-exhaustive, omission is not definitive disproof; it also does not supply the missing verification.^{9, 10, 11}

Economic scale must remain bounded. Sport & More’s workforce covers multiple brands; global foreign cash and earnings cannot be assigned to Israel; and the public records do not reconcile local sales with Under Armour receipts. These limits prevent a quantified Israeli fiscal or financial contribution from being inferred.^{3, 12}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Political: Political

Mechanism of Involvement

The political audit documents continuing Israeli commercial presence alongside an absence of identified Israel-specific corporate advocacy. No public evidence identified of an official Under Armour statement addressing Gaza, Palestinian civilian casualties, settlement expansion or the July 2024 ICJ advisory opinion. Retail continuity establishes commercial conduct, without independently establishing endorsement of Israeli government policy.^{1, 2, 16}

Comparative communications show that the company has taken public positions elsewhere. It supported Ukraine and suspended Russian-channel shipments in March 2022, and published racial-justice communications in 2020. Run Ukraine also documented a 2022 event partnership benefiting UNITED24 through event profits. These records provide context about corporate communications and sponsorship; they do not prove an Israel-specific political commitment.^{24, 22, 25}

Olson’s military background and external affiliations require the same attribution discipline as the military domain. His involvement in the Palladyne–IAI announcement is documented, but it does not establish an Under Armour Israeli lobbying programme, military donation or state sponsorship.^{7, 8}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is the absence of verified affirmative Israel-specific political financing or advocacy. No public evidence identified of Under Armour lobbying for Israeli military assistance, settlement expansion or anti-BDS legislation, or financing the named Israeli military-welfare and settlement organisations reviewed by the audit. No public evidence identified of employee discipline for pro-Palestinian expression or asymmetric Israel–Palestine content moderation.^{7, 16}

Different public responses to different conflicts do not by themselves establish support for Israeli military action. Likewise, the Ukraine event announcement did not disclose the value of Under Armour’s contribution or establish that its particular payment purchased military equipment. That evidentiary limit applies consistently across contexts.^{24, 25}

No verified settlement operation was established to support settlement-related political attribution. The Delta Galil allegation cannot supply that missing predicate. At the August 2026 annual meeting, the recorded proposals concerned directors, compensation, an incentive-plan amendment and the auditor; no public evidence identified of an Israel–Palestine proposal excluded from that ballot.^{2, 9, 15}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Complicity Index Score

Method: V6.5. The following values are fixed, human-vetted results.

• V_MAX: 3.50 Avg_OTHERS: 0.19
• BRS Score: 295 Tier: D (Moderate Complicity)

The economic domain drives V_MAX through documented, continuing Israeli distribution and retail activity; the smaller military result preserves the limited directness of third-party retail and overlapping governance relationships.^{1, 2, 4, 8} Digital and political scores remain zero, consistent with the absence of an established qualifying digital provision or affirmative Israel-specific political programme; political I=2.00 does not independently produce a positive domain score. The resulting 295 / Tier D classification follows the supplied scale-free, evidence-only, vetted method; this dossier neither recalculates the values nor treats unresolved allegations as established inputs.

Methodology Note

• Evidence boundary: This dossier compiles the four supplied domain audits, with a research cutoff of 22 October 2026. Positive findings, negative findings and unresolved claims retain their audited status.
• Scoring dimensions: The scale-free framework treats Impact (I) as activity type, Magnitude (M) as scale and Proximity (P) as directness. The supplied V6.5 values are preserved exactly.
• Temporal rule: Exited or divested operations are mitigated and separated from current activity. MapMyFitness’s August 2024 sale prevents subsequent platform ownership from being attributed to Under Armour.¹⁴
• Entity attribution: Retailers, directors, institutional shareholders and external companies remain distinct entities. Olson’s Palladyne role does not establish Under Armour participation in the Palladyne–IAI contract.^{7, 8}
• Settlement rule: A verified settlement operation dual-counts in Economic and Political. No verified settlement operation was established here; the unresolved Delta Galil allegation does not justify such attribution.^{2, 9, 10, 11}
• Negative findings: “No public evidence identified” describes the outcome of the audits’ reviewed checks, not proof of universal absence. Incomplete disclosure is neither affirmative evidence of involvement nor a comprehensive assurance against it.