Reebok’s support of the Israel Football Association (IFA), which has teams based in illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land, has drawn criticism. Due to the IFA’s involvement, Reebok inked a two-year sponsorship agreement with the organization in early 2025, sparking demands for a boycott. Reebok has attempted to handle a challenging position in the wake of severe criticism and threats of legal action from Israel.
The boycott campaign requires the answer to the question: Does Reebok support Israel? Reebok asked to have its logo taken off of Israel’s soccer uniforms because of pressure from boycotters. However, Reebok formally denied ordering the logo to be taken down and took pleasure in its ability to bring people from different cultural backgrounds together both on and off the field. Reebok’s ongoing support is being cited as complicit in Israel’s activities against Palestinians. The demolition of Palestinian sports facilities and oppression are connected to illegal settlements and ongoing boycott campaigns.
Introduction to Reebok
Reebok was started by Joseph William Foster in the year 1895 in Bolton, England. Initially, it was referred to as J.W. Foster and Sons. Foster was a shoemaker; he made high-performance running shoes with spikes, which enhanced the performance of the athletes. In 1958, Joe and Jeff Foster, who were the grandchildren of Foster, started Reebok. The rhebok was an African antelope used to show agility and speed, and this is why the company was named after it. Its creative designs and focus on athletic performance, especially with products such as the 1980s women’s Freestyle line, helped the brand to become well-known all over the world.
The company gained prominence in the sportswear business, especially in the basketball market and the aerobics and running market.
Once it was made public in 1985, Reebok also added various sports and fitness-related products to the product line. Since its acquisition by Adidas in 2005, the business has endeavored to remain a household name in the sportswear business, with focus being laid on the fitness, lifestyle, and innovation segments. Reebok is a brand with an established reputation for exploring and innovating in sports and producing high-quality performance footwear and clothing products for both amateur and professional sporting users. Over the years, it has also participated in a large number of sports sponsorships and partnerships.
Introduction to Reebok’s sponsorship deal with the IFA
Reebok reportedly inked a two-year contract with the Israel Football Association (IFA) in February 2025, which includes teams from Palestine’s illegal settlements in its official leagues. The IFA is charged with complicity in the military occupation and apartheid in the West Bank by allowing teams based in the illegal settlements. Reebok is then being asked to terminate its agreement with the IFA. Under the International Court of Justice‘s ruling in July 2024 that Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful. Reebok announced its sponsorship in violation of the ban on racial discrimination and apartheid.
Specifically, the State of Israel was ordered to stop the settlements after the International Court of Justice affirmed that they are unlawful under international law. Additionally, Reebok’s sponsorship comes after Erréas and Puma, the previous sponsors, decided to stop supporting the IFA.
Controversy and boycott campaigns
Reebok has faced criticism regarding its supply chains, even if it hasn’t garnered as much attention as some of its rivals in previous decades. An analysis of the sportswear sector, for example, pointed out that in the 1990s, anti-sweatshop campaigns targeted Reebok, Nike, and other companies for sourcing in low-wage nations with subpar working conditions. Reebok made various efforts to increase rights and transparency, including experimental programs for worker representation in China and Indonesia. But these initiatives were deemed to have little impact.
Reebok’s affiliations with the Israel Football Association (IFA) and the larger boycott/divestment campaign (BDS) are arguably the company’s most well-known current controversy. Reebok Israel planned a limited-edition sneaker called “Israel 68” in May 2016 to honor Israel’s “Independence Day.” Citing the historical Nakba and Palestinian displacement, Palestinian activists and the BDS movement demonstrated. Reebok pulled out of the product, claiming it “was a one-off initiative from one of our partners.”
In February 2025, the BDS movement called on Reebok to revoke its agreement with the IFA. It was claiming that Reebok would be involved in apartheid and occupation, as the IFA featured teams from illegal Israeli settlements. Reebok requested that its emblem be taken off of Israel’s national team uniform (through its local distributor) in September/October 2025 in response to boycott threats. However, the company apparently changed its mind after the IFA threatened legal action.
Israel’s reactions and the logo removal saga
A political and PR scandal involving Reebok’s sponsorship of the Israel Football Association (IFA) erupted in late 2025. Reebok reportedly asked to have its emblem taken off of Israel’s national football team shirts in September under pressure from boycott organizations throughout the world, especially the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. The IFA was indignant, accusing Reebok of “succumbing to irrelevant boycott threats” under Israel’s anti-boycott laws when Israeli media sources presented the move as a surrender to anti-Israel pressure.
However, Reebok quickly refuted the allegations, telling Reuters that the stories of the logo being removed were just not true. The company also reaffirmed its commitment to the current sponsorship, stating that it does not do politics, only sport. The event, known as the logo removal saga, demonstrated how business alliances in politically delicate areas may swiftly turn into international scandals. The incident sparked discussions about how money, ethics, and geopolitics connect in sports on a global scale, while in Israel, it was viewed as a slight to national pride.
The impact of international and local reactions
Around the world, there were significant reactions to the Reebok–Israel logo issue. Human rights organizations and activists around the world interpreted it as evidence that political pressure can affect multinational corporations. The findings were hailed by the BDS movement as a minor win for their cause. Pro-Israel advocates, meanwhile, charged that Reebok had catered to anti-Israel sentiment. The brand was accused by several Western pundits of fusing politics and sports.
The response was strong and emotional in Israel. The action was referred to as “a surrender to boycotts” by the Israel Football Association. It was considered an insult to national pride by many Israelis. Reebok came under fire from the local media, and some individuals demanded that its goods be boycotted. Tensions subsided after Reebok refuted the allegations, claiming that it “does not do politics.” The episode demonstrated how pressure from both sides affects multinational corporations. Reebok received both praise and criticism on a global scale. It had a hard time restoring trust locally. The dispute demonstrated how minor brand choices may have significant social and political repercussions.
The broader context of sportswear companies and Palestine
The Reebok incident is part of a larger trend that involves the Israel-Palestine conflict and sportswear corporations. Several international businesses have been under pressure to adopt a position on human rights issues related to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory throughout the last ten years. These have been mainly aimed at sponsorships or partnerships with Israeli sports organizations, including those clubs located in illegal settlements according to international law.
A good example is the sponsorship of the Israel Football Association (IFA) by Puma to the year 2023. Boycotts and rallies were demanded against the corporation over the years by human rights activists, student groups, and even by the BDS movement. The same campaigns have been launched against Nike, which has avoided signing any agreement that can have political complications, and Adidas, which at one time sponsored the Israeli national team.
Such events show that although business may declare itself to be non-political, the sportswear industry is increasingly getting into the political discourse. Sport partnerships are not neutral, according to many activists; they are a manifestation of the ideals and stance of a company on equality and justice. But those who are in support of Israel argue that such boycotts are discriminatory towards Israel and politicize sports.
Future and current activism
The Reebok incident has raised the issue of the future of brand participation in politically sensitive regions, a topic that has prompted unending activity. Sportswear companies continue to face pressure from pro-Palestinian groups to break their ties with organizations that have links with Israeli settlements. Global boycott networks are closely monitoring Reebok’s sponsorship of the Israel Football Association and have promised to continue efforts until the agreement expires.
