Adidas finds itself in a heated controversy stemming from its latest advertising campaign featuring supermodel Bella Hadid, intended to promote its new SL72 sneaker collection. The ads, aiming to evoke nostalgia by harking back to the 1972 Munich Olympics, faced significant backlash due to historical sensitivities surrounding that particular event.
The 1972 Olympic Games are infamously remembered for the brutal attack orchestrated by Palestinian terrorists from the group Black September, which resulted in the tragic deaths of 11 Israeli athletes. This dark chapter in Olympic history recaptured public attention when critics raised concerns about the implications of using Hadid, a model who has been vocal about her support for Palestine, in a campaign referencing such a sensitive topic.
During a recent earnings call, Adidas' CEO Bjørn Gulden addressed the backlash, acknowledging the misstep in their campaign. “We did the mistake in the way that bits and pieces in this campaign were put together and when you do a mistake, you apologize and you move on — and that’s what we did,” he stated. Subsequently, the brand retracted its campaign and confirmed that Hadid would no longer be its spokesperson for the SL72 line.
Hadid herself responded to the controversy head-on. In a statement shared via Instagram, she expressed her shock and disappointment over the unintentional connection between the campaign and the tragic events of 1972. She emphasized, “I would never knowingly engage with any art or work that is linked to a horrific tragedy of any kind.” Her heartfelt words illuminated her genuine discomfort regarding the pairing of her image with a campaign that inadvertently invoked feelings of sorrow and anger for many.
Moreover, Hadid articulated that her enthusiasm for Palestine and engagement with the cause should not be conflated with terrorism. She firmly stated, “Connecting the liberation of the Palestinian people to an attack so tragic... Palestine is not synonymous with terrorism and this campaign unintentionally highlighted an event that does not represent who we are.”
Historically, the Munich attack involved militants infiltrating the Olympic Village and taking Israeli athletes hostage. Their hostage situation ended horrifically when all 11 captives were killed during a botched rescue attempt by German authorities, a tragic outcome that has haunted both Israeli and Olympic memories.
The American Jewish Committee also expressed its concerns, labeling the collaboration a “massive oversight” that could be seen as deliberately provocative. Their statement reflected the heightened emotions surrounding the events in 1972 and the current geopolitical climate.
As the situation unfolded, Adidas extended its apologies not only to Hadid, stating she had not intended any offense, but also to the broader community impacted by the memories of the Munich incident. “We are conscious that connections have been made to tragic historical events — though these are completely unintentional — and we apologize for any upset or distress caused,” the company indicated.
Such controversies are all too common in today's hyper-aware social climate, where companies must tread carefully around issues of representation and sensitivity. The challenge of balancing creative expression with historical context is significant, especially for a brand like Adidas that has a global audience.
This case exemplifies the deeper conversation surrounding the intersections of fashion, marketing, and historical memory. It raises questions not only about accountability but also about the roles and responsibilities of public figures in understanding the historical weight of the themes they are connected to.
In conclusion, the Adidas and Hadid chapter reminds brands to carefully consider the narratives they choose to evoke. While nostalgia can be a powerful marketing tool, it’s essential that brands engage with history in a thoughtful and informed manner, ensuring that they do not unintentionally rekindle old wounds.
