Nike Faces Backlash After Controversial London Marathon Billboard

At the 2025 London Marathon, runners were greeted by a bold Nike billboard near the finish line. Red background. Black lettering.

“Never Again. Until Next Year.”

For runners, the phrase might’ve felt familiar—even funny. It’s the kind of thing you mutter to yourself in mile 24, swearing off marathons forever while secretly knowing you’ll sign up again the moment your legs recover.

But for a whole lot of people, it wasn’t funny at all.

Almost immediately, the ad drew backlash.

“Never Again” isn’t just a quip for tired runners—it’s a phrase bound up in the memory of the Holocaust. It’s been used for decades by survivors, historians, and human rights groups to say: we must not forget, and we must not allow it to happen again.

Nike’s attempt at a clever motivational slogan ended up tapping into something much darker. And for many, especially in Jewish communities, it felt like a painful trivialization of trauma.

The Apology Came Fast—But Not Fast Enough

Nike quickly issued a public apology once the backlash began.

“We did not mean any harm and apologize for any we caused,” the company said in a statement. The brand explained that the ad was part of its “Winning Isn’t Comfortable” campaign, which drew on common phrases runners say after grueling races.

Other slogans in the series included “This is bloody tough” and “Remember why you signed up for this.”

The idea was to speak directly to runners’ mental battles. On paper, it made sense. But context is everything.

The company also emphasized that it “condemns antisemitism” and confirmed the billboard had been taken down.

Yet even with the swift response, the damage was done.

For many, it raised a bigger question: how did this make it through concept, design, and approval without anyone noticing the historical weight of the words?

This Nike advertisement was displayed at the end of the London Marathon.

To take a slogan about the Holocaust, and use it for entertainment, is simply grotesque.
Nike – Just DON’T do it. pic.twitter.com/tBadDgQKrt

— Rabbi David Schlusselberg (@RavSchluss) April 28, 2025

Why “Never Again” Isn’t Just Any Phrase

To understand the uproar, you have to understand what “Never Again” means outside of running culture. It’s not just a slogan—it’s a promise. One that’s appeared on Holocaust memorials, protest banners, and human rights campaigns around the world.

Since at least the 1960s, the phrase has been closely associated with Holocaust remembrance. More recently, it’s been used by survivors of the Parkland shooting, protesters against the Muslim travel ban, and in remembrance of Japanese-American internment camps during WWII. It’s a call to moral action.

So when Nike splashed the phrase across a red-and-black billboard—colors critics said evoked fascist imagery—it landed hard.

Jewish-American investor Bill Ackman didn’t mince words, calling the ad “stunning” and saying “heads need to roll.” He later claimed that Nike CEO Elliott Hill personally apologized to him, though Nike hasn’t confirmed that publicly.

A Bigger Pattern: Nike’s Ongoing Scrutiny

This isn’t Nike’s first PR mess of the year. Just a few months earlier, a women-focused Super Bowl ad meant to celebrate strength was slammed for ignoring the company’s fraught history with pregnant athletes and female sponsorship.

It’s part of a larger narrative: Nike trying to evolve, inspire, and market with purpose—but sometimes missing the mark in the process.

Nike is in the middle of a turnaround strategy under Hill, trying to win back market share lost to brands like Hoka, On Running, Adidas, and Lululemon. But the pressure to stand out in a crowded field is exactly what makes these kinds of missteps more likely—and more dangerous.

It’s tempting to brush this off as a mistake made in good faith. And to be fair, many people—Jewish runners included—acknowledged that they understood Nike’s intent. “If you’ve ever run a marathon, ‘Never Again’ is basically your inner monologue,” one wrote on X.

But here’s the thing: intent doesn’t erase impact.

It should have taken just one voice in the room to say, “Hold on a second—this might not land how we think it will.”

The fact that it didn’t happen speaks to a lack of sensitivity, or maybe a lack of diversity, in the decision-making process. Either way, it’s a problem.