Pela for the first time in history, Maratona of Londres was completed in less than 2 hours on Sunday (April 26). The two runners who achieved the feat were wearing the Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3, by Adidas, a shoe that weighs just 97 grams. On the same day, the record for the women’s race was also broken by the athlete wearing the same shoe. The unprecedented results have reignited an old discussion in the world of sport: to what extent technology in equipment can be considered an unfair advantage.
The debate is not new, but it gained intensity after these expressive results. Críticos argue that the evolution of footwear creates an inequality where performance depends more on access to cutting-edge equipment than on the athlete’s physical ability. Defensores of Innovation, on the other hand, see technological progression as natural and inevitable in modern sport.
Historical tennis and its repercussions
The Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3 quickly earned the nickname “super sneaker” following its record-setting performances in the British capital. The model costs approximately US$500, the equivalent of around R$2,500, and represents a milestone in the sports footwear industry. The shoe’s minimalist, ultra-lightweight design has not gone unnoticed among professional and amateur athletes looking to improve their performance.
Adidas announced the product as the most radical evolution of the Adios series, comparing it to its predecessor. Improvements include a 30% reduction in weight, a 1.6% improvement in running economy and an 11% greater energy return in the forefoot thanks to the new Energyrim foam, developed specifically for this model.
The two Maratona and Londres winners who wore the sneakers achieved different feats. Sebastian Sawe, from Quênia, became the first man to complete an official marathon in less than two hours, breaking a barrier that seemed insurmountable for the sport. Tigst Assefa of Etiópia set a new women’s world record with a time of 2 hours, 15 minutes and 41 seconds. Ambos chose the shoes for their respective competitions, which accelerated discussions about the influence of equipment on results.
Welcome to a new era of fast.
— adidas (@adidas) April 27, 2026
The #Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3. Now officially the sub-2-shoe. pic.twitter.com/yOCWO9zXRJ
The issue of “technological doping”
The term “technological doping” gained relevance in the context of this controversy. The central idea is that certain equipment can provide competitive advantages so significant that they undermine equality between competitors. Defensores from this position argue that sport should prioritize physical merit and training, not access to exclusive, high-cost technologies.
On the other hand, supporters of technological innovation emphasize that evolution has always gone hand in hand with sport. Desde specialized swimsuits to revolutionary bikes and cars at Fórmula 1, the incorporation of new technologies is a constant. Nessa perspective, Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3 would be just another natural step on this trajectory of progress.
The dilemma calls into question fundamental values of sport: to what extent should technology be allowed? Como keep the competition fair when some athletes have access to much greater financial resources? Essas questions have no simple answers and continue to divide experts and organizations in world sport.
Regulações by World Athletics
World Athletics, formerly known as Associação Internacional of Federações of Atletismo, already anticipated these concerns and established specific rules for competition footwear. The organization limited the height of the midsole and restricted the use of certain technologies to maintain some level of balance in official events.
Essas parameters are considered by major sports equipment manufacturers during the new product development process. Companies need to ensure that their launches meet the criteria established by World Athletics, otherwise the equipment may be banned from major championships and official marathons. Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3 was developed within these regulatory limitations, which does not mean that the controversy has ceased.
The regulatory entity faces the challenge of maintaining sufficiently rigorous rules to avoid unfair competitive disadvantages, but without strangling the technological innovation that moves the industry and attracts investment to the sport. Esse’s delicate balance is constantly tested, especially when world records are set in quick succession using the same equipment.
The equipment industry perspective
Sports shoe manufacturers invest billions in research and development to maintain their competitiveness in the market. Adidas, Nike, Salomon and other brands compete for the attention of professional and amateur athletes, offering innovations that promise to improve performance.
Esses investments result in increasingly sophisticated products, with cutting-edge materials and computer-optimized designs. The process involves extensive testing with elite athletes, continuous adjustments and the incorporation of new scientific discoveries about biomechanics and materials science.
Para the industry, regulation must be clear and predictable. Fabricantes argue that they need legal security to invest in long-term research. At the same time, they recognize that their innovations can create legitimate discussions about competitive equity. Essa tension between innovation and regulation will likely continue to define the sector for years to come.
Consequências and future prospects
The records set at Maratona by Londres in April 2026 serve as a catalyst for deeper debates about the future of athletics. Especialistas are already questioning whether other athletes will need to invest in shoes with a similar technological level to compete on equal terms. Isso raises questions about economic access and inclusion in elite sport.
Alguns suggest that World Athletics should revise its regulations to be even more restrictive, further limiting the technological potential of the shoes. Outros propose that the solution would be to make this equipment more financially accessible, allowing more athletes to enjoy the same technological advantages.
A third perspective argues that sport has always distinguished those with better access to resources, and that this reality cannot be completely eliminated. Nessa vision, accepting technology as part of modern sport would recognize a structural truth of competition at the professional level.
What is certain is that the launch of Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3 and the records that accompanied it highlighted a fundamental tension in contemporary sport: how to maintain competitive integrity in a world where technology constantly evolves and becomes increasingly decisive.
