Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl LX halftime show made history as the first Spanish-language performance — but his choice to wear Zara and Adidas sparked debate about fast fashion, cultural visibility, and the cost of accessibility on a global stage.
If you were among the roughly 130 million Americans watching Super Bowl LX last night, chances are you weren’t just tuned in for the score. You were also watching halftime history unfold. Bad Bunny became the first artist to deliver an entirely Spanish-language halftime show on the NFL’s biggest stage — a performance rooted in Latino identity, spectacle, and unapologetic cultural presence.
But as quickly as the praise rolled in, another conversation followed just as fast: what exactly did Bad Bunny’s fashion choices represent, and did his embrace of fast fashion elevate accessibility — or undermine the very cultural values his performance celebrated?
Global stage, mass-market uniform
Bad Bunny stepped onto the field wearing a Pantone 2026 Color of the Year and football-inspired look by fast-fashion giant Zara, paired with the debut of his first signature sneaker, the BadBo 1.0, designed in collaboration with Adidas. Just days earlier, he wore Schiaparelli to the Grammys where he took home three awards, including Album of the Year for DeBí TiRAR MáS FOToS, becoming the first artist to win the top prize with an exclusively Spanish-language album.
“[T]he brand that will surely drum up the most attention of the weekend is, of course, Zara,” Vogue Business reported, noting that dressing Bad Bunny allowed the retailer to dominate the cultural conversation without paying for a multimillion-dollar ad slot. Madeline Hill, co-host of The Sports Gossip Show podcast, told the publication, “For a brand like Zara that’s accessible to far more Super Bowl viewers than usual, odds are it’ll have a larger ROI in terms of sales, too.”
From a consumer perspective, that accessibility matters. Zara operates more than 2,000 stores globally, and its price points are within reach for millions of fans watching at home. The message was clear: this wasn’t fashion reserved for insiders. It was fashion meant to be worn, copied, and sold — fast. But that reach comes with a cost.
Fast fashion’s cultural contradiction
According to Eco-Age, the fashion choices sat uneasily alongside the cultural significance of the performance itself. In a LinkedIn post responding to the show, Eco-Age wrote, “Despite the spotlight on independent brands, Bad Bunny himself chose Zara and Adidas — two global brands known for their exploitative practices that disproportionately harm people of colour in their global supply chains.” The post continued, “Fast fashion, an industry built on injustice, undermines the very values of culture and identity that were being celebrated, with fast fashion brands persistently appropriating cultural designs and contributing to the erasure of cultural practices.”
The criticism lands as fast fashion’s environmental and social footprint is increasingly difficult to ignore. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimates that the fashion industry produces over 92 million tons of textile waste globally each year, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that textiles account for approximately eight percent of total municipal solid waste in the United States. These systems rely heavily on low-wage labor, often concentrated in communities of color, and on production cycles designed for speed rather than longevity.
Eco-Age also emphasized that fashion is inseparable from power structures, writing, “Fashion cannot be separated from the systems of discrimination, exploitation, and erasure that run deep within it.” From that perspective, the choice to anchor such a historic cultural moment in fast fashion looked like a missed opportunity to fully align values with visibility.
Visibility, ccale, and choice
Yet the story is not one-note. Bad Bunny’s halftime show also gave visibility to independent Latino designers. Dancers wore knitwear by Puerto Rican designer Jomary Segarra of Yomary, a handmade, low-waste label rooted in local craft. Lady Gaga joined him on stage wearing custom Luar by Dominican-American designer Raul Lopez, a moment that underscored how global stages can still spotlight independent talent.
Meanwhile, GQ framed the Adidas partnership as a culmination of a long creative relationship. The publication described the BadBo 1.0 as “a statement of intent,” noting that Bad Bunny’s work with Adidas had already reached museum-scale visibility through installations in Puerto Rico. As GQ put it, “With that sort of stature, a signature shoe was sure to follow.”
From a consumer lens, this all raises a more nuanced question: is choosing mass-market fashion inherently harmful, or can it function as a bridge between cultural expression and everyday wardrobes? Zara did not just dress Bad Bunny; it dressed an idea of cultural participation that millions could afford to replicate. The look democratized the moment — even as it amplified a system many critics argue needs dismantling.
What Bad Bunny’s halftime show ultimately revealed is not a simple good-or-bad verdict on fast fashion, but a tension that defines modern celebrity culture. Global platforms demand scale. Cultural authenticity demands care. Bad Bunny’s choices didn’t just make history on the halftime stage; the singer is also forcing a conversation about who fashion is for, who pays for it, and what it means when culture moves at the speed of mass production. “As global platforms like the Super Bowl continue to shape cultural narratives, it’s time we also make bold statements against these systems that perpetuate inequality and harm,” Eco Age noted.
“We’re not dismissing the impact of Bad Bunny’s performance. But we think it’s crucial to also recognise the important role fashion plays on a global stage.”
Related on Ethos:
