Jersey Patch Sports Sponsorships Are Hot—Here Are The Unique Issues We See Most Often

You have likely seen a lot in the recent news about jersey patch sports sponsorship deals, particularly in the college sports space.

As schools continue searching for new revenue streams and brands look for increasingly visible ways to connect with fans, jersey patches have quickly become one of the most valuable assets in sports sponsorship. Notre Dame's recently announced partnership with SoFi and Ohio State's Chase deal are just the latest examples of how quickly this market is developing, while Texas has publicly taken the opposite approach and indicated it does not intend to pursue jersey patch sponsorships.

We've worked on a number of these transactions in both the professional and collegiate space. Here are some of the less obvious issues that often emerge in sports-related patch sponsorship negotiations.

From a distance, patch sponsorship deals can look relatively simple. A brand pays a sponsorship fee and receives placement on a jersey. In practice, however, it's more nuanced.

One of the most common misconceptions is that the school or team necessarily controls all the sponsorship rights associated with its uniforms. In reality, the rights landscape can be far more complicated. Conferences, professional leagues, the NCAA, apparel partners, media partners and national sponsorship programs may all have rights or approval authority that affect what can be sold, what categories are available, how the patch can be displayed and how the resulting content can be used.

That reality often surfaces during exclusivity discussions. Most parties understand they need an exclusivity provision, but the real challenge is defining exactly what is exclusive. Modern companies no longer fit neatly into traditional sponsorship categories. A single company may be an online retailer, a streaming platform, a cloud computing provider and a space exploration company all at once. A sponsor may believe it has secured exclusivity against a competitor, only to discover that the competitor enters through a business line that was never contemplated during negotiations.

We also find that sponsors sometimes focus heavily on the patch itself while paying less attention to the broader game-day environment. A sponsor may believe it is receiving meaningful category exclusivity only to discover that competing brands already have visibility through conference sponsorships, league sponsorships, stadium partnerships, broadcast sponsorships, broadcast integrations or promotions controlled by third parties that sit outside the direct control of the school or team.

The exclusivity analysis has become even more complicated as sports organizations increasingly develop mixed-use districts around stadiums and arenas. A team may control the jersey patch inventory while having little or no control over restaurants, retailers, hospitality operators, entertainment venues or other businesses operating within the broader district. The practical question is often not whether the patch is exclusive, but whether competing brand visibility may continue to exist around it. As a result, two parties can believe they have agreed to exclusive rights while having very different expectations about what fans will actually see on game day.

Another issue worth watching is the continuing evolution of sponsorship inventory itself. Jersey patches may be the headline item today, but they are unlikely to be the final stop. We are already seeing experimentation with additional uniform and equipment-based inventory, including helmet decal opportunities in Major League Baseball postseason play. At the same time, some schools and teams continue to view uniforms as something more than sponsorship inventory. 

The college landscape introduces NIL considerations as well. Generally speaking, a patch worn by an entire team tends to be viewed as an institutional sponsorship asset rather than an individual athlete endorsement. The analysis becomes more complicated when the sponsor wants to use photographs, videos, social media content or other promotional materials featuring identifiable athletes wearing the patched uniforms. At that point, NIL considerations often enter the discussion. We have also seen increased attention to potential conflicts between a patch sponsor and athletes who maintain their own NIL relationships with competing brands.

A closely related issue is the growing importance of clipping and short-form content. Historically, much of a patch's value was tied to exposure during the live game and broadcast. Today, many fans, particularly younger fans, consume sports through highlights, clips, reels, creator content and social media rather than through the game itself. In fact, recent research found that 78% of Gen Z attend or would attend live sporting events for celebrities, concert performances or brand activations, rather than solely for the on-field action. As sports increasingly compete with entertainment, creators and culture for attention, sponsors are placing greater value on assets that can travel beyond the stadium and into the content ecosystem.

That trend raises an interesting question that we do not think enough people are talking about. Does clipping make a jersey patch more valuable or less valuable? On one hand, a patch that appears in thousands of highlights, clips, reels and social posts may generate exposure far beyond the original game audience. On the other hand, many of those impressions occur on mobile devices where the patch may be barely visible, if visible at all. The answer may ultimately depend less on the patch itself and more on the sponsor's ability to participate in the content being created around it.

Sponsors should also confirm whether a jersey patch will appear on replica jerseys and other retail merchandise. Retail inclusion can be a significant source of exposure independent of game broadcasts, but it often raises separate licensing, royalty and approval issues. As a result, sponsors are sometimes surprised to learn that retail patch rights are not automatically included and may require separate negotiation.

Perhaps the biggest wildcard is what college athletics may look like several years from now. The industry continues to wait for greater clarity regarding potential federal legislation governing NIL and athlete compensation. Whether that ultimately comes through the SCORE Act, the Protect College Sports Act or some other legislative framework, there remains significant momentum toward creating a more uniform national approach to issues currently governed by a patchwork of state laws, NCAA rules, conference requirements and settlement-driven governance structures.

The transfer portal introduces another layer of uncertainty. Sponsors may evaluate a deal based in part on the visibility of specific athletes, only to see those athletes transfer before the patch appears on a uniform. Although some sponsors have explored performance adjustments tied to the departure of marquee players, most institutions are reluctant to make commitments regarding roster composition in an era of rapid player movement.

Even if future legislation does not directly regulate jersey patch sponsorships, changes to NIL, revenue-sharing structures, athlete rights or enforcement mechanisms could materially affect the assumptions underlying today's deals. For that reason, we view regulatory-change provisions as increasingly important in long-term sponsorship agreements.

Reputational risk is another area where the real negotiation often starts after everyone agrees they want a morality clause. The difficult question is determining whose conduct actually triggers it.

For an institution, does the clause apply only to the sponsor itself, or also to its parent company, affiliates, founders, executives, endorsers or affiliated brands? For a sponsor, is the trigger limited to the institution itself, or does it extend to university leadership, the athletic director, coaches, athletes, boosters or an entire athletic program? The farther removed the individual is from the sponsorship itself, the harder the analysis becomes.

Jersey patch sponsorships may appear to be simple logo-placement deals, but they sit at the intersection of sponsorship law, intellectual property, NIL, content rights, media rights, conference and league regulations, exclusivity concerns and reputation management. Based on our experience, the parties that identify these less obvious issues early tend to have smoother negotiations and far fewer surprises once the patch ultimately makes its way onto the uniform.

From a distance, patch sponsorship deals can look relatively simple. A brand pays a sponsorship fee and receives placement on a jersey. In practice, however, it's more nuanced.