){kind=logo}
The Sports Law Playbook returns with its May 2026 edition. In this issue, we examine the legal risks surrounding unauthorized marketing tied to the 2026 FIFA World Cup, including right of publicity claims, false endorsement issues and FIFA’s trademark enforcement efforts, as well as key considerations for brands, advertisers and player representatives planning World Cup-related campaigns.
Before turning to this month’s article, here are a few notable developments from across the sports industry:
On May 11, an arbitrator ruled in favor of the College Sports Commission (CSC) in a closely watched name, image and likeness (NIL) dispute involving 18 University of Nebraska football players, affirming the CSC’s rejection of proposed NIL deals arranged through Nebraska’s multimedia rights partner, Playfly Sports. The decision marks one of the first major tests of the CSC’s NIL enforcement authority in the post-House v. NCAA settlement era and could shape how schools, collectives and third-party partners structure future NIL agreements.
On April 9, the Los Angeles Times reported that the U.S. Department of Justice has been examining aspects of the National Football League’s media-rights structure and streaming distribution arrangements, including questions surrounding the scope of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 in the streaming era.
On April 3, President Trump signed an executive order relating to college athletics and athlete compensation, adding further uncertainty as schools were already preparing to implement the House v. NCAA settlement and direct revenue sharing with athletes. The order came amid broader debate over NIL regulation, athlete employment status and how revenue-sharing dollars will be distributed across sports, with most expected to flow to football and men’s basketball.
We also recently published our 2025 Sports Year in Review, highlighting how our Sports & Esports group guided leagues, teams, athletes, brands and innovators through some of the most significant and complex matters shaping the industry over the past year. Read the full review here.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup and Unauthorized Marketing: Navigating Publicity Rights, Trademark Law and FIFA Enforcement
The 2026 World Cup will unfold against a uniquely complex legal backdrop. Three overlapping regimes—the United States' robust but fragmented right of publicity laws, the federal Lanham Act's false endorsement protections and FIFA's expansive trademark enforcement apparatus—create a layered framework in which a single unauthorized advertisement can expose an advertiser to liability on multiple fronts. For advertisers, brands, agencies and player representatives planning campaigns around the tournament, understanding these converging risks is essential before any creative work begins.
How One Ad Can Open the Door to Claims by Players and FIFA
The most legally fraught scenario for advertisers is one in which a single piece of unauthorized content triggers claims from both a player and FIFA at the same time. Imagine an advertiser that features a recognizable player's image alongside World Cup-themed promotional material. Even if the ad reproduces no FIFA trademark and uses no actual photograph—only an illustration unmistakably depicting a specific athlete—the legal exposure can cascade rapidly.
First, a state right of publicity claim. The U.S. has no federal right of publicity—the doctrine is entirely a creature of state law. The result is a patchwork of statutes and common-law frameworks governing whether and how a person's name, image, voice or likeness may be commercially exploited without consent. Despite that fragmentation, many states recognize a claim for commercial appropriation of identity, and using a recognizable player's face to sell a product without permission is broadly actionable. The strength of any particular claim, however, varies dramatically by jurisdiction. California's protections rank among the strongest in the world, while other host states offer weaker or no statutory protection.
Second, a Lanham Act false endorsement claim. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act offers a parallel federal cause of action. A false endorsement claim arises when a person's identity is used in a manner likely to confuse consumers into believing the person endorses, sponsors or is otherwise affiliated with a product. Because this is a federal claim, it can be enforced uniformly across all U.S. jurisdictions—a significant advantage over the state-by-state variability of right of publicity law.
Together, these two frameworks raise unresolved jurisdictional questions for foreign athletes. It remains uncertain, for example, to what extent a foreign superstar like Kylian Mbappé—who has no U.S. domicile—can invoke state right of publicity protections or pursue a Lanham Act false endorsement claim in a U.S. court when the unauthorized use of his likeness occurs on American soil. By contrast, a U.S.-domiciled player like Christian Pulisic would face fewer hurdles in bringing the same claims.
Third, a claim from FIFA itself. If an advertisement creates even the impression of an official World Cup connection—through timing, imagery or context—FIFA's legal team will treat it as ambush marketing. FIFA may pursue claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin under the same Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and the breadth of its enforcement posture is difficult to overstate. FIFA's track record illustrates the point. At the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, a group of women were ejected from a stadium and faced legal action for wearing orange dresses associated with the Bavaria beer brand—despite displaying no visible logos—because the stunt was deemed a covert promotion undermining FIFA’s official sponsor, Budweiser. That aggressive stance carries over to the 2026 tournament in concrete ways. Even companies holding naming-rights deals with host stadiums will see those rights stripped during World Cup broadcasts unless they are official FIFA partners. For example, a match at Lumen Field or NRG Stadium may be broadcast simply as "Seattle Stadium" or "Houston Stadium" absent a separate FIFA sponsorship arrangement. In sum, an advertiser could face multi-front litigation from both the player—asserting personal right of publicity and Lanham Act rights—and FIFA, asserting its own Lanham Act claims alongside institutional trademark and anti-ambush-marketing rights.
The Player–FIFA Tension
Compounding these risks, a soccer player's image rights are governed simultaneously at multiple levels during a FIFA World Cup—by FIFA itself (through tournament regulations and participation agreements), by player unions such as FIFPRO, by the player's national team, by the player's club and by the player's own personal endorsement deals. Players retain a degree of control over their commercial identity and remain free to sign personal endorsement deals, license their image for advertisements and social media, and monetize their brand independently of FIFA. During the World Cup window, however, FIFA's participation agreements impose strict limits. Players cannot leverage their tournament participation to endorse products or services without explicit authorization, and promoting a competitor of an official FIFA sponsor is generally prohibited. Beyond these restrictions, players must also ensure that their personal endorsements do not conflict with obligations to club or national team sponsors.
This web of obligations generates a pointed tension between a player’s personal right of publicity—which under U.S. law includes the right to commercially exploit one's own name and image—and the sweeping restrictions that FIFA, clubs and federations impose on that very right. A U.S. court analyzing such a claim could well apply state-law rights that exist independently of, and may conflict with, those contractual restrictions.
Preparing for the Legal Landscape Ahead
For brands and agencies, the takeaway is straightforward. Marketing that suggests a relationship with FIFA or a specific player—without proper authorization—risks litigation on multiple fronts simultaneously. Brands should avoid using terms like "FIFA World Cup" in advertising that could in any way imply an affiliation with FIFA. For player agents and athletes, the interplay of rights among FIFA, clubs, national federations, unions such as FIFPRO and the individual player must be mapped out carefully before any endorsement deal is executed.
