What happens when a stadium hosting a World Cup match bears the name of a brand that does not officially sponsor the competition?
The controversy surrounding some of the stadiums for the 2026 World Cup reflects this tension well, as many sports venues are typically identified by logos associated with major brands.
Behind this situation are the so-called agreements of naming rightsThese agreements allow a company to acquire the right to associate its brand with the name of a stadium for a specific period in exchange for payment. These contracts represent a significant source of funding for stadium owners and, at the same time, a powerful positioning tool for sponsoring companies, who seek to have the public immediately identify the stadium with their brand.
In the recent competition, the event organizers required the omission of the use of such trademarks and the use of neutral names.
This establishes a framework in which industrial property and agreements coexist. naming rights in force, the sponsorship program for the 2026 World Cup and the international broadcasts of a global sporting event.
Why do some stadiums change their names during the World Cup?
The organization requires the stadiums selected to host the matches to change their names to prevent brands that are not sponsors of the event from appearing to be officially associated with the tournament.
The World Cup has a sponsorship program based on granting exclusive commercial rights for certain categories of products and services. This exclusivity is one of the main assets of sports sponsorship, since those who become official sponsors not only seek visibility during the event, but also to prevent competitors or third parties from benefiting from their media coverage without having borne the cost of that investment.
That's why organizers implement "clean site" policies or clean siteUnder this criterion, spaces related to the competition must be free of distinctive signs and advertising elements unrelated to the official sponsorship program. This requirement may affect interior advertising, signage, facades, displays visible from the stands, press areas, and, in some cases, the stadium's name itself.
The objective is not to permanently eliminate the commercial identity or to question the validity of the agreements naming rightsInstead, its visibility will be temporarily suspended while the stadium is integrated into the official tournament environment. This preserves the commercial exclusivity agreed upon with the official sponsors and prevents third parties from obtaining an indirect association with the competition.
Where is the link with industrial property?
The link lies in the coexistence of different trademark rights and in the use of distinctive signs in an event subject to a commercial exclusivity regime.
Industrial property protects trademarks, names, and distinctive signs that identify the business origin of products or services. In a World Cup, the official competition trademarks, the trademarks of authorized sponsors, licensing rights, and agreements all converge. naming rights that commercially identify the stadiums.
The conflict arises when a brand outside the group of official sponsors gains visibility within the event's perimeter. This exposure acquires special value due to the international dissemination of broadcasts, photographs, and news and digital content about the tournament, which can create the perception among the public of a commercial link with the competition.
However, this presence does not generally correspond to an illicit use of the trademark, but to the legitimate exercise of an agreement naming rights previously signed with the owner or manager of the venue. The difficulty lies in reconciling that contract with the obligations assumed by the venue towards the organizer and with the exclusivity rights granted to the official sponsors.
From a branding perspective, the agreements of naming rights They aim to establish a stable association between a brand and a sports venue. This continuity allows the public to spontaneously identify the stadium with the sponsoring brand and is one of the main factors justifying the investment.
Therefore, successive name changes or the temporary use of neutral names during major competitions do not weaken the brand in a legal sense nor affect the validity of trademark rights, but they can reduce the effectiveness of the distinctive and advertising function pursued by these agreements, by making it difficult for the consumer to maintain an immediate and stable association between the stadium and the sponsoring brand.
The Atlanta case: when retiring a brand isn't so easy
The Atlanta case shows that "clean site" policies can encounter material limits.
Mercedes-Benz Stadium, home to the Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta United, is one of the most illustrative examples. During the World Cup, it was identified as Atlanta Stadium, following a practice already implemented at Euro 2024, when stadiums like the Allianz Arena were temporarily renamed Munich Football Arena.
However, the Mercedes-Benz emblem integrated into the venue's roof presents an additional challenge. As it forms part of the retractable roof's structural design, its removal or covering is not comparable to the removal of a conventional advertising display, since it could affect the integrity of the structure or generate disproportionate costs.
This assumption highlights that the demands arising from the policy of clean site It reaches a limit when the brand becomes an inseparable part of the stadium's infrastructure itself.
The response, therefore, has not been the elimination of the distinctive sign, but the adoption of balanced solutions through negotiation between the parties: maintaining the architectural element, limiting its exposure in broadcasts, and avoiding any additional use that could suggest a commercial association with the competition.
The digital dimension: brands, campaigns and social networks during the World Cup
Industrial property is not only played in the stadium, but also in the digital environment.
The use of expressions such as FIFA, World CupThe use of the World Cup, or other official tournament designations, can pose risks when pursued for commercial purposes. A company may inform, comment on, or make descriptive references to the event within certain limits. While companies may inform, comment on, or make purely descriptive references to the event, the problem arises when such signage is used to promote products or services, attract traffic, or suggest an official link to the competition that does not actually exist.
Therefore, companies that are not part of the official sponsorship program must exercise extreme caution in their campaigns during the World Cup.
The risk is not limited to the use of official logos: it can also arise from the use of expressions, colors, symbols, images of the trophy, references to the host cities or combinations of elements that, considered together, are suitable to convey to the consumer a commercial association with the tournament.
Ultimately, the legal risk does not depend solely on the use of a registered trademark, but on the fact that the entire campaign may mislead the public into believing that there is a commercial relationship, sponsorship, or authorization from the World Cup organization.
What can businesses learn from this situation?
The controversy surrounding the stadiums for the 2026 World Cup demonstrates that intellectual property requires coordinating interests that, while legitimate, can conflict: contracts of naming rights, the rights of official sponsors and the commercial rules imposed by the organizers of major sporting events.
This scenario highlights that brand management at major sporting events requires striking a balance between equally legitimate commercial rights. Organizers must preserve the exclusivity acquired by their official sponsors, while stadium owners and sponsors linked through agreements... naming rights They must be able to protect the economic value and identity built around their brands.
In this context, the agreements of naming rights They must consider from the outset possible conflict situations, including the holding of major international competitions, temporary name changes, and limitations arising from policies of clean siteThe key lies not in eliminating some rights in favor of others, but in establishing contractual mechanisms that allow them to coexist and prevent one party from unfairly compromising the commercial value of its brand. The key is anticipation. Reviewing contracts, identifying potential risks, and defining a clear brand usage strategy helps avoid conflicts and ensures a balanced coexistence of all the rights involved in an environment of maximum public exposure.
Alba Maria Lopez
Associate Partner in the Legal, Business and Contracts Area at Elzaburu
