What happens when a stadium hosting a World Cup match is named after a brand that does not officially sponsor the competition?
The controversy surrounding some of the stadiums for the 2026 World Cup clearly reflects this tension, as many sports venues are typically identified by logos associated with major brands.
Behind this situation lie so-called naming rights agreements, through which a company acquires the right to associate its brand with the name of a stadium for a specific period of time in exchange for financial compensation. These contracts are a major source of revenue for stadium owners and, at the same time, a powerful branding tool for sponsoring companies, which aim to ensure that the public immediately associates the stadium with their brand.
In the recent competition, the event organizers required that the use of those brands be omitted and that neutral terms be used instead.
This establishes a framework in which industrial property rights, existing naming rights agreements, the 2026 World Cup sponsorship program, and the international broadcasts of a global sporting event coexist.
Why do some stadiums change their names during the World Cup?
The organization is requiring 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 the granting of exclusive rights for commercial exploitation of certain categories of products and services. This exclusivity is one of the main assets of sports sponsorship, since those who become official sponsors seek not only to gain visibility during the event but also to prevent competitors or third parties from benefiting from its media exposure without having borne the cost of that investment.
For this reason, organizers enforce “clean site” policies. Under these guidelines, areas associated with the competition must be free of logos and advertising elements not included in the official sponsorship program. This requirement may apply to indoor advertising, signage, building facades, advertising displays visible from the stands, press areas, and, in some cases, the stadium’s name itself.
The goal is not to permanently remove the commercial branding or to question the validity of the naming rights agreements, but rather to temporarily suspend their visibility while the stadium is integrated into the tournament’s official environment. This preserves the commercial exclusivity agreed upon with the official sponsors and prevents third parties from gaining an indirect association with the competition.
Where is the connection to intellectual property?
The connection lies in the coexistence of different trademark rights and in the use of distinctive signs at an event subject to a regime of commercial exclusivity.
Industrial property rights protect trademarks, trade names, and distinctive signs that identify the commercial origin of products or services. At a World Cup, the official trademarks of the competition, the trademarks of authorized sponsors, licensing rights, and naming rights agreements that commercially identify the stadiums all come together.
A conflict arises when a brand that is not part of the group of official sponsors gains visibility within the event’s perimeter. This exposure takes on special value due to the international distribution of broadcasts, photographs, and informational and digital content related to the tournament, which can lead the public to perceive a commercial connection with the competition.
However, this presence does not generally constitute unauthorized use of the trademark, but rather the legitimate exercise of a naming rights agreement previously entered into with the venue’s owner or operator. The challenge lies in reconciling that contract with the obligations assumed by the venue toward the organizer and with the exclusive rights granted to official sponsors.
From a branding perspective, naming rights agreements aim to establish a stable association between a brand and a sports venue. This continuity helps the public spontaneously associate the stadium with the sponsoring brand and is one of the main factors that justify the investment made.
Therefore, successive name changes or the temporary use of neutral names during major competitions do not weaken the trademark in a legal sense nor do they affect the validity of trademark rights; however, they may reduce the effectiveness of the distinctive and promotional functions that these agreements seek to achieve, by making it more difficult for consumers to maintain an immediate and stable association between the stadium and the sponsoring brand.
The Atlanta Case: When Canceling a Trademark Isn't So Easy
The case of Atlanta shows that “clean site” policies can run into practical limits.
Mercedes-Benz Stadium, the home of the Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta United, is one of the most telling examples. During the World Cup, it has been referred to as Atlanta Stadium, following a practice already implemented during Euro 2024, when stadiums such as the Allianz Arena were temporarily renamed the Munich Football Arena.
However, the Mercedes-Benz emblem integrated into the roof of the venue poses an additional challenge. Since it is part of the structural design of the retractable roof, removing or covering it is not comparable to removing a conventional advertising sign, as it could compromise the integrity of the structure or incur disproportionate costs.
This scenario illustrates that the requirements stemming from the “clean site” policy reach their limit when the brand is an inseparable part of the stadium’s infrastructure itself.
The solution, therefore, has not been to remove the distinctive mark, but rather to adopt balanced solutions through negotiation between the parties: retaining the architectural element, limiting its visibility in broadcasts, and avoiding any additional use that might suggest a commercial association with the competition
The Digital Dimension: Brands, Campaigns, and Social Media During the World Cup
Intellectual property isn't just at stake in the stadium—it's also at stake in the digital realm.
The use of terms such as FIFA, World Cup, Copa Mundial, or other official names of the tournament may pose risks when used for commercial purposes. A company may report on, comment on, or make descriptive references to the event within certain limits. Although companies may report on, comment on, or make purely descriptive references to the event, the problem arises when those signs are used to promote products or services, attract traffic, or suggest an official connection to the competition that does not actually exist.
For this reason, companies that are not part of the official sponsorship program should exercise extreme caution in their campaigns during the World Cup.
The risk is not limited to the use of official logos; it may also arise from the use of phrases, colors, symbols, images of the trophy, references to host cities, or combinations of elements that, when considered together, are likely to convey to consumers a commercial association with the tournament.
Ultimately, the legal risk does not depend solely on the use of a registered trademark, but rather on whether the campaign as a whole could mislead the public into believing that there is a commercial relationship, sponsorship, or authorization by the World Cup organizing committee.
What Can Companies Learn from This Situation?
The controversy surrounding the 2026 World Cup stadiums demonstrates that intellectual property requires the coordination of interests that, while legitimate, may conflict: naming rights contracts, 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 naming rights agreements must be able to protect the economic value and identity built around their brands.
In this context, naming rights agreements must address potential conflicts from the outset, including the hosting of major international competitions, temporary name changes, and limitations arising from “clean site” policies. The key is not to eliminate certain rights in favor of others, but rather to establish contractual mechanisms that allow them to coexist and prevent either party from having the commercial value of its brand unjustifiably compromised. The key is to plan ahead. Reviewing contracts, identifying potential risks, and defining a clear brand usage strategy helps prevent conflicts and ensures a balanced coexistence among all the rights involved in an environment of maximum public exposure.
Alba María López
Associate Partner in the Legal, Business, and Contracts Department at Elzaburu