June 23, 2025 • 16 mins
The beautiful game has transformed into something far more complex than 22 players chasing a ball. Today's football exists as a sophisticated intellectual property ecosystem worth billions, where legal battles off the pitch often carry stakes as high as championship finals.
From broadcasting rights that form the financial lifeblood of leagues worldwide to domain name disputes protecting women's tournaments, this episode takes you behind the scenes of football's invisible legal infrastructure. We explore landmark cases including Spain's €31.6 million judgment against streaming platform Roja Directa, the surprising $40 million award to the inventors of referee's vanishing spray, and Manchester United's curious lawsuit against Football Manager for using their name but not their logo.
The player perspective receives special attention through cases involving Messi, Neymar, and Ronaldo's fights to control their own names as valuable commercial assets. We also examine Project Red Card's groundbreaking challenge to the uncompensated commercialization of player performance data – potentially reshaping how personal statistics are treated across all sports.
Whether you're fascinated by sports business, intellectual property, or simply curious about the legal machinery powering the world's favorite sport, this episode delivers five essential takeaways that extend far beyond football. Discover why exclusivity isn't about ego but economics, how small innovations can yield massive legal victories, and why your name is only truly yours if you claim it through proper legal channels. Subscribe now and join our exploration of how IP shapes not just football, but entertainment, technology and culture worldwide.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Let's get something straight In 2025, football isn't
just a sport.
It's a multi-billion dollar IPecosystem in cleats, and right
now it's on fire.
The FIFA Club World Cup isdazzling across the US, the UEFA
Women's Euro is about to turnSwiss lakes into seas of
supporters, and somewherebetween kickoff and commentary
(00:22):
there's a mess of lawsuitsnobody talks about at halftime.
So today we're taking you on alegal tour, a pitch side view
into the power of broadcastingrights, the weight of a name
like Messi, and why even adisappearing spray can reappear
in court with a vengeance Gameon.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
Intangible Law, playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Welcome back to Intangiblia, the podcast where
intellectual property steps offthe textbook page and on to the
global stage.
I'm Leticia Caminero, andjoining me today is the AI with
the strongest opinions per pixelArtemisa.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
And, like a midfielder who sees the whole
field, I'm here to make boldpasses across tech law and SaaS.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
This episode was co-created using generative AI
tools refined by human insight,and, as always, it's not legal
advice, but it might make yousound smarter at your next watch
party.
Imagine this you're sitting ina packed stadium, bloodlines
(01:38):
buzzing, the ball is at thehalfway line and none of it is
on camera.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Horrifying.
What even is football withoutthe replays?
Speaker 3 (01:53):
the commentary the 30 camera angle VAR drama.
Exactly that's why broadcastingrights are the engine of modern
football.
They're not just contracts,they are the bloodstream.
Leagues and federations licensethese rights to networks and
platforms for billions.
In return, those networksbroadcast matches to global
audiences, monetize with ads andopen set their own regional
(02:15):
sub-lessoning deals.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
They are protected by copyright and in many countries
by specific broadcastreproduction rights, like in
Kenya, the EU and the UK.
Unauthorized use that's not fanenthusiasm, that's an
infringement.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
So let's start in Spain.
Roja Directa was the go-toindex for pirated football
streams.
No subscription, no password,just pure digital chaos.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
They didn't host content, they just aggregated
links like a football buffet.
Take what you like, ignore thelaw.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
But the courts saw through that In 2015, meri Prado
and Movistar Plus went afterRoja Directa for facilitating
access to On A For A streams.
Facilitating access to on a fora streams by 2017, a court
ruled that, even though theydidn't host the content, the
platform's structure encouragedand profited from infringement.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
They weren't spectators, they were the
stadium.
And in 2021, boom 31,600,000euro, zero cents and damages.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
And it got personal.
The Spanish Supreme Courtconfirmed that the platform's
founder could be personallyliable, not just the company.
It sent a message to the entiredigital world Hiding behind
tech won't protect you from IPenforcement, especially when the
world's most profitable sportis involved.
Let's zoom in on a case thatquietly but decisively reshaped
(03:50):
how football is heard, not justseen, In 2024, Radio Africa LTVD
, a major Kenyan media group,sued one of its competitors, the
Standard Group, which ownsRadio Maisha, for broadcasting
live Premier League matchcommentaries without
authorization.
But here's the twist it wasradio, not television.
(04:12):
No video, just voices, scoresand the roar of imaginary
stadiums.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
And yet it was still a violation of exclusive
broadcasting rights.
That's what makes this case soimportant.
It proved that in today's medialandscape, copyright protection
doesn't depend on what peoplesee, but what rights are paid
for.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Radiography had secured exclusive audio rights
for Kenya from the officialPremier League licensee.
That meant they paid,contracted, contracted and
planned for this privilege.
But when another station airedfull match commentaries without
permission, they weren't juststepping on competitive toes,
they were violating a propertyright.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
The defense tried to argue that radio wasn't covered
under Kenya's copyrightframework or that commentary
wasn't reproducing thebroadcasts, but the high court
wasn't buying it.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
The ruling was crystal clear Live audio
broadcasts count under theCopyright Act.
Football isn't just protectedvisually, it's also protected in
sound, especially when someoneelse has paid for the exclusive
rights.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
So the next time you tune into a match on the radio
and hear that dramatic pausebefore a goal, just know
someone's licensing team madethat moment happen legally.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
It started with a line on the field and ended with
a line in the budget.
Back in 2001, two Brazilianinventors, jaime Almanier and
Pablo Silva, created somethingdeceptively simple a can of
vanishing spray.
It helped referees mark theline for free cakes.
It evaporated in seconds.
(05:52):
It was portable, cheap andeffective.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
They patented it in Brazil, demonstrated it,
promoted it, even licensed it tocome a ball.
And in 2014, FIFA picked it up.
You probably remember itdebuting at the World Cup in
Brazil.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
But then silence.
Fifa kept using the spray butstopped paying.
The inventors claimed thatafter the initial agreement
expired, fifa never renewed,never paid royalties and
continued using the innovationglobally.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
So they sued In 2017, what followed was a years-long
legal rollercoaster.
Fifa tried to invalidate thepatent.
They argued the inventionwasn't novel, that it wasn't
inventive, that it was obvious.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
But in 2023, brazil's Superior Court of Justice ruled
firmly the patent was valid,fifa had infringed it and they
owed damages around $40 million.
That's not small change for acan of foam.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
What made the case resonate wasn't just the spray.
It was the principle that evensmall, seemingly humble
inventions deserve recognitionand enforcement, even against
the biggest names in sport.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
And, yes, this was one of the few times in football
history when a referee's stoolstole the legal spotlight.
So let's talk about names, thekind that sell shirts, perfumes
and, unfortunately, gettrademarked by other people.
(07:28):
First up, lionel Messi.
In 2011, he applied totrademark Messi in the European
Union for sporting goods.
Seems simple enough, right.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Lionel Messi, a Spanish cycling brand that said
Messi's name was too similar totheirs, they opposed the
registration, claiming consumerswould confuse the two.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Now to most people that sounded unlikely.
Would anyone confuse theworld's most famous footballer
with a mid-tier cycling label?
Speaker 1 (07:58):
But legally, the argument made it all the way to
the EU's general court and in2020, the court ruled in Messi's
favor.
It held that his reputation wasso massive.
He created a conceptualdistinction that neutralized any
phonetic similarities.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Next came Neymar, who had to fight for his name.
Retroactively, a Portuguesebusinessman had trademarked
Neymar in 2012, just as Neymarwas breaking through
internationally.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
In 2019, the EU court found the trademark invalid due
to bad faith.
Why?
Because the registrant had alsotried to trademark Iker
Casillas.
It was a clear pattern ofsquatting on names of famous
players without authorization.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
And finally, Cristiano Ronaldo.
In 2017, he went to court inChina after a company used his
full name, Cristiano Ronaldo, onfashion and alcohol products
products.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
The Bayesian court ruled in his favor, recognizing
the name as distinctive andwell-known, and concluded that
the trademark would misleadconsumers into thinking there
was an endorsement.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
Together, these cases show a global principle being
famous doesn't automaticallyprotect your name, but when you
enforce it, courts will back youup.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
Now here's a case that started with a football
simulation game and ended with areal world legal power play.
In 2019, manchester United suedSega and Sports Interactive,
the creators of Football Manager, over the use of the club's
name in the game.
Now, football Manager is knownfor realism.
(09:49):
It includes thousands of clubsand players.
It's essentially a playabledatabase of football.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Here's where it gets weird.
The game used the nameManchester United, but didn't
use the official crest.
Instead, it used the genericred and white shield.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Manchester United argued that this wasn't a
harmless omission.
It was a deliberate workaround.
They claimed Sega had avoidedthe crest to side to step a
licensing deal and that, evenwithout the logo, the use of the
name still infringed on theclub's trademark.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Sega pushed back hard .
They said they'd used the clubname for decades in their games
and that United had neverobjected before.
That kind of passive tolerance,they argued, meant the club had
effectively acquiesced.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
But United wasn't backing down.
They went further, saying thatby substituting a made-up press,
the game misled consumers intothinking the club had authorized
this minimalist branding.
It was an odd twist being suedfor not using a trademark but
allegedly benefiting from itsreputation.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Ultimately, the case didn't go to full trial.
It was settled in 2021 quietly.
After that, the club wasrenamed Manchester UFC.
In the game, a symbolic win,maybe A message to the industry?
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Definitely the takeaway even digital realism
has limits.
If your game profits from realbrands, expect real legal
pressure, even from clubs thatseemed quiet for years.
Let's fast forward to a verymodern problem performance data.
We're talking sprint speeds,passes, completed injury records
(11:37):
, heat maps all the granulardata collected on players during
matches.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Project Red Card, launched around 2020,
spearheaded by former managerRussell Slade.
It's a collective legal actionby hundreds of current and
former professional footballersand it's changing the IP
playbook.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
The claim that companies, especially betting
firms, analytics platforms andfantasy league operators, are
profiting off player datawithout consent or compensation.
These players argue that theirstats are part of their persona,
protected under image rightsand GDPR.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
The legal theory is ambitious it blends data
protection law, image rights andeconomic exploitation.
If successful, it could forcedata platforms to license player
performance, just like theylicense names or images data is
(12:43):
a fact, not property.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
But red card supporters argue that once it's
packaged and sold as a product,it crosses into the realm of IP
and personal rights.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
The case hasn't reached court yet, but it
sparked panic in the fantasysports world, and it's inspiring
similar discussions in othersports too.
Speaker 3 (12:59):
What's clear is this we're heading into an era where
data is more than stats.
It's identity and possiblyproperty.
And finally, a case from theweb frontier In 2023, just ahead
of the UEFA Women's Euro 2025tournament, an individual named
(13:20):
Eurostadelman registered thedomain.
We wrote 2025.com.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
Now Waro is shorthand for the Women's Euro UEFA owns
that branding, and 2025, that'sthe tournament year.
You don't need VAR to spot thatthis was opportunistic.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
UEFA filed a complaint under WIPO's uniform
domain name dispute resolutionpolicy.
Their argument was simple thedomain was confusingly similar
to their trademark tournamentname and was likely registered
to profit from consumerconfusion.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
The panel agreed they found the registration was made
in bad faith and that itclearly referenced a trademark
without authorization.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
The domain was transferred to UEFA Domain
squatting isn't new, but whatmakes this case stand out is its
symbolic value.
New, but what makes this casestand out is its symbolic value.
Women's tournaments are nolonger off-brand.
They're premium events withreal commercial and legal
protection.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
And don't forget domain names are part of IP
strategy.
If you're not fast, someoneelse will claim the digital turf
.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Let's wrap up with five legal takeaways that don't
just apply to football.
They apply to creators,founders and rights holders
across every field.
One exclusivity isn't about ego.
It's about economics.
Broadcasting rights, even onradio, are revenue engines.
If you license them, enforcethem.
If you don't, someone else will.
(14:49):
Two the smallest innovations,like banishing spray, can become
your strongest.
File early, enforce firmly anddon't get struck by big name
users.
Three your name is only yoursif you claim it.
Even icons like Messi andNeymar had to prove it in court.
Fame doesn't protect you.
(15:09):
Legal filings do.
Four data ownership is nolonger theoretical In the
digital era.
Performance patterns andpersonal metrics are the new
copyright frontier.
Five modern IP battles don'thappen in silence.
They happen in app stores,domain registries and game
engines, and they're onlygetting more visible.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
If football has taught us anything, it's that
talent wins matches, butstructure wins tournaments.
The same applies to your ideas,your brand and your legal
footprint.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Thank you for joining us on Intangiblia.
As always, we'll be back nextTuesday with more IP stories
that tackle creativity, commerceand the culture we all share.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
And until then, protect your goals, legal and
literal.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(16:21):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Let's get something straight In 2025, football isn't
just a sport.
It's a multi-billion dollar IPecosystem in cleats, and right
now it's on fire.
The FIFA Club World Cup isdazzling across the US, the UEFA
Women's Euro is about to turnSwiss lakes into seas of
supporters, and somewherebetween kickoff and commentary
(00:22):
there's a mess of lawsuitsnobody talks about at halftime.
So today we're taking you on alegal tour, a pitch side view
into the power of broadcastingrights, the weight of a name
like Messi, and why even adisappearing spray can reappear
in court with a vengeance Gameon.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
Intangible Law, playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Welcome back to Intangiblia, the podcast where
intellectual property steps offthe textbook page and on to the
global stage.
I'm Leticia Caminero, andjoining me today is the AI with
the strongest opinions per pixelArtemisa.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
And, like a midfielder who sees the whole
field, I'm here to make boldpasses across tech law and SaaS.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
This episode was co-created using generative AI
tools refined by human insight,and, as always, it's not legal
advice, but it might make yousound smarter at your next watch
party.
Imagine this you're sitting ina packed stadium, bloodlines
(01:38):
buzzing, the ball is at thehalfway line and none of it is
on camera.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Horrifying.
What even is football withoutthe replays?
Speaker 3 (01:53):
the commentary the 30 camera angle VAR drama.
Exactly that's why broadcastingrights are the engine of modern
football.
They're not just contracts,they are the bloodstream.
Leagues and federations licensethese rights to networks and
platforms for billions.
In return, those networksbroadcast matches to global
audiences, monetize with ads andopen set their own regional
(02:15):
sub-lessoning deals.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
They are protected by copyright and in many countries
by specific broadcastreproduction rights, like in
Kenya, the EU and the UK.
Unauthorized use that's not fanenthusiasm, that's an
infringement.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
So let's start in Spain.
Roja Directa was the go-toindex for pirated football
streams.
No subscription, no password,just pure digital chaos.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
They didn't host content, they just aggregated
links like a football buffet.
Take what you like, ignore thelaw.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
But the courts saw through that In 2015, meri Prado
and Movistar Plus went afterRoja Directa for facilitating
access to On A For A streams.
Facilitating access to on a fora streams by 2017, a court
ruled that, even though theydidn't host the content, the
platform's structure encouragedand profited from infringement.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
They weren't spectators, they were the
stadium.
And in 2021, boom 31,600,000euro, zero cents and damages.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
And it got personal.
The Spanish Supreme Courtconfirmed that the platform's
founder could be personallyliable, not just the company.
It sent a message to the entiredigital world Hiding behind
tech won't protect you from IPenforcement, especially when the
world's most profitable sportis involved.
Let's zoom in on a case thatquietly but decisively reshaped
(03:50):
how football is heard, not justseen, In 2024, Radio Africa LTVD
, a major Kenyan media group,sued one of its competitors, the
Standard Group, which ownsRadio Maisha, for broadcasting
live Premier League matchcommentaries without
authorization.
But here's the twist it wasradio, not television.
(04:12):
No video, just voices, scoresand the roar of imaginary
stadiums.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
And yet it was still a violation of exclusive
broadcasting rights.
That's what makes this case soimportant.
It proved that in today's medialandscape, copyright protection
doesn't depend on what peoplesee, but what rights are paid
for.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Radiography had secured exclusive audio rights
for Kenya from the officialPremier League licensee.
That meant they paid,contracted, contracted and
planned for this privilege.
But when another station airedfull match commentaries without
permission, they weren't juststepping on competitive toes,
they were violating a propertyright.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
The defense tried to argue that radio wasn't covered
under Kenya's copyrightframework or that commentary
wasn't reproducing thebroadcasts, but the high court
wasn't buying it.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
The ruling was crystal clear Live audio
broadcasts count under theCopyright Act.
Football isn't just protectedvisually, it's also protected in
sound, especially when someoneelse has paid for the exclusive
rights.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
So the next time you tune into a match on the radio
and hear that dramatic pausebefore a goal, just know
someone's licensing team madethat moment happen legally.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
It started with a line on the field and ended with
a line in the budget.
Back in 2001, two Brazilianinventors, jaime Almanier and
Pablo Silva, created somethingdeceptively simple a can of
vanishing spray.
It helped referees mark theline for free cakes.
It evaporated in seconds.
(05:52):
It was portable, cheap andeffective.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
They patented it in Brazil, demonstrated it,
promoted it, even licensed it tocome a ball.
And in 2014, FIFA picked it up.
You probably remember itdebuting at the World Cup in
Brazil.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
But then silence.
Fifa kept using the spray butstopped paying.
The inventors claimed thatafter the initial agreement
expired, fifa never renewed,never paid royalties and
continued using the innovationglobally.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
So they sued In 2017, what followed was a years-long
legal rollercoaster.
Fifa tried to invalidate thepatent.
They argued the inventionwasn't novel, that it wasn't
inventive, that it was obvious.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
But in 2023, brazil's Superior Court of Justice ruled
firmly the patent was valid,fifa had infringed it and they
owed damages around $40 million.
That's not small change for acan of foam.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
What made the case resonate wasn't just the spray.
It was the principle that evensmall, seemingly humble
inventions deserve recognitionand enforcement, even against
the biggest names in sport.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
And, yes, this was one of the few times in football
history when a referee's stoolstole the legal spotlight.
So let's talk about names, thekind that sell shirts, perfumes
and, unfortunately, gettrademarked by other people.
(07:28):
First up, lionel Messi.
In 2011, he applied totrademark Messi in the European
Union for sporting goods.
Seems simple enough, right.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Lionel Messi, a Spanish cycling brand that said
Messi's name was too similar totheirs, they opposed the
registration, claiming consumerswould confuse the two.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Now to most people that sounded unlikely.
Would anyone confuse theworld's most famous footballer
with a mid-tier cycling label?
Speaker 1 (07:58):
But legally, the argument made it all the way to
the EU's general court and in2020, the court ruled in Messi's
favor.
It held that his reputation wasso massive.
He created a conceptualdistinction that neutralized any
phonetic similarities.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Next came Neymar, who had to fight for his name.
Retroactively, a Portuguesebusinessman had trademarked
Neymar in 2012, just as Neymarwas breaking through
internationally.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
In 2019, the EU court found the trademark invalid due
to bad faith.
Why?
Because the registrant had alsotried to trademark Iker
Casillas.
It was a clear pattern ofsquatting on names of famous
players without authorization.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
And finally, Cristiano Ronaldo.
In 2017, he went to court inChina after a company used his
full name, Cristiano Ronaldo, onfashion and alcohol products
products.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
The Bayesian court ruled in his favor, recognizing
the name as distinctive andwell-known, and concluded that
the trademark would misleadconsumers into thinking there
was an endorsement.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
Together, these cases show a global principle being
famous doesn't automaticallyprotect your name, but when you
enforce it, courts will back youup.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
Now here's a case that started with a football
simulation game and ended with areal world legal power play.
In 2019, manchester United suedSega and Sports Interactive,
the creators of Football Manager, over the use of the club's
name in the game.
Now, football Manager is knownfor realism.
(09:49):
It includes thousands of clubsand players.
It's essentially a playabledatabase of football.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Here's where it gets weird.
The game used the nameManchester United, but didn't
use the official crest.
Instead, it used the genericred and white shield.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Manchester United argued that this wasn't a
harmless omission.
It was a deliberate workaround.
They claimed Sega had avoidedthe crest to side to step a
licensing deal and that, evenwithout the logo, the use of the
name still infringed on theclub's trademark.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Sega pushed back hard .
They said they'd used the clubname for decades in their games
and that United had neverobjected before.
That kind of passive tolerance,they argued, meant the club had
effectively acquiesced.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
But United wasn't backing down.
They went further, saying thatby substituting a made-up press,
the game misled consumers intothinking the club had authorized
this minimalist branding.
It was an odd twist being suedfor not using a trademark but
allegedly benefiting from itsreputation.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Ultimately, the case didn't go to full trial.
It was settled in 2021 quietly.
After that, the club wasrenamed Manchester UFC.
In the game, a symbolic win,maybe A message to the industry?
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Definitely the takeaway even digital realism
has limits.
If your game profits from realbrands, expect real legal
pressure, even from clubs thatseemed quiet for years.
Let's fast forward to a verymodern problem performance data.
We're talking sprint speeds,passes, completed injury records
(11:37):
, heat maps all the granulardata collected on players during
matches.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Project Red Card, launched around 2020,
spearheaded by former managerRussell Slade.
It's a collective legal actionby hundreds of current and
former professional footballersand it's changing the IP
playbook.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
The claim that companies, especially betting
firms, analytics platforms andfantasy league operators, are
profiting off player datawithout consent or compensation.
These players argue that theirstats are part of their persona,
protected under image rightsand GDPR.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
The legal theory is ambitious it blends data
protection law, image rights andeconomic exploitation.
If successful, it could forcedata platforms to license player
performance, just like theylicense names or images data is
(12:43):
a fact, not property.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
But red card supporters argue that once it's
packaged and sold as a product,it crosses into the realm of IP
and personal rights.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
The case hasn't reached court yet, but it
sparked panic in the fantasysports world, and it's inspiring
similar discussions in othersports too.
Speaker 3 (12:59):
What's clear is this we're heading into an era where
data is more than stats.
It's identity and possiblyproperty.
And finally, a case from theweb frontier In 2023, just ahead
of the UEFA Women's Euro 2025tournament, an individual named
(13:20):
Eurostadelman registered thedomain.
We wrote 2025.com.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
Now Waro is shorthand for the Women's Euro UEFA owns
that branding, and 2025, that'sthe tournament year.
You don't need VAR to spot thatthis was opportunistic.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
UEFA filed a complaint under WIPO's uniform
domain name dispute resolutionpolicy.
Their argument was simple thedomain was confusingly similar
to their trademark tournamentname and was likely registered
to profit from consumerconfusion.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
The panel agreed they found the registration was made
in bad faith and that itclearly referenced a trademark
without authorization.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
The domain was transferred to UEFA Domain
squatting isn't new, but whatmakes this case stand out is its
symbolic value.
New, but what makes this casestand out is its symbolic value.
Women's tournaments are nolonger off-brand.
They're premium events withreal commercial and legal
protection.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
And don't forget domain names are part of IP
strategy.
If you're not fast, someoneelse will claim the digital turf
.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Let's wrap up with five legal takeaways that don't
just apply to football.
They apply to creators,founders and rights holders
across every field.
One exclusivity isn't about ego.
It's about economics.
Broadcasting rights, even onradio, are revenue engines.
If you license them, enforcethem.
If you don't, someone else will.
(14:49):
Two the smallest innovations,like banishing spray, can become
your strongest.
File early, enforce firmly anddon't get struck by big name
users.
Three your name is only yoursif you claim it.
Even icons like Messi andNeymar had to prove it in court.
Fame doesn't protect you.
(15:09):
Legal filings do.
Four data ownership is nolonger theoretical In the
digital era.
Performance patterns andpersonal metrics are the new
copyright frontier.
Five modern IP battles don'thappen in silence.
They happen in app stores,domain registries and game
engines, and they're onlygetting more visible.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
If football has taught us anything, it's that
talent wins matches, butstructure wins tournaments.
The same applies to your ideas,your brand and your legal
footprint.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Thank you for joining us on Intangiblia.
As always, we'll be back nextTuesday with more IP stories
that tackle creativity, commerceand the culture we all share.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
And until then, protect your goals, legal and
literal.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(16:21):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.