Dr. Cem Abanazir
Lecturer in Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester Law School. He teaches and conducts research on sports law, intellectual property law and esports. He is the author of the monograph Political Expression in Sport: Transnational Challenges, Moral Defences (2023, Routledge).
LinkedIn: Cem Abanazir
Email: C.Abanazir@mmu.ac.uk
As the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup expands in the number of teams, matches, spectators and audiences, FIFA’s income from its partners (FIFA Website) and sponsors in the lower tiers of FIFA’s sponsorship structure has increased. The outlook was so positive that FIFA revised its budget for the 2023-2026 cycle, bringing total marketing rights income to USD 1,786 million (Revised Budget 2023-2026), up from USD 1,424 million in 2022 (Revenue from Marketing Rights). FIFA has changed its approach to ticket terms of use and stadium code of conduct to protect the sponsors’ interests during the World Cup and manage the high stakes and the threat of ambush marketing that often occur during high-profile events.
The term “ambush marketing” denotes promotional activities that directly or indirectly create an association with a sporting event by a non-sponsor. The word “ambush” brings to mind combat, surprise, covertness and unpleasantness. Therefore, sports governing bodies that rely on sponsorship income aim to combat ambush marketing attempts. For FIFA, at the heart of this fight and its justification is the claim that the unrestricted ability to create an association with an event would decrease the value of sponsorships and, in turn, income (FIFA Website). The fear of diminishing income is such that FIFA considers “anti-ambushing marketing” activities a priority in its brand protection policy (FIFA Website).
Partners, including Qatar Airways, Lenovo, and Coca-Cola, as well as sponsors such as Anheuser-Busch and McDonald’s, pay to create an association with FIFA and the tournament. The partners and other sponsors invest with the expectation of receiving commercial value. They want a return on their investment and, at the very least, expect exclusivity in their respective product and service categories. Then, what if an enterprise or non-profit organization aims to create that association without paying for it, thereby diminishing its exclusivity?
Although it promotes an enterprise or a non-profit organization, it is humans that engage in ambush marketing as individual or in groups, intentionally or unintentionally. Accordingly, FIFA seeks assistance from the law, which, at its heart, is designed to regulate human conduct. In addition to trademark and copyright law, FIFA implements part of its anti-ambush marketing policies by targeting spectator conduct through contracts. As the Dutch brewery Bavaria’s ambush marketing at the 2006 and 2010 editions of the World Cup has shown, stadiums and their environs can become a front in such activities (The Guardian Website). After all, Dutch brewery Bavaria– ambushing Anheuser-Busch–used ticket-holding spectators to create an association, and in the latter case, the activity took place inside the stadium during a match. To address this historical threat that could recur, FIFA uses contractual tools such as the Terms of Use and the Stadium Code of Conduct to protect its interests and those of its sponsors.
The 2026 World Cup spans three host countries, three official languages, sixteen stadiums, and a complex web of jurisdictions and legal norms. Each co-host utilizes separate World Cup ticket Terms of Use (Canada; Mexico; USA). However, despite the complex social and legal landscape, the ticket terms of use have a uniform approach to ambush marketing. Under each version, the provisions in the articles headed “FIFA’s Commercial and Intellectual Property Rights” define ambush marketing, highlight it, and lay down prohibited acts and conduct in or around stadiums that constitute ambush marketing. In effect, any promotional or advertising activities of any kind, including wearing, possessing or holding promotional or commercial items without the authorization of FIFA, are prohibited. The Stadium Code of Conduct, which is incorporated into the Terms of Use, prohibits any promotional and commercial material (Stadium Code of Conduct).
As with every contract, ticket terms of use set out consequences for non-compliance. Essentially, conduct that FIFA could consider ambush marketing would constitute a breach of contract. Both documents indicate that breaching the rules on spectator conduct and ambush marketing-related contract terms could result in the confiscation of items without compensation, as well as refusal of entry or removal from the stadium. Again, this is an age-old legal dilemma of price and sanction. If a person does not consider the consequences serious enough, they could rationalize them as a price that they are willing to pay. On the other hand, if they are serious, the sanction could prevent the person from engaging in ambush marketing and from breaching contractual terms. Then the question becomes: given the inflated ticket prices and the World Cup’s experiential nature, would anyone risk being refused entry or removed from the stadium?
Consequently, in light of its previous experiences with Bavaria’s ambush marketing and its fear of a decline in sponsorship income, FIFA took the matter seriously. It incorporated anti-ambush marketing provisions into non-negotiable “take it or leave it” contractual terms resulting in harsh consequences for violating such terms. Essentially, FIFA protected not only its brand but those of its sponsors through non-negotiable legal terms. It remains to be seen whether future editions of the World Cup, including the upcoming tournament co-hosted by Spain, Portugal, Morocco and Paraguay, will these provisions or possibly adopt even stricter contractual measures.
