The World Cup is not merely a football tournament. It is also one of the largest commercial assets in global sport. Behind the scenes of the matches lies a sophisticated structure of economic exploitation involving broadcasting rights, licensing, advertising, sponsorship, ticket sales, official merchandise, and intellectual property protection. Within this landscape, the “clean stadium” policy adopted by FIFA reveals a less visible, yet legally significant, dimension of the event: the attempt to control the competition’s commercial environment in order to preserve the exclusivity granted to its official sponsors.
The expression “clean stadium” may sound like a reference to the physical organization of the event venue. In the context of major sporting events, however, its meaning is essentially trademark- and advertising-related. It refers to the requirement that official competition venues be delivered free of brands, advertisements, trade names, promotional activations, or visual identities belonging to companies that are not among the organizing entity’s authorized sponsors or partners.
In practice, this may mean the removal, concealment, or neutralization of advertising boards, local sponsors’ names, brands in circulation areas, promotional activations, and even stadium naming rights. Thus, a venue that is known throughout the year by a company’s name may, during the World Cup, be identified by a neutral designation, generally linked to the host city. The measure seeks to prevent unauthorized brands from benefiting from the event’s global exposure without having acquired the corresponding rights.
This dynamic connects directly to the concept of ambush marketing. Broadly speaking, ambush marketing occurs when a brand seeks to take advantage of the visibility, prestige, or exposure of an event without authorization to do so. The brand “rides on” the economic and symbolic value of that event, creating, whether explicitly or implicitly, an improper commercial association.
In the context of major sporting events, this practice is usually divided into two main categories: (i) ambush by association and (ii) ambush by intrusion.
The first occurs when a company suggests, without authorization, some connection with the event, its organizers, or its official symbols — as observed in a campaign run by 99 in Brazil, which led the CBF (Brazilian Football Confederation) to send the company a cease-and-desist notice.1 This may occur through the use of names, slogans, mascots, trophies, logos, visual identity, hashtags, or expressions capable of leading the public to believe there is sponsorship, support, or official authorization. The second occurs when a brand physically inserts itself into the event environment, displaying its products, services, or promotional elements in high-visibility locations without the organizing entity’s authorization.
It is precisely in this second dimension that the “clean stadium” policy gains greater relevance. During the World Cup, the stadium is not merely a sporting venue but a global showcase. Every advertising board, stand shot, aerial view, mixed-zone interview, and every detail visible in the broadcast can generate significant advertising value. If non-sponsoring brands were to remain exposed in these environments, they could gain a commercial advantage incompatible with the exclusivity contracted for by official sponsors.
1 For more information, see https://www.infomoney.com.br/negocios/cbf-acusa-99-de-marketing-de-emboscada-apos-campanha-inspirada-em-endrick/
FIFA’s rationale, therefore, is clear: if a company paid to become an official World Cup sponsor, it expects its investment to be protected against the competing presence of brands that did not acquire the same right. The “clean stadium” policy thus functions as a preventive barrier against ambush marketing by intrusion. Even before any discussion of consumer confusion or improper association arises, the event environment is controlled to reduce the risk of parasitic exposure.
FIFA’s Intellectual Property Guidelines2 help to illustrate this rationale. In its guidelines, FIFA emphasizes that it holds broad rights related to the World Cup, including intellectual property, media, marketing, licensing, ticketing, and other commercial rights. It also states that its protected assets are not limited to official names and logos, but extend to signs, symbols, slogans, visual elements, mascots, trophies, event designations, and other identifiers capable of referring to the tournament.
Moreover, the entity’s guidelines make clear that the examples provided are non-exhaustive. This point is particularly important, as it shows that the analysis of a potential infringement is not limited to a formal check of whether a given logo was used. The assessment is contextual. A campaign may be problematic even without fully reproducing a registered trademark, if its overall visual language, wording, or commercial strategy suggests an unauthorized association with the World Cup.
This reasoning also applies to the “clean stadium” policy. The concern is not limited to removing identical brands or direct competitors of official sponsors. The goal is to prevent the public, the press, or the global audience from being exposed to brands that could benefit from the context of the competition without authorization. For this reason, the neutralization of naming rights, however excessive it may seem from an everyday standpoint, is justified within the event’s economic rationale, and the official space should reflect only the brands authorized by FIFA.
Naturally, this policy generates tensions. Many modern stadiums are built or maintained under long-term naming rights agreements. For the companies holding these rights, the temporary removal of their brand during an event with a worldwide audience can represent a significant loss of exposure. For fans and the local public, the name change may seem artificial. For creative brands, the censorship or visual adaptation of their signs can even become an opportunity for humorous communication, as seen in recent episodes involving brands that made light of their own neutralization, such as Levi’s and Gillette.
These reactions show that the topic is not merely legal, but also cultural and commercial. In a digital communication environment, attempting to erase a brand can, paradoxically, generate even more attention for it. Creatively dodging the stadiums’ visual clean-up rules can create social media engagement, provided it does not cross the line between legitimate commentary and improper association. That boundary, however, is a delicate one.
From the standpoint of Brazilian law, the issue also gained more relevant contours with the General Sports Law (Law No. 14,597/2023). Unlike the scenario following the 2014 World Cup, when the criminal offenses set out in the General World Cup Law had only temporary validity, the General Sports Law came to establish ambush marketing by association and by intrusion as legally defined conducts. This reinforces the need for caution on the part of advertisers, agencies, influencers, media companies, and brand owners seeking to commercially exploit the World Cup context.
This does not mean, however, that every reference to football, to fans, or to the competitive spirit is prohibited. FIFA’s own guidelines acknowledge that there are legitimate ways to celebrate the event without using protected assets or suggesting an official connection. The use of generic elements related to football, national colors, sporting celebration, or the spirit of fandom may be permitted,
2 Available at https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/3567360896991b48/original/FIFA-World-Cup-26-IP-Guidelines.pdf
provided it does not create the perception of sponsorship, support, endorsement, or institutional association with FIFA or the event.
The difference between opportunity marketing and ambush marketing lies precisely in this point. Opportunity marketing takes advantage of a relevant cultural context in a generic, creative, and non-deceptive manner. Ambush marketing, by contrast, seeks to capture the economic value of a specific event, leading the consumer to perceive a connection that does not exist, or exposing a brand in an environment reserved for official sponsors.
The “clean stadium” policy is, therefore, a concrete manifestation of this dispute. It turns the stadium into a zone of commercial exclusivity, in which only authorized partners may enjoy the visibility associated with the event. At the same time, it highlights the limits and challenges of this strategy in a world where brands, fans, and social media users quickly reinterpret any attempt at visual control.
For companies, the main takeaway is that World Cup-related campaigns require careful prior analysis. It is not enough to avoid using the official logo; the communication as a whole must be assessed, including words, images, hashtags, promotions, giveaways, activations, influencers involved, and the campaign’s potential perception by consumers. The closer a campaign gets to the event and its symbols, the greater the risk that it will be interpreted as an attempt at improper association.
Ultimately, the “clean stadium” policy is more than an operational FIFA rule — it is a tool for intellectual property protection, preservation of contractual exclusivity, and preventive action against ambush marketing. This policy reveals that, at the World Cup, the fight for space does not happen only on the pitch. Off the field, brands, sponsors, and organizers also play a complex game, in which visibility, creativity, and legal boundaries must be carefully balanced.
About the Author
Pedro Moreno Lins, Associate
Pedro Moreno is an intellectual property lawyer with seven years of experience advising on trademarks, patents, industrial designs, copyrights, unfair competition, privacy, and data protection. He holds a Bachelor of Laws from IBMEC-RJ and a postgraduate degree in Intellectual Property and New Technologies from FGV-SP. Pedro specializes in intellectual property strategy, trademark licensing, digital law, and regulatory compliance, supporting clients in Brazil and internationally. He also assists organizations in implementing privacy and data protection programs aligned with evolving legal requirements. Pedro is currently pursuing an LL.M. at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and a certificate program at the Kellogg School of Management.
