The report says rights holders are expected to apply increased scrutiny during the tournament, when attention and commercial value will be at their highest.
Using national colours or serving a tournament-themed menu is not automatically the same as claiming an official association. The danger grows when marketing uses protected names, logos, distinctive branding or language that makes customers believe a business is an approved partner.
As Travers puts it, companies hoping to benefit from the event need to “tread very carefully”. The issue may not be an exact copy of a protected mark; it can also be the overall impression created by a campaign.
Large-scale ambush marketing around stadiums is likely to attract immediate attention. Smaller promotions, particularly on social media and in local businesses, may be more difficult to police but can still create problems.
The IP conversation extends beyond the tournament itself. Players increasingly carry commercial identities that exist separately from their clubs, with value in sponsorships, gaming, merchandise and post-playing opportunities.
The report points to Cole Palmer and Luke Littler as examples of sports personalities whose personal brands have become significant enough to register formally. Their cases underline how modern athletes are not simply participants in football’s commercial ecosystem; they are increasingly assets in their own right.
As World Cup 2026 approaches, brands will have to decide whether a campaign celebrates football generally or deliberately borrows the tournament’s identity. That distinction could determine whether a promotion looks creative, or whether it crosses the line Travers identified.
The next storyline will be how rights holders respond once unofficial campaigns begin appearing in the build-up to kick-off.