The dispute is not about whether VPNs have legitimate uses. They can protect privacy and security online. The concern for rights holders is whether such tools can also make illegal broadcasts harder to trace, creating a potential clash with the business of exclusive sports coverage.
The partnership was reportedly displayed on stadium advertising boards during matches, making the issue impossible to miss. For broadcasters investing heavily in tournament rights, symbolism matters almost as much as enforcement.
A French sports broadcasters’ association reportedly expressed “profonde préoccupation”, warning that commercial agreements should protect the integrity, sustainability and value of competitions.
The report says insists it carries out a detailed assessment before approving commercial partners. The governing body reportedly examined the possible consequences of the agreement and adopted safeguards intended to avoid undermining rights holders’ anti-piracy efforts.
ExpressVPN, meanwhile, says its service should not be used for “atividades ilegais”. The company also describes a VPN as “não uma brecha para atividades ilegais”, reinforcing its position that privacy technology and piracy are separate issues.
But can that distinction survive the glare of a global tournament? For critics, the problem is not necessarily proof that the partnership encourages illegal viewing. It is the message created by placing a VPN brand alongside football’s fight to protect broadcasting revenue.
The complaints reportedly raise a broader question about commercial judgement. wants partners with global reach and strong digital relevance, yet every sponsor must also fit the sport’s wider priorities.
The next storyline will be whether the governing body offers more detail on its safeguards, and whether future tournament partnerships face tougher scrutiny from broadcasters and leagues. For now, the ExpressVPN deal has turned a routine advertising arrangement into a test of ’s credibility on piracy.