Image Rights for Athletes: 9 Things to Know Before the April 2027 Tax Change

1. English law has no "image right", so what do athletes actually own?

The short answer is that, in English law, an athlete does not own an "image right" as a piece of property at all. In Fenty v Arcadia Group, the Rihanna case decided by the Court of Appeal on 22 January 2015, Lord Justice Kitchin began his analysis by stating that there is no "image right" or "character right" allowing a celebrity to control the use of his or her name or image. He relied on Douglas v Hello!, the House of Lords case over Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones's wedding photographs.

HMRC takes the same view. Its Capital Gains Manual says plainly that, as a general principle, UK law does not recognise the concept of "image rights". Instead, it identifies four distinct ways in which a person can control the use of their image:

• Privacy and confidence. Breach of confidence can stop publication of private information, but HMRC says it has very limited relevance here.
• Passing off. A claim that a trader's misrepresentation has damaged the goodwill attached to a famous person's reputation.
• Other intellectual property rights. Registered trade marks, copyright and designs that protect particular aspects of a player's identity.
• Contract. Even without a transferable asset, the parties can create binding obligations to provide promotional services.

So what an image rights contract actually licenses is a combination of contractual promises, any registered marks and the practical value of a famous name. The position is different in the United States, where the right of publicity is a recognised property right, as the Dua Lipa lawsuit against Samsung over celebrity image rights showed. For image rights for athletes based in the UK, the starting point is always the bundle of rights, not a single right.

2. Passing off is the main weapon against false endorsement

When a brand uses a famous athlete's image without permission, the usual claim in England is passing off, and it succeeds only where the use falsely suggests endorsement. HMRC's summary of the law of passing off sets out the classic three elements: goodwill or reputation, a misrepresentation to the public, and damage caused by that misrepresentation.

The first successful UK false endorsement case was brought by the former Formula 1 driver Eddie Irvine, after Talksport used a doctored photograph suggesting he listened to the station.

The Rihanna case shows how fact-sensitive these claims are. Topshop sold a t-shirt carrying a recognisable photograph of the singer from about 6 March to 13 August 2012, selling around 12,000 units at £22. The photograph had been taken by an independent photographer, who owned the copyright and licensed it to Topshop. Copyright was therefore no help to Rihanna. The trial judge accepted that simply selling a garment bearing a famous person's image is not passing off, but found that in the particular circumstances, including her public association with fashion and with Topshop itself, a substantial number of buyers would think she had approved it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction, although Lord Justice Underhill described the case as close to the borderline.

The lessons for athletes and influencers are that reputation must be proved, so a household name finds it easier than a young player; that evidence of real endorsement deals in the same sector makes misrepresentation easier to show; and that remedies are targeted. The Rihanna injunction did not ban use of her image outright, it stopped sales without telling buyers the product was not approved.

3. Image rights are really a bundle of trade marks, copyright and contract

Because there is no single right, protecting image rights for athletes means assembling several separate rights and managing each one. The government's March 2026 report on copyright and artificial intelligence describes the gaps. Copyright protects a photograph, film or recording, but it protects the work rather than the identity of the person in it, and the photographer, not the subject, is usually the first owner. A person can in theory register their name, signature, nickname, a sound clip of their voice or images of themselves as UK trade marks, but trade mark infringement only bites on use "in the course of trade", and a voice as such cannot be registered as a sound mark.

Right	What it protects	Main limitation	Practical step
Registered trade mark	Name, nickname, signature, logo or image registered for specific goods and services	Only use in the course of trade; registration alone does not create value	File early in key classes and markets
Copyright	Specific photographs, films, recordings and artwork	Usually owned by the photographer or producer, not the athlete	Take assignments or licences of key shoots
Passing off	Goodwill in reputation against false endorsement	Needs proof of reputation, misrepresentation and damage	Keep evidence of endorsement deals and public profile
Contract	Whatever the parties agree: promotional duties, approvals, exclusivity	Binds only the parties to it	Define permitted uses, territories and term precisely

For most professional athletes, the trade mark layer is the one that can be built deliberately. Our guide on how to register a trademark internationally explains the Madrid, EU and UK routes for a portfolio that travels with a career. Registering a mark does not itself create value, which comes from use. Specialist intellectual property advisers can map which elements of an athlete's identity are worth registering, and where.

4. Abroad, image is often a property right, and the rules differ sharply

Many legal systems outside the UK treat a person's image as a right in itself, so cross-border deals must address each country's law. HMRC notes that most EU countries have some right protecting commercial use of an individual's name or image, that France and Germany have particularly strong image and personality laws, and that over 30 US states have some form of image or publicity right. The government's AI report adds that Italy has a strong, commercially focused right of publicity.

Guernsey is the notable outlier close to home. HMRC records that it introduced a comprehensive system for registering image rights, which is why some athletes consult advisers in Guernsey when structuring global portfolios.

In the United States, the biggest commercial shift has been in college sport, where "name, image and likeness" (NIL) deals are now mainstream. According to a September 2026 update from MultiState, the 2025 House v NCAA settlement allows participating Division I institutions to provide direct financial benefits to student athletes, capped at about $20.5 million per school for 2025-26 and rising to approximately $21.3 million for 2026-27. Third-party NIL deals are reviewed through the College Sports Commission's NIL Go system, and 35 states have active NIL policies. Overseas athletes recruited by US colleges, and brands signing them, should take advice from US advisers before signing.

5. How image rights contracts and image rights companies work

An image rights contract licenses the commercial use of a player's personal attributes, usually to a club or sponsor, and it is often paired with an image rights company that holds those attributes. HMRC quotes the standard definition found in a typical footballer's image rights contract, which is very wide: it covers the player's name, nickname, initials, shirt number, autograph, caricature, statements, endorsements, photographs, video, voice and likeness, together with any related trade marks and copyrights.

The classic structure, described in HMRC's Employment Income Manual, works like this:

1. The player assigns what can be assigned, often a registered trade mark, to a company the player usually owns.
2. The company licenses those rights to third parties, including the club, for royalties.
3. The club pays the player a salary under the employment contract and, separately, pays the image rights company for promotional rights.
4. The player draws value from the company as salary or dividends, taxed in the ordinary way.

The justification usually quoted for the model is the Sports Club case, a 2000 decision of the Special Commissioners concerning two established international players who joined an English club. The Commissioners found that the promotional agreements had independent value and were genuine commercial contracts, so payments to the players' companies were not earnings from employment. HMRC stresses that, because it did not appeal, the decision is informative rather than binding precedent.

Beyond tax, a well-drafted image rights contract deals with conflicts between club and personal sponsors, approval rights, group versus individual use, and what happens on transfer or retirement. Sponsor categories such as crypto raise their own risks, as our analysis of crypto sponsorships at Premier League clubs explains.

6. HMRC tests the substance of image rights payments, not their label

HMRC's long-running position is that image rights payments will be treated as salary if, in substance, they reward the player's services as a player. The leading recent example is the Hull City case, summarised in HMRC's guidance on the First-tier Tribunal decision. The club signed a player on a standard Premier League contract and, four months later, entered an image rights agreement with his personal service company covering his non-UK image rights, paying an amount equivalent to about 25% of his employment income.

The tribunal held the payments were earnings, subject to PAYE and National Insurance. HMRC did not need to show the agreement was a sham. The tribunal relied on facts including:

• No plan to exploit. The club had no defined plan to exploit the overseas rights, and never did.
• No valuation. No valuation was obtained and the amount had no reliable basis.
• Part of the package. The club offered more image rights money while negotiating another year of the playing contract.
• No real interest. The club lacked the resources and interest to exploit the rights.

Permission to appeal was refused. HMRC now says it expects evidenced planning, valuations and distinct negotiations for material transactions, and that clubs making image rights payments should have the commercial desire, resource and ability to exploit the rights. Football's finances are already under intense scrutiny, from tax enquiries to the Premier League's own case over Manchester City's 115 charges, and image rights arrangements are one more area where documentation decides outcomes.

7. From 6 April 2027, employment-related image rights payments become pay

The April 2027 image rights change replaces the case-by-case test with a statutory rule for anything tied to employment. The Budget 2025 document, published on 26 November 2025, states that the government will legislate to clarify the tax treatment of image rights, to ensure that all image rights payments related to an employment are treated as taxable employment income and subject to Income Tax and employer and employee National Insurance contributions. The measure is to be legislated for in Finance Bill 2026-27 and take effect from 6 April 2027.

Under HMRC's current guidance on payments for image rights, the position depends on who is paid and for what:

Type of payment	Treatment today (HMRC guidance)	From 6 April 2027 (Budget 2025)
Payment to a self-employed individual for use of their image	Professional income, reported on the Self Assessment return	No change announced; the measure targets payments related to an employment
Payment to an employee for the duties of their employment	Earnings, subject to PAYE; must not be dressed up as image rights	Unchanged: earnings
Employer's payment to a UK image rights company for an employee's image	Company pays Corporation Tax on profits, if the payment is genuinely for image rights rather than playing services	Treated as taxable employment income with Income Tax and employer and employee NICs

Several questions will turn on the final wording of the Finance Bill 2026-27 provisions, not the one-paragraph Budget description: how "related to an employment" will apply to payments from a club's commercial partners rather than the club itself, how existing multi-year agreements signed before 6 April 2027 will be treated, and how the rule interacts with overseas image rights companies. For internationally mobile athletes, the change also needs to be read alongside residence planning, covered in our guide on how to become non-resident for UK tax. Clubs, players and agents should model the cost now with tax advisers, because employer National Insurance on payments previously outside payroll is a new cost someone in the deal must bear.

8. Influencers and athletes must label paid posts clearly

Any athlete or influencer who is paid, gifted or otherwise connected to a brand must make it obvious, upfront, that related content is advertising. The Advertising Standards Authority's influencers' guide to making clear that ads are ads, developed with the Competition and Markets Authority and updated in October 2026 to reflect the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act), applies to any human, animal or virtually produced persona active on social media, which matters for brands trying AI-generated ambassadors.

The key rules:

• When to disclose. Whenever there is payment or another incentive, including free products, or a connection such as being an owner, employee or friend of the brand, even if the brand does not oversee the content.
• How long. Disclosure is expected throughout an ongoing relationship and in relevant content for 12 months after it ends.
• Which labels. #Ad, #Advert, #Advertising, #Advertisement or #AdvertisementFeature. The guide advises against Gifted, Affiliate, Collab, PR, Sponsored or Sp, and simply tagging the brand.
• Where. Labels should be visible immediately: the guide cites ASA research from February 2026 that 79% of people in the UK think influencers should put ad labels where they can be seen straight away.
• Who is responsible. Everyone in the chain: brands, marketers and influencers.

Enforcement now has two tracks. The ASA can name non-compliant influencers on a dedicated page for up to three months and run targeted ads alerting their followers. Under the DMCC Act, the CMA can also impose financial penalties directly for breaches of Part 4, which bans unfair commercial practices including fake reviews and failing to identify commercial intent. The CMA's appetite for using those powers is clear from its £4.8m fine against Wayfair over false time-limited deals. Athletes should treat disclosure clauses as core terms, and brands should take advice from advertising law specialists on approval and monitoring processes.

9. AI digital replicas are the next image rights battleground

The fastest-growing threat to image rights for athletes and performers is AI-generated imitation of their face or voice, and UK law does not yet deal with it directly. The government's March 2026 report on copyright and AI states that there is no specific intellectual property protection relating to digital replicas in UK law. Copyright helps only if a replica copies a substantial part of an existing work, performers' rights attach to recordings rather than identity, and passing off has not been tested against digital replicas.

Record labels Warner Music Group and Sony Music told the consultation that several thousand unauthorised voice clones of their artists had been uploaded to streaming services in recent years, and Equity called for new image rights for performers, while producers warned new legislation could chill free expression. The report also surveys developments abroad, including Tennessee's ELVIS Act of March 2024, the proposed federal NO FAKES Act in the United States, and proposals in Denmark and the Netherlands for digital replica rights. The government's conclusion is that it will explore a range of options, including whether to introduce a new digital replica or personality right.

Until then, contracts are the protection: new sponsorship and media agreements should say whether the counterparty may create AI versions of the person's face or voice, for what purposes, how long and for what payment. Businesses operating in Europe should also track the EU's separate AI transparency obligations, set out in our explainer on the EU AI Act implementation timeline, and take advice from technology and media lawyers on deepfake takedown strategies.

What athletes, clubs and brands should do before April 2027

Treat the months before April 2027 as a review window for every image rights arrangement connected to an employment:

1. Inventory every agreement. List each image rights contract, the paying party, the recipient company, the term and the payment schedule after 6 April 2027.
2. Model the cost. Calculate the Income Tax and employer and employee National Insurance that would apply if the payments are taxed as employment income, and agree who bears it.
3. Revisit contract clauses. Check tax gross-up, change-in-law and termination provisions.
4. Separate genuine third-party deals. Keep a valuation and paper trail for endorsements negotiated independently of the club.
5. Audit the rights bundle. Confirm which trade marks are registered and who owns key photographs and footage.
6. Add AI and disclosure terms. Insert digital replica restrictions and ad disclosure obligations into new and renewed sponsorship contracts.
7. Check employment terms. Clubs should review playing contracts with employment lawyers so that commercial obligations sit coherently with the new tax rule.

When to get professional help with image rights

Image rights for athletes sit at the junction of intellectual property, tax, employment, advertising and technology law, so significant deals usually need more than one specialist. Get advice early if you are negotiating a playing contract with image rights payments, if a brand has used your image without permission, if you are restructuring an image rights company before April 2027, or if you are moving country mid-career. Corporate INTL's directory lists sports and entertainment lawyers, advisers in the United Kingdom and dispute resolution specialists for contested claims.

Frequently asked questions

Are there image rights in the UK?

Not as a single legal right. The Court of Appeal and House of Lords have both said English law recognises no free-standing image right. Athletes rely instead on passing off against false endorsement, registered trade marks, copyright in specific works, privacy law and, above all, contracts governing how their image may be used.

Can someone use my image without my consent?

In England, using a famous person's image is not automatically unlawful. It becomes actionable when it falsely suggests endorsement (passing off), infringes a trade mark or copyright, misuses private information, or breaches a contract. Many other countries, and over 30 US states, give stronger protection.

Do I own the rights to my likeness?

Not as property under English law, but you can own and license related rights, such as trade marks in your name or signature and copyright you have acquired. The photographer, not the subject, usually owns the copyright in a photograph unless it is assigned.

What is an image rights company?

It is a company, usually owned by the athlete, that holds whatever image-related rights can be assigned, often registered trade marks, and licenses them to clubs and sponsors for royalties. A UK-resident company pays Corporation Tax on its profits, and the athlete takes salary or dividends taxed normally.

What changes for image rights tax in April 2027?

From 6 April 2027, all image rights payments related to an employment will be taxable employment income, with Income Tax and employer and employee National Insurance. Announced in Budget 2025 and due in Finance Bill 2026-27, it mainly hits club payments to players' image rights companies.

Does the April 2027 rule apply to influencers?

The announced rule targets image rights payments related to an employment. A self-employed influencer paid for use of their image is already taxable on that money as professional income through Self Assessment, according to HMRC guidance. Influencers who are employees, for example of an agency or club, should check how the final legislation applies to them.

How should influencers label paid posts in the UK?

The ASA and CMA guide recommends a clear, upfront label such as #Ad, #Advert or #Advertisement, visible without clicking. Labels such as Gifted, Collab, PR, Sponsored or simply tagging the brand are advised against. Disclosure is needed for payments, free products and personal connections, and for 12 months after a relationship ends.

Is a digital replica of my face or voice illegal in the UK?

Not automatically. The government's March 2026 report says UK law has no specific protection for digital replicas. Copyright, performers' rights, trade marks and passing off may help in some cases, but each has gaps. The government is exploring options, including whether to create a new digital replica or personality right.

What are NIL deals for college athletes?

NIL deals let US college athletes earn money from their name, image and likeness. Under the 2025 House v NCAA settlement, participating Division I schools can also pay athletes directly, capped at about $20.5 million per school for 2025-26, and third-party deals are reviewed through the NIL Go system.

Sources

1. HM Treasury: Budget 2025 (26 November 2025)
2. HMRC: Tax on payments for use of image rights
3. HMRC CG68450: image rights in the UK
4. HMRC CG68455: image rights and passing off
5. HMRC EIM00733: image rights companies
6. HMRC EIM00737: Hull City Tigers FTT decision
7. Fenty and others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 3, The National Archives
8. UK government: Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (18 March 2026)
9. ASA and CMA: Influencers' guide to making clear that ads are ads (October 2026)
10. MultiState: update on name, image and likeness laws (29 September 2026)

About this article

This analysis was researched and written by The Corporate INTL Newsroom, which covers cross-border legal, regulatory and business developments for lawyers, professional advisers and financiers in over 150 jurisdictions. It has been checked against the Budget 2025 document, HMRC guidance, the Fenty v Arcadia judgment, the government's AI report and the ASA and CMA guide. This article is general information, not legal or tax advice; for advice on a specific matter, consult a qualified adviser. Last reviewed 30 October 2026. For more analysis like this, visit the Corporate INTL newsroom or subscribe to Corporate INTL.