Very little directly, which surprises people. FIFA's regulatory framework governs the transfer system, player status and agent conduct. It does not create, define or allocate image rights, and there is no FIFA regulation setting out what a player may license or on what terms. Image rights in football are governed overwhelmingly by national law and private contract, with FIFA's rules touching them only where they intersect with agent remuneration.

Indirectly, and in a way every agent should know. The FIFA Football Agent Regulations contain a presumption that other services an agent provides in the 24 months before or after providing agent services form part of those agent services (CJEU Press Release 110/26, footnote 5). Image rights management is exactly the kind of "other service" that presumption is aimed at.

Not reliably. The 24-month presumption in Q77 means separately invoiced image rights work is presumed to be agent services and therefore counted toward the regulated fee. The FFAR also prohibits, in principle, third parties paying remuneration due under a representation agreement on behalf of the agent's contracting partners — a rule aimed squarely at limiting creative payment routes. Treat separate billing as a compliance question, not a workaround.

Where they apply: 3% of remuneration if the agent represents either the individual or the engaging entity, 6% if representing both, and 5% where remuneration is up to USD 200,000. Conditional payments are excluded from the remuneration base (FIFA Football Agent Regulations). Whether these caps are currently enforceable is a separate question — see Q80.

On 16 July 2026 the Court gave judgment in Case C-209/23 RRC Sports, on a reference from the Regional Court in Mainz. Read the judgment carefully, because both FIFA and its critics have characterised it favourably to themselves. The Court did not finally uphold or strike down the fee cap. It held that it is "ultimately for the court before which the dispute was brought" to assess whether the contested rules breach the prohibition on cartels or can be justified, and supplied criteria for that assessment (CJEU Press Release 110/26).

Two things. First, the rule preventing agents from approaching or signing a client already under an exclusive representation agreement, outside a two-month window before expiry, "appears, in any event, to be incompatible with the prohibition on cartels" — because it does not bind agents who already hold such an agreement, granting incumbents an undue advantage. Second, on data protection, the Court held that the GDPR precludes FIFA publishing sanctions imposed on agents or their clients and detailed information on all agent transactions.

That FIFA "may be regarded as occupying a dominant position" in the market for agent services in international transfers, arising from its regulatory, supervisory and sanctioning power — though whether that dominance has been abused is for the national court. It also identified obstacles to the freedom to provide services in the multiple-representation limits, in licence conditions relating to criminal or disciplinary history, and in the "approaches" rules, again leaving justification to the national court.

Unresolved as at August 2026, and you should say so rather than guess. FIFA suspended the affected FFAR provisions worldwide on 30 December 2023 pending the ruling, after adverse decisions in Germany and an FA Rule K tribunal in England which found that implementing the fee cap and pro rata rules would breach the Competition Act 1998. Following the judgment FIFA said it intends to convene agent representatives "with the aim of reaching a consensual solution", with a new transfer system launching on 1 January 2027 (FIFA).

Strict, and they interact with image rights directly. An agent may approach a minor only within six months of the age at which they can sign a first professional contract, and only with the prior written consent of the legal guardian. Commission may not be taken for representing a minor except in connection with a first or subsequent professional contract. Representation agreements are capped at two years, with automatic renewals prohibited (Lewis Silkin).

Through the player unions rather than through individual negotiation. FIFPRO acquires image rights via national player unions in nearly 60 countries and licenses them onward to video game publishers and other clients (FIFPRO). A player in a member nation may therefore be licensed into a global product without ever personally signing anything with the publisher.

Genuinely contested. When Zlatan Ibrahimović objected to his appearance in FIFA 21, three separate parties claimed authority: FIFPRO through its union mandate, AC Milan through an exclusive agreement covering squad face scans, and EA through its agreement with the club. Ibrahimović said he was unaware he was a FIFPRO member (ESPN). Gareth Bale and others joined the objection. No clean opt-out mechanism emerged — which is the honest answer.

Because each jurisdiction absorbed an imported concept into the legal tradition it already had, as Part 1 explained. Some countries legislated a statutory right, some recognise a judge-made right of publicity, and some — including the UK — never created a right at all. The commercial practice looks superficially similar everywhere; the underlying legal machinery is completely different, and that is what changes the advice.

No standalone image right, protection via passing off, a baseline grant to the club in the standard playing contract, and the most aggressive tax enforcement environment in the game. From 6 April 2027, employment-related image rights payments become employment income (Part 3). For an agent operating in England, the practical consequence is that the contract does the work the law does not.

No, and this is where most published writing is out of date. The special regime originally let Beckham pay a reduced flat rate on Spanish salary while his worldwide image rights income sat outside Spanish tax. Professional athletes were excluded from the regime in 2014, and pay 47% on income above €60,000 like ordinary Spanish taxpayers (The Lawyer Portal, Lawants). The regime still exists for other workers; it is not available to your player.

A statutory right with no UK equivalent. Created by the Pelé Law (Law 9.615/1998), the arena right is the exclusive prerogative to authorise or prohibit capture and transmission of images of the sporting event itself, and it is distinct from direito de imagem, the individual image right. The athletes' collective share, originally 20% in the Pelé Law's original text, was reduced by amendment to 5%, distributed equally among participating players (Superior Labour Court (TST)).

Because it shows the alternative is real. A Brazilian player receives an automatic statutory share of broadcast image exploitation without negotiating for it. An English player receives nothing automatically and must negotiate everything. When a player moves between the two systems, entitlements they took for granted may simply cease to exist — which is a conversation to have before the move, not after.

Collective bargaining does work that individual negotiation does elsewhere. The MLS collective bargaining agreement, running from the 2020 season through January 2028, addresses compensation for use of player likeness in video games, merchandise and promotional material, with the MLSPA as exclusive bargaining representative (MLSPA). Underneath sits the US right of publicity — a genuine legal right, but one that varies state by state rather than federally.

The tax rationale largely disappears; the commercial rationale does not. With no personal income tax in Saudi Arabia, take-home pay roughly doubles for the same gross (RSM UK). But the agreement still governs what the club may do with the player's image and what the player must do in return — which is reason enough to negotiate it properly. Note also that a player whose image rights company is incorporated elsewhere may retain exposure in that jurisdiction (Quastels).

Everything is re-set and nothing carries over automatically. The image rights agreement with the former club typically terminates or is bought out; statutory entitlements in the old market do not follow the player; the tax treatment changes; and a structure that was efficient in one country may be actively disadvantageous in another. Treat a cross-border move as requiring fresh advice in the destination market, every time.

A combination of anti-avoidance legislation, transfer pricing rules, international information exchange and reputational exposure. HMRC's position is that many of these arrangements lack commercial substance and exist principally to obtain a tax advantage, which makes them vulnerable under anti-avoidance and transfer pricing rules (Tax Journal). The secrecy that made offshore structures attractive no longer exists.

For UK employment-related payments, effectively yes from April 2027 — that is the explicit purpose of the legislation (Part 3). For genuinely independent commercial income it survives, and remains a sensible vehicle for a player with real third-party earnings. The model is not disappearing; its scope is being cut back to what it was arguably always meant to cover. Agents advising as though nothing has changed will be advising on a regime that no longer exists.

Unresolved, and the gap is being exploited now. Vinícius Júnior has faced deepfake advertising showing him promoting financial products and betting applications he had no relationship with (Sports Law Hub). A synthetic likeness is not a photograph, so copyright in an underlying image does not help, and the person depicted never sat for it.

Partially, and awkwardly. A deepfake advertisement implying endorsement is a textbook misrepresentation, so a player with established goodwill has an arguable passing off claim — the Irvine v Talksport logic applies. The practical problem is not doctrine but enforcement: the content is produced anonymously, at scale, across jurisdictions, and faster than litigation can respond. Existing protections are widely regarded as inadequate against this (Sports Law Hub).

Almost certainly not intended, and almost certainly not addressed. Agreements drafted before generative AI grant rights to "use" a player's image — language written for advertising campaigns, not for training data or synthetic generation. Whether that wording extends to model training is untested. Any agreement signed now should say expressly whether AI training and synthetic generation are permitted, and if so on what terms.

The structures are the same; the economics are not, and so the advice changes. Average WSL wages are around £900 a week against roughly £60,000 in the Premier League, which makes commercial income proportionally far more important to a female player's earnings (SPORTFIVE). WSL commercial revenue has grown from £32m in 2021–22 toward a projected £100m in 2025–26 (Deloitte). One complication: ten of twelve WSL clubs share a front-of-shirt sponsor with the men's team, so bundled club deals can absorb value before it reaches individual players. Image rights matter more here, not less.