Who Owns the Game? Copyright, Broadcasting Rights, and the Legal Control of Sports Media

Written by: Kashinath R Nair, B.A.LL.B (Hons.) | Christ University Pune Lavasa 

JUSTICE

Copyright, sports broadcasts, and the escalating legal battle over who controls athletic spectacle 

Each week, billions tune in to watch sport. They watch it, record it, discuss it, comment on it, edit it,  and argue about it. But hardly anyone stops to consider a straightforward question: just who owns all  this material? It would be a lot simpler than you might think – but it is not at all clear, and it stands for  one of the hottest areas in contemporary copyright law. 

Whether we are looking at a six-second snippet of a touchdown shared on Twitter, or a live  commentary broadcast over a streaming website without the proper authorisation, professional sport  presents a minefield of overlapping interests, changing doctrine, and immense sums of money.  Leagues, broadcasters, athletes, fans, and social media providers are each trying to carve out their  piece of the pie. 

What Is & What Isn’t Protected  

Copyrights protect expressions of originality of authorship that are fixed in a tangible form of  expression. Copyrights applied to sports present an inherent contradiction from the start. The game of  football played on the field, the performance of the athletes on the field, is not copyrightable because  it does not meet the criteria of authorship or creativity, although some of the movements may be  choreographed. It is impossible to say that such a game constitutes an artistic expression, even if it is  very impressive and entertaining. 

The broadcast of the match is a whole different story. With directors, camera operators, editors,  graphic designers, and commentators, the broadcasting company takes a raw game of football and  transforms it into an audiovisual spectacle that requires creative decisions: what shots should be  chosen, how to show the replays, which graphics to include, how to comment on the actions. Such  creative decisions require originality and make the production copyrightable. 

This fundamental concept sets the basis for all the cases about sports copyright. The problem is that  they cannot be separated for any person viewing a screen. 

Broadcasting Rights: The Multi Billion Dollar Question! 

Indeed, the most economically important domain of sports copyright is broadcasting licenses.  Professional leagues like the NFL, NBA, Premier League, and Indian Premier League charge  enormous sums of money for exclusive broadcasting rights because those rights are protected by law.  Broadcasting companies that have paid such enormous amounts are willing to sue any rival  broadcasting company trying to relay its signals illegally.

The legal framework protecting these rights consists of several components, which include both  copyright laws and contracts. In addition, there are special anti-piracy laws in many countries. The  Copyright Act of 1976 in the United States allows copyright owners to control their copyrighted  works through reproducing, distributing, publicly performing, and displaying them. An unauthorised streaming broadcast of the NFL game constitutes violation of these rights. 

"The broadcast of a sports event is as protected as any Hollywood film. The only  difference is that the 'script' is written in real time by the athletes on the field." 

Streaming of the internet has created an enormous challenge to enforcement. While  broadcast piracy used to require much infrastructure in earlier eras, now one  individual with a streaming account on his/her smartphone can broadcast live content  to thousands of people. Sports industry has taken different approaches to counter  internet piracy such as taking down notices using Digital Millennium Copyright Act,  advocating for faster judicial processes, and implementing dynamic watermarking that  gives right holders access to streamers' identities using technical processes. 

In countries such as India and some in Southeast Asia, the judiciary has issued  dynamic injunctions. These enable the protection of future cases without the need for  additional legal action. The High Court of Delhi is one court that has been  instrumental in issuing pre-emptive injunctions for IPL transmissions across various  seasons. 

The Highlight Clip Problem 

Where the league’s focus may be on the issue of pirate broadcasting of entire games, the real  issue for regular fans is the highlight clip problem, which also creates far more controversy. 

Sports fans have always had a desire to capture those memorable moments, whether a late  goal, an amazing catch, or an improbable win - to show others through video clips. Sports  leagues combat this by implementing automated systems using Content ID or sending Digital  Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices. 

Fair Use of Sports Highlight Films Fair use is an important principle of copyright protection  within the United States, which evaluates four considerations: the purpose of the use, the  nature of the protected material, the part taken, and the effect upon the market. The use by  fans of highlight films is somewhat of a grey area of the law because while these highlights  may be considered transformative and have a non-commercial purpose, they could take the  place of commercial highlight films. 

Indeed, it is a genuine struggle on both sides. On one hand, sports leagues claim that, as a  matter of fact, they have broadcast rights, which allow them to gain licensing money through  highlights packages. On the other hand, supporters maintain that clips act as promotion tools  and that aggressive actions result in the loss of the audience sports leagues seek to attract.

Certain sports leagues have shown pragmatic attitudes towards the issue. Notably, the NBA  has shown tolerance towards fan clips, understanding that the latter serve as advertisement  and help gain audience interest. Other leagues, however, have shown extremely aggressive  behaviour towards fans; for example, some of the European football federations pursue any  kind of video regardless of how short it might be. 

Athletes and their own Image 

Another yet related frontier lies in the rights of the athlete over his image, likeness, and  performance. The issue involves the intersection between copyright laws and right of  publicity laws. 

An example of such is the situation that has arisen many times in the video game industry  where a video game company secures a license from the governing body or players union of a  sport for using the likeness of its players including their names, numbers, and general  physical appearance. But what of the particular gesture performed by the athlete on scoring a  touchdown or goal? 

Hanagami v. Epic Games (9th Cir. 2023) – Choreographer Kyle Hanagami claimed that  Epic Games had used movements from his choreography as a Fortnite emote. In the  landmark decision in this matter, the Ninth Circuit Court overturned a lower court's dismissal  and ruled that movements within a choreography piece can be considered expressive and  therefore copyrightable if it is part of a copyrighted work. 

Ribeiro v. Epic Games / Take-Two Interactive — Famous actor and dancer Alfonso Ribeiro,  well-known for his “Carlton Dance,” brought legal action against the video game makers  claiming that their games infringed on his copyright. This lawsuit was eventually dismissed  due to the Copyright Office's refusal to register his dance as intellectual property, stating that  it contained only “a few simple dance steps.” 

Jurisprudence in this field still leaves much to be desired. The problem is complicated by the  need to distinguish the moment when athlete’s movements cease and choreographic  movements begin. Diving by a goalkeeper for penalty save is merely pure athleticism.  However, a series of celebrations, prepared before by a footballer and repeated  systematically, becomes a form of choreography. French courts in particular have proven  quite progressive regarding the legal protection of athlete’s personality in this respect. Issues  have already arisen in relation to Kylian Mbappé and his celebrations. 

International Complexity  

One of the biggest hurdles for sporting copyright is the lack of an internationally unified  framework. Although the Berne Convention sets the base standards in almost all nations, how  each country defines broadcast rights, fair-use provisions, or performance rights is different  from others.

A video excerpt that may pass as fair use in the U.S. courts can very well be considered an  infringement under the laws of the UK and the European Union. An athlete’s personal right  that holds legal validity in France can be much weaker under American law because the  concept of publicity rights belongs more to individual states than the nation. Online media  platforms, operating across borders, have to deal with this confusion constantly, often  removing content to prevent potential legal liabilities. 

New Technology but Old Tension  

Moreover, streaming has not only affected the way that sports are consumed but has changed  the economic realities of the business of rights enforcement itself. It is now a case in which  the rights holder's material is infringed simultaneously across many platforms, in many  different countries, within seconds of being uploaded. Traditional means of enforcing the  rights; namely, litigation, filing a suit, getting an injunction from a court are simply no longer  an adequate response to these dynamics. 

The response to this problem has been legislative pressure for change. The US, for example,  has the safe harbour provisions of the DMCA of 1998, which has come under increasing fire  from rights holders. Similarly, the EU has developed legislation such as the Digital Services  Act and the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (Article 17). These new laws  

are putting more pressure on digital platforms to actively police content for infringement. 

This does bring its own issues, however. Automated content filtering is far from perfect and  has a record of over-blocking, removing legitimate commentary and even critical reporting of  news along with the infringement of rights holders' copyrights. 

The Rome Convention of 1961, as well as the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty  of 1996, offer certain safeguards for performers. Yet neither of these instruments was  specifically created for the protection of professional athletes. 

Conclusion, The Game Is Still Being Played 

However, sports copyright is still not something entirely resolved in terms of law. Rather, this  topic remains one of constant struggle between those who want to preserve their economic  interests, athletes who claim ever greater recognition for their personal creativity, fans who  do not want anyone to restrict their ability to participate in their own subculture, and digital  platforms who have to satisfy all parties. 

It should be mentioned that the legal system created in the days of traditional broadcasts  simply cannot cope with the new realities brought by smartphones, social media and  immediate online viewing. All parties involved in this dispute are adjusting whether it is  wisely or not to an ever-evolving media landscape that moves at a pace far exceeding that of  legislation.

As to the matter of ownership of the game itself, it would be fair to say that it is not merely a  legal issue. Rather, it has more to do with the struggle for power and with the cultural aspects  of athletic performance and fandom. This dispute will persist for a long time to come.

Reference List

Cases

• Hanagami v Epic Games Inc 51 F 4th 656 (9th Cir 2023).

• Ribeiro v Epic Games Inc No 2:18-cv-10412 (CD Cal 2019).

Legislation

• Copyright Act 1976 (US).

• Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (US).

• Digital Services Act Regulation (EU) 2022/2065.

• Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market.

International Instruments

• Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (adopted 9 September 1886, revised 24 July 1971).

• International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (Rome Convention) (adopted 26 October 1961).

• WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996, entered into force 20 May 2002).

Books and Journal Articles

• Desai DR and Magliocca GN, ‘Patents, Meet Napster: 3D Printing and the Digitization of Things’ (2014) 102 Georgetown Law Journal 1691.

• Goldman E, ‘A Coasean Analysis of Marketing’ (1999) 2005 Wisconsin Law Review 1151.

• Lemley MA, ‘Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding’ (2005) 83 Texas Law Review 1031.

• Netanel N, Copyright’s Paradox (OUP 2008).

• Senftleben M, Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test (Kluwer Law International 2004).

• Towse R, A Textbook of Cultural Economics (2nd edn, CUP 2019).

Reports and Online Sources

• Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘Understanding Fair Use’ https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/fair-use accessed 7 May 2026.

• National Basketball Association, ‘NBA Digital Highlights Policy’ https://www.nba.com accessed 7 May 2026.

• United States Copyright Office, ‘Copyright and Sports Broadcasts’ https://www.copyright.gov accessed 7 May 2026.

• World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Broadcasting Organizations’ Rights’ https://www.wipo.int accessed 7 May 2026.