Structuring Rights for African Athletes
A practical framework for structuring IP rights that protect athletes and production partners across jurisdictions.
The most common mistake in athlete-led media across Africa is also the most consequential: starting production before structuring rights. Content gets created, audiences grow, revenue flows, and then the question arises: who owns this? By then, the answer is expensive and adversarial. This article outlines a practical framework for structuring IP rights before the first frame is shot.
The current state of athlete IP in Africa
Athlete image rights in Africa sit at an inflection point. Historically, federations and clubs have assumed broad rights over players' likenesses, often without explicit contractual basis.
The legal landscape is evolving. In Uganda, a landmark 2024 commercial court ruling established that the Federation of Uganda Football Associations could not licence players' images without proper contracts, awarding damages to members of the Uganda Cranes national team. In Nigeria, Section 37 of the Constitution provides for the right to privacy, which courts have interpreted broadly. The 2023 Nigeria Data Protection Act classifies an individual's image as personal data, requiring consent for processing. The Copyright Act 2022 protects audio-visual works, though copyright ownership defaults to the photographer or producer unless contractually agreed otherwise.
In South Africa and Kenya, image-right regimes rooted in common law allow athletes to claim damages for unauthorised commercial use of their likeness. These frameworks are strengthening, but they vary significantly across jurisdictions, making proper contractual structuring essential for any multi-market sports media venture.
The four rights that matter
For athlete-led media properties, four categories of rights need to be addressed before production begins:
First, image rights: the right to use the athlete's name, likeness, voice, and distinctive personal attributes in content and marketing. In Nigeria, this can be grounded in constitutional privacy protections, trademark registration of distinctive personal elements, and contractual agreements. FIFA's own guidelines recommend that clubs and players formally agree on how image rights are exploited.
Second, content IP: ownership of the format itself -- its name, structure, creative framework, and brand identity. Under the Copyright Act 2022, the creator of an audio-visual work holds copyright unless there is an agreement to the contrary. For co-created formats, this means explicit documentation of shared ownership percentages, creative control provisions, and revenue allocation.
Third, distribution rights: who can distribute the content, on which platforms, in which markets, and for how long. These should be specified per platform and per territory, with clear provisions for sub-licensing and syndication.
Fourth, derivative rights: who can create spin-offs, adaptations, merchandise, and other derivative works based on the original format. These rights often become the most valuable over time and should not be left ambiguous.
A practical structuring framework
Based on these four categories, a practical IP structuring framework for athlete-led media in Africa should include:
Ownership split: Define the percentage ownership of the format IP between the athlete, production partner, and any co-investors. Common structures range from 50/50 to weighted splits based on capital contribution, creative input, and distribution capability. Whatever the split, it should be documented before production begins.
Creative governance: Establish who has approval rights over content, branding, and creative direction. Athletes should retain meaningful creative approval -- not because it is generous, but because their authentic participation is what makes the content valuable.
Revenue waterfall: Document how revenue is allocated across all streams: platform ad revenue, sponsorship, licensing, syndication, merchandise, and eventual IP sales. The waterfall should specify the order of payment (recoupment of production costs, then split of net revenue) and be transparent to all parties.
Term and termination: Define the partnership duration, renewal provisions, and what happens to the IP if the partnership ends. The athlete should not lose rights to a format built around their identity simply because a production partnership concludes.
Jurisdiction and dispute resolution: For multi-market ventures, specify which jurisdiction's laws govern the agreement and how disputes will be resolved. Given the varying state of IP law across African markets, this is not a formality -- it is a material commercial decision.
Why this matters now
Africa's sports market is projected to grow from $12 billion to $20 billion by 2035. The global sports media rights market exceeded $60 billion in 2024. Athlete-led media is being recognised as a legitimate asset class globally, with ventures like PlayersTV, Uninterrupted, and the Kelce brothers' podcast empire demonstrating the model.
African athletes have the audiences, the stories, and the cultural resonance. What they have not yet built, at scale, are the IP structures that turn attention into ownership. The athletes who get this right in the next few years will not just be creating content. They will be building media companies with compounding asset value.
The starting point is not a camera. It is a contract.