ZURICH, SWITZERLAND – DECEMBER 13: A view of FIFA World Cup 26′ Winner Trophy as draw for the 2026 World Cup European qualifiers kicks off in the FIFA headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland on December 13, 2024. The opponents of the Turkish National Football Team will be determined. (Photo by Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Anadolu via Getty Images
The FIFA World Cup drew over 20 billion video views across FIFA’s platforms and became the most-watched sporting event on earth. The highly anticipated final between Argentina and Spain is on Sunday, but social feeds are so quiet compared to events like Coachella, where influencers, brand houses and sponsored content flood every platform.
The reason why comes down to three legal concepts—trademark, copyright and contractual exclusivity—and one fundamental difference in how the two events make money.
Coachella is designed for the people at the festival. FIFA is designed for the billions watching at home. The legal tools are the same. What differs is whether enforcing them serves the business. And for FIFA and Coachella, the answer couldn’t be more different.
Before getting to FIFA and Coachella specifically, it helps to understand the legal tools that give any event organizer control over how their property gets used commercially.
Trademark law protects any unique brand identifier—like words and symbols—that tells the public exactly who is behind a product or service. FIFA’s official registered trademarks include the phrases “World Cup,” “FIFA World Cup,” “World Cup 2026” and “WC26,” along with symbols like the silhouette and graphic design of the trophy. Others are generally prohibited from using trademarks to promote their own business without the owner’s permission.
Copyright law protects original works of authorship—like video and music—fixed in a tangible form, giving the owner the exclusive legal right to control how the work is reproduced, shared and adapted. This is separate from trademark law and is more immediately relevant when someone posts a clip without permission.
FIFA and its official broadcast partners hold copyright in the match footage they produce. Every camera angle, highlight and replay belongs to them. Posting that footage without permission violates copyright law, which is why these videos are flagged and removed so quickly.
Play Puzzles & Games on Forbes
Contractual exclusivity sits on top of trademark and copyright law. FIFA sells sponsors like Adidas the commercial right to associate their brands with the tournament and generally promises to protect that association. That promise is a contractual obligation, not just a business preference.
Even if a particular piece of content doesn’t technically infringe FIFA’s trademarks or copyrights, FIFA may be contractually required to pursue it anyway to honor what it sold.
Together, these three legal layers—trademark, copyright and contractual exclusivity—give FIFA control over how its event gets used commercially. Coachella has the same legal tools available. But legal rights only matter if you choose to enforce them, and that choice depends entirely on how each event makes money.
Coachella—which is organized by Goldenvoice, a subsidiary of AEG—made a deliberate choice to let creators flood social media with festival content. Influencers post freely. Brands like Poppi build houses nearby, fly in talent and generate millions of impressions.
Brand activations at Coachella 2026 reportedly generated $870 million in Media Impact Value in weekend one. Goldenvoice doesn’t aggressively pursue any of it. The same trademark and copyright protections that exist for FIFA exist for Coachella. Goldenvoice just chooses not to use them the same way.
Coachella’s business model depends on people watching creator content and thinking, “I need to be there next year.” Every influencer post, brand activation and shaky iPhone video of a headliner is free marketing for next year’s ticket sales. Coachella markets to future attendees, so organic creator content is the product.
FIFA’s business model is vastly different.
FIFA doesn’t need to fill seats year after year the way Coachella does. Demand for World Cup tickets far exceeds supply without any marketing help. The organization’s revenue comes primarily from selling global broadcast rights and commercial sponsorships worth hundreds of millions of dollars per partner.
When a brand pays that much for exclusivity, it typically includes a contractual promise that FIFA will actively protect the commercial value of the association. If creators and non-sponsors could freely associate their products with the World Cup, the exclusivity FIFA sold would be worth less.
There’s also a practical copyright dimension here that explains why the two events feel so different on social media.
At Coachella, a fan with a phone shoots a spectacle. The experience itself is the content, and even a shaky iPhone video gives people FOMO. That footage gets shared because it makes people feel something. Goldenvoice doesn’t own what a fan records from the crowd since the fan created it. And Goldenvoice doesn’t want to stop it anyway for the reasons explained above.
At a World Cup match, a fan in the stands shoots tiny figures on a distant pitch. Nobody is posting that footage because nobody wants to watch it, especially when high-quality broadcast footage exists. FIFA’s copyright battle at a World Cup is with anyone who posts official broadcast clips without authorization, not with fans in the stands.
Coachella is designed for the people at the festival. FIFA is designed for the billions watching at home. For Coachella, footage is a sales tool, but for FIFA, broadcast is the product.
What separates FIFA and Coachella isn’t the law. It’s what each event is actually selling. For any creator, brand or platform navigating major events, that distinction is worth understanding.