Yesterday, I had a walk around my place (in Downtown Vancouver) and it was oddly normal. Why odd? because right now, one of world's most celebrated events, FIFA World Cup, is being held in Vancouver. And the odd part: You see very little sign of it in the city, its shops, restaurants, etc.
You would expect bars to advertise watch parties, restaurants to decorate their windows, cafés to promote match-day specials, and local businesses to embrace the excitement that comes with hosting a global tournament. Instead, much of the atmosphere feels restrained. The enthusiasm is there, but the visible signs of it are often not.
There are many reasons why public excitement around the tournament may feel less than expected. Ticket prices remain high(have extra kidney to sell?). Accommodation costs have surged. Travel expenses have put attendance out of reach for many fans(Trump's doing mostly). But there is another factor that contribute to this: FIFA's approach to protecting its intellectual property.
To be clear, FIFA has every legal right to protect its trademarks, logos, slogans, tournament branding, and other intellectual property. The World Cup is one of the most valuable sporting brands in the world, and that value is built in part on exclusivity. Sponsors pay enormous sums for the privilege of being officially associated with the tournament. Protecting those rights is a legitimate objective.
The question, however, is not whether FIFA should protect its intellectual property.
The question is whether it should protect it this aggressively?
Today, businesses are routinely warned not to use FIFA branding, World Cup logos, official tournament marks, host-city branding, or even certain World Cup-related terminology without authorization(read this report). Lawyers and consultants regularly advise businesses to avoid creating any impression of association with the tournament unless they have obtained the necessary rights.
From a legal perspective, this makes sense. Trademark law exists to prevent confusion, protect goodwill, and stop businesses from falsely representing themselves as official partners. FIFA is understandably concerned about ambush marketing and unauthorized commercial associations.
But there is a significant difference between a multinational corporation attempting to free-ride on FIFA's brand and a neighbourhood pub trying to tell customers that it will be showing the matches.
A local restaurant displaying a sign inviting customers to watch a match is not competing with FIFA. A café putting soccer-themed decorations in its window is not undermining sponsorship rights. A small business promoting a viewing event is not depriving FIFA of revenue.
If anything, these businesses are helping create the atmosphere that makes the tournament valuable in the first place.
This is where FIFA's approach appears shortsighted.
The World Cup's value does not exist because FIFA owns trademarks. FIFA's trademarks are valuable because billions of people care about the World Cup. The emotional connection comes first; the intellectual property rights derive their value from that connection.
When businesses become afraid to reference the event, even in limited and reasonable ways, the result is a quieter tournament experience. The city feels less engaged. The excitement becomes concentrated in official sponsor activations rather than spreading organically throughout the community.
Ironically, this undermines the very goodwill that trademark law is supposed to protect.
To be fair, FIFA would likely argue that it cannot simply ignore unauthorized uses. Trademark owners must actively protect their marks. Failure to do so can weaken their ability to enforce those rights in the future. There is some truth to that concern. Trademark law does require vigilance.
However, there is a difference between enforcement and prohibition.
The current approach often feels binary: either you are an official partner with a licence, or you should avoid using the branding altogether.
That is not the only available solution(Like Fifa is asking me for an opinion 🕶️).
A more balanced approach would be the creation of a general licence for small businesses in host cities. Under such a framework, FIFA could permit limited use of certain tournament references for non-sponsor local businesses, subject to clear restrictions. Businesses could be allowed to advertise match screenings, use limited tournament references, and participate in the celebration, provided they do not use official logos, claim sponsorship status, sell counterfeit merchandise, or otherwise create confusion about affiliation.
Such a licence could be free or available for a nominal fee. It could include mandatory disclaimers making clear that the business is not an official FIFA partner. It could preserve FIFA's ability to act against genuine infringements while allowing communities to participate more fully in the event.
Most importantly, it would recognize an important reality: not every unauthorized use is harmful.
In fact, many unauthorized uses increase the visibility, goodwill, and cultural significance of the brand.
The World Cup succeeds because it becomes impossible to ignore. It dominates conversations, storefronts, televisions, restaurants, bars, and public spaces. It becomes part of everyday life for a brief moment.
When legal restrictions become so extensive that local businesses hesitate to engage with the tournament at all, something valuable is lost. The event may remain legally protected, but it becomes culturally less visible. That is a dangerous tradeoff.
Intellectual property law is intended to protect brands from misuse, not isolate them from the public. The purpose of trademark protection is to preserve goodwill, not to suppress it. A legal strategy that discourages ordinary participation may achieve stronger control in the short term, but it risks weakening public engagement over the long term.
FIFA is entitled to protect what it owns. No one seriously disputes that. But protecting a brand and growing a brand are not always the same thing.
At some point, excessive control can begin to undermine the very asset it is trying to preserve. And when that happens, intellectual property protection stops serving the brand and starts working against it.
So please Fifa, just stop this madness♦️.