Next month, Canada will be a host country for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, with Toronto and Vancouver designated as host cities. As the tournament approaches and global attention increases, many businesses may be looking for ways to align themselves and benefit from the event. It is important that businesses be mindful of intellectual property rights and be cautious in their approach, and avoid a false association, including a misleading suggestion of official sponsorship.
Under FIFA’s regulations, only official sponsors may publicly associate themselves with the World Cup. In return for a significant financial investment, these sponsors gain access to a worldwide audience providing their businesses with global visibility, along with the reputational and commercial benefits of formal association with a hugely popular event, like the World Cup.
In contrast, other brands, who are not official sponsors, may attempt to associate themselves, and capture the same momentum, often through more indirect means.
This practice, known as ‘ambush marketing’, is a recurring feature of major sporting events and is likely to resurface as the FIFA World Cup 2026 approaches.
What is Ambush Marketing?
Ambush marketing broadly describes promotional efforts that create a false or misleading impression of association with a major event, or otherwise capitalize on the goodwill, excitement, and audience generated by that event, without authorization.
It often involves carefully crafted messaging or imagery that evokes the event without explicitly referring to it, with brands aiming to benefit from surrounding publicity and fanfare without paying sponsorship fees.
The Sponsorship Ecosystem and Commercial Tension
Major sporting events are supported by a structured ecosystem, in which official sponsors and partners pay substantial sums for exclusive rights to associate with the event. Those rights may include:
use of logos,
access to venues,
prominent advertising placements,
hospitality opportunities,
category-specific exclusivity, and,
other forms of brand integration.
These rights are reinforced through strict control over event‑related intellectual property, which is typically reserved for a defined group of authorized rights holders and commercial partners.
One example of how this exclusivity is enforced can be seen in FIFA’s ‘clean stadium’ requirements, under which non-sponsor branding is removed, and existing stadium naming rights may even be suspended during the tournament – an approach explored further in this article “What’s in a Stadium Name? Quite a Lot, Actually for Organizers of the FIFA World Cup,” which looks more closely at FIFA’s influence on stadium names during the World Cup.
Host cities often justify public investment in these events on the basis that they will generate broader economic benefits. For example, local businesses expect increased foot traffic, tourism, and consumer spending, and naturally seek to reflect the energy and excitement of the event in their own marketing. That expectation can create an inherent tension between protecting the exclusivity purchased by official sponsors and allowing the wider business community to participate in the moment.
Ambush Marketing in Action
Ambush marketing has taken many forms, ranging from overt attempts to rival official sponsors to more subtle, context‑driven campaigns. One of the most frequently cited early examples is American Express’s campaign around the 1992 Olympic Games, spanning both the Albertville Winter Games in France and the Barcelona Summer Games. It is reported that the slogan – ‘To visit Spain, you don’t need a Visa’ – referenced Visa’s status as an official sponsor and responded to Visa’s advertising that ‘the Olympics don’t take American Express.’ For completeness, it is noted that both companies are supporters and sponsors of many sporting events and teams.
Another example that is often cited came a few years later, when Nike executed a multi‑layered campaign during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, despite Reebok’s role as the official sponsor of the U.S. Olympic Team. Nike reportedly saturated the city with outdoor advertising, established a highly visible ‘Nike Centre’ near the Olympic Village, and leveraged athlete endorsements to capture public attention. Most prominently, Michael Johnson wore a pair of gold Nike shoes while winning the 200m and 400m in record-setting performances. It is said that the campaign’s success prompted the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to tighten its rules, restricting athletes from promoting non‑official sponsors during a designated blackout period around the Games.
Event-Specific Protections
For the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics, Canada enacted the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, which provided enhanced, event‑specific protection for Olympic‑related marks and associations and created specific remedies addressing unauthorized ambush associative marketing. Beginning with the Beijing Winter Olympics, Lululemon is now the official outfitter, sponsoring Team Canada across the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
No equivalent legislative regime currently exists in Canada for the FIFA World Cup 2026. As a result, protection of FIFA’s commercial rights is expected to rely primarily on traditional intellectual property laws, contractual controls (such as ticketing and venue terms), and event‑specific policies.
FIFA issued its 2024 IP Guidelines in advance of the FIFA World Cup 2026, emphasizing that official marks and related commercial rights are reserved exclusively to FIFA and its authorized partners, and that unauthorized associations may undermine sponsor investment. FIFA also links the protection of these rights to the financing of the tournament and broader football development initiatives. Complementing these measures, the FIFA World Cup 2026 Community Activation Toolkit for Toronto outlines permitted and restricted uses of FIFA intellectual property in connection with merchandise, marketing, and public events.
Regulatory Tensions and Perceived Overreach
There have also been instances where event organizers have been criticized for perceived overreach in policing these boundaries. During the 2015 Toronto Pan Am Games, for example, restrictions on ambush marketing extended beyond venue‑based controls to include ticketing conditions limiting the display of non‑sponsor logos and the introduction of branded items, as well as online activity such as restrictions on linking to official websites. These measures drew criticism from legal commentators and media as overly broad, with some suggesting that limits on associative references could constrain ordinary commercial expression.
Modern Evolution: The Shift from Physical Presence
Ambush marketing has evolved beyond physical presence at event venues to include more indirect forms of association. Rather than relying on proximity alone, brands use of timing, theme, and audience perception can create a link to major events without explicit reference.
One approach involves creating products or campaigns that clearly evoke an event without using protected terms. During the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics, for example, Lululemon released a line of national-flag themed apparel despite not being an official sponsor. The collection was branded ‘Cool Sporting Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between 2009 & 2011 Edition,’ using deliberate indirect language and national colours to evoke the Games while avoiding a direct reference. Although VANOC (the Vancouver Organizing Committee), which held exclusive marketing rights, declined to pursue legal action, it publicly criticized the campaign.
A more direct form of physical ambush marketing occurred at the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, when Dutch brewery Bavaria arranged for 36 spectators to attend a match wearing identical bright orange dresses supplied by the brand. Although the spectators were ejected, the incident and the ensuing enforcement response generated significant global media attention. It is reported that FIFA pursued criminal charges, and two of the women were briefly arrested before the matter was resolved out of court. The publicity surrounding these events contributed to the visibility of the campaign and its association with the tournament.
More recently, brands have combined physical efforts with broader promotional campaigns to generate traction. During the 2025 World Series, KFC reportedly arranged for a man resembling Colonel Sanders to appear prominently in-stadium behind home plate, positioned above a Mary Brown’s Chicken advertising board. In parallel, KFC ran a campaign, temporarily renaming its Zinger sandwich to ‘KFC Dinger’ and offering a ‘Free Dinger’ app promotion tied to Toronto Blue Jays home runs. Some commented that this drew on the ‘Curse of the Colonel’ associated with Japanese baseball culture, reinforcing audience recognition through cultural reference. KFC sponsored the Sportsnet broadcast following the game, generating additional media attention beyond traditional advertising channels.
Brands have at times also relied on linguistic workarounds to invoke major events without using protected terms. For example, during the Super Bowl, advertisers have referred to ‘the big game’ or used similar phrasing to signal the event to audiences. From a legal perspective, there is no standalone prohibition on ambush marketing in Canada. Instead, enforcement relies on a combination of existing legal doctrines.
Under the Trademarks Act, trademark infringement is often the most direct basis for enforcement where registered marks, such as event names, logos, or official slogans, are used without authorization in a way that is likely to cause confusion. Passing off may also apply where a business misrepresents an association with the event and thereby causes damage to the goodwill of the rights holder, and is not limited to registered marks.
Against this backdrop, businesses considering marketing campaigns tied to FIFA World Cup 2026, or other high‑profile events, should be mindful of how these opportunities are approached.
As demonstrated by past examples, the line between creative engagement and perceived association with a major event is not always clear, and approaches to managing that boundary continues to evolve.
This article is intended to provide general information only and should not be relied on as legal advice. If you have questions or would like guidance about event-related marketing in Canada, please contact a member of our trademarks team.
Find more IP related insights from our Summer of Sport ’26 series here.
/Passle/6130aaa9400fb30e400b709a/MediaLibrary/Images/2026-05-25-18-59-58-610-6a149c2edd7632eeeed16d2c.png)
/Passle/6130aaa9400fb30e400b709a/SearchServiceImages/2026-05-12-20-43-53-536-6a039109a64fe1f399f40c12.jpg)
/Passle/6130aaa9400fb30e400b709a/SearchServiceImages/2026-05-22-13-49-45-116-6a105ef93875f83888d77e8e.jpg)