What Burnham’s Sporting Events Bill means for brands and media owners

As Andy Burnham’s government presses on with the Sporting Events Bill, what does it mean for brands and media owners?

The World Cup may have wrapped up, but the sporting calendar is relentless, and brands and media owners will already be preparing for the next big event. Indeed, the domestic football season has already kicked off in Scotland, and the return of the Premier League is just around the corner.

Even Euro 2028 is not that far away in the grand scheme of things, and strategies for how to capitalise commercially will already be advanced. But when the tournament kicks off across the UK and Ireland, the legal landscape in the UK will likely have changed.

To date, the organisation and legal protection in the UK of world-class sporting events, from the London 2012 Olympics to the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games, has required bespoke primary legislation – a time-consuming and sometimes unwieldy process.

The Sporting Events Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 14 May 2026, seeks to change that, by creating a permanent, event-agnostic legislative framework that can simply be “switched on” by secondary legislation for any qualifying major event. In that respect, the thinking behind the Bill is understandable.

For brands investing in sponsorship or campaigns around major sporting events and for the media companies that own advertising assets, however, this Bill demands close attention. That’s because it will introduce two distinct regimes, one governing physical advertising near event venues, and another targeting “unauthorised association” or ambush marketing. Breaching these regimes could have serious consequences.

Restricted Advertising Zones

The Bill creates “restricted advertising zones” around venues and associated locations such as fan zones and transport hubs and proposes to make it a criminal offence to carry out, arrange, or permit an “advertising activity” within these zones without authorisation.

The definition of an “advertising activity” is deliberately broad – this is not merely about billboards, it catches promotional stunts, branded pop-ups, sampling campaigns, and activations aimed at broadcast audiences.

The Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill seems to anticipate a model similar to the 2012 Olympics, where the organising committee negotiated agreements covering nearly all of London’s outdoor advertising inventory with media owners. Brands unable to secure an authorised advertising spot will therefore need to find alternative marketing strategies. 

Not least because the consequences for anyone in breach of the proposed rules will be severe – the offence is punishable by an unlimited fine on summary conviction in England and Wales. Authorities may also seize, deface or destroy offending material.

Prohibition on unauthorised association 

Separately, the Bill also introduces a bespoke “unauthorised association” prohibition designed to fill gaps in existing intellectual property law. This will prohibit businesses from representing themselves as being associated with the relevant sporting event without authorisation during the “specified period”. The test for this will be fact-sensitive and enforcement will be addressed through civil remedies – injunctions, damages, and account of profits – mirroring intellectual property remedies. Essentially, this is a move to combat the ‘ambush marketing’ tactics which have long accompanied sporting events.

The Bill does provide certain exceptions such as allowing use of a pre-existing trademark or registered design. The critical question will be where the line falls between legitimate creative marketing that acknowledges the cultural moment of a sporting event, and unlawful association. Unhelpfully, that line remains blurry in the Bill.

Sporting Events Bill unresolved issues

With the Bill entering the Commons in September, several gaps remain that the Government should address from the perspective of brand and media owners.

Chief amongst these is regulatory uncertainty. The precise scope of the restricted zones and the length that these restrictions will be in place will be hugely important, but have not yet been clarified. The same can be said of the exceptions to both the advertising offence and the unauthorised association prohibition. The detail is expected to be left to secondary legislation, but this does not receive the same degree of scrutiny from Parliament.

Notably, the Bill also does not include a statutory duty to consult advertisers, brands, media owners or the Advertising Association before regulations are made. There is a vague requirement to consult ‘any other person’ that the national authority making the regulations considers appropriate, but one suspects that the industry would welcome a stronger commitment.

Another possible concern for brands and media owners is that the test of whether a representation is ‘likely to suggest to the public’ there is an association is both broad and fact sensitive. Without clearer statutory guidance or a code of practice, brands and media owners are likely to face legal uncertainty about what creative marketing is permissible, making it difficult to meaningfully plan ahead.

Sporting Events Bill exceptions?

The Bill also makes no provision for compensating brands or media owners whose existing contractual rights are overridden by the creation of restricted zones. It does note that existing advertising licences may be taken into account when the designated authority determines whether an authorisation for advertising should be granted, but again current owners will almost certainly want stronger protections for their investments than that.

The Sporting Events Bill is not yet law, but its direction of travel is clear. Brands advertising, sponsoring, or running marketing campaigns around major sporting events or those that own media assets will need to prepare. As is so often the case, engaging early with event organisers will be crucial. But we can also expect to see industry voices press for greater statutory clarity on exceptions, consultation rights, and compensation.

Matthew Phillips is a partner, and Olga Kacprzak is an associate at Reed Smith