Brazilian Superior Court of Justice Rejects Sponsor’s Liability for Alleged Violation of a Referee’s Image Rights

Brazilian Superior Court of Justice Rejects Sponsor’s Liability for Alleged Violation of a Referee’s Image Rights

On October 6, 2026, the Third Panel of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça – STJ) denied the Special Appeal No. 2,274,604/BA filed by a football referee seeking compensation for moral and material damages arising from the alleged commercial use of his image without authorization or compensation during Brazilian Championship matches in which he officiated wearing uniforms displaying a sponsor’s brand. By unanimous decision, the Panel held that the sponsoring company could not be held liable solely for having acquired the right to display its brand on the uniforms, as such conduct was not the cause of the alleged unauthorized use of the referee’s image.

The lawsuit was filed by Luiz Carlos Silva Teixeira against Sky Brasil Serviços Ltda. The referee alleged that, between 2012 and 2014, the uniforms supplied by the Brazilian Football Confederation (Confederação Brasileira de Futebol – CBF) displayed the company’s brand. According to the referee, by associating his image with the brand during the matches in which he officiated, Sky obtained an economic benefit without his consent or payment of compensation.

At first instance, the claims for damages were dismissed. The court held that the referee’s image appearing in sports broadcasts was inherent to his professional activity and that the advertisement submitted with the initial complaint was intended to publicize the sponsorship agreement with Brazilian football referees, rather than to associate the individual professional’s image with the brand. The Court of Justice of the State of Bahia (Tribunal de Justiça da Bahia – TJBA) subsequently upheld the dismissal on appeal, applying the STJ’s reasoning in Special Appeal No. 1,982,917/SP: the sponsor had not committed an unlawful act because its conduct was not the cause of the alleged unauthorized use of the referee’s image. In ruling on Sky’s cross-appeal, the TJBA also held that claims relating to events occurring before November 27, 2014, were time-barred.

Before the STJ, Reporting Justice Nancy Andrighi likewise applied the precedent established by the Third Panel in Special Appeal No. 1,982,917/SP, according to which a sponsor’s acquisition of the right to display its brand on the official uniforms of a refereeing team does not, in itself, constitute a violation of a football referee’s image rights. The opinion also quoted passages from the TJBA’s decision, which distinguished individual image rights from the right of arena and examined whether the sponsor had committed an unlawful act that caused the alleged violation.

Based on the facts established by the TJBA, the Reporting Justice noted that Sky had acquired from companies that had previously sponsored the refereeing team the rights to display its brand on the sleeves of the uniforms supplied by the CBF. This acquisition, in itself, did not constitute a violation of the referee’s image rights. Furthermore, the company had not used the professional’s image in individual advertisements.

According to the STJ, any violation could have arisen from the conduct of the entity responsible for hiring the referees and setting the rules of the event, if that entity had required the referee to wear the uniforms without his consent. However, a finding of violation would not be automatic and would depend on the circumstances in which the uniforms were provided to the refereeing team, since the CBF could establish that it had obtained consent or provided appropriate compensation. As the lawsuit was brought exclusively against Sky, the Court did not examine whether the CBF had violated the referee’s image rights.

Accordingly, the STJ upheld the dismissal of the claims against the sponsor without ruling on any potential liability on the part of the CBF. The decision reaffirms the approach adopted by the Third Panel in Special Appeal No. 1,982,917/SP and indicates that assessing an alleged violation requires identifying the party responsible for the conduct in question and the circumstances in which the professional’s image was associated with the brand.

The decision can be accessed via the following link: RESP-2274604-2026-10-09.pdf

Note: For quick release, this English version is provided by automated translation without human review.