Tag: NFL

Love and Leverage: Should an Athlete’s Celebrity Relationship Affect Their Contract Value?

In today’s professional sports economy, player value stretches far beyond the box score. Teams routinely factor in off-field elements like branding power, media influence, and fan engagement, all forces that can generate revenue and mold a franchise’s cultural footprint. Nowhere is this more apparent than in celebrity-athlete relationships. Even online platforms are quick to recognize and take advantage of the online popularity these celeb romantic entanglements bring. As the example of Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift’s relationship continues to demonstrate: the market impact of a high-profile pairing can be immediate and measurable. 

As legal scholars have long recognized, identity itself carries market power. But as this trend grows, a new question emerges: should front offices actually weigh an athlete’s relationship status with a celebrity when determining their acquisition cost or contract value? Should their total compensation package reflect the marketing value they add with their romantic partner? Or does this blur the lines between sports performance, entertainment economics, and personal boundaries of public figures? Attempting to answer these questions requires us to take a closer look at where sports economics meets publicity rights, using real life examples, while exploring how courts already understand fame, identity, and commercial value.

The “Swift Effect” 

Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift’s relationship didn’t just dominate celebrity headlines, it signaled a new wave in the business of professional football. Swift’s first appearance at Arrowhead Stadium in September 2023 triggered a viewership surge unlike anything the league had seen. In the days following that game, the NFL posted about Swift 34 times across its social channels, generating 170 million impressions, while Kelce’s jersey sales skyrocketed 400% and the Chiefs added over 200,000 new Instagram followers (and counting). What initially looked like a cultural crossover moment quickly became an economic engine.

The impact reverberated across fan demographics. Female viewership (especially among 18 to 24 year-olds) jumped dramatically, helping push Super Bowl LVIII to a record 123.7 million average viewers, fueled by a 24% spike in young women tuning in. Over the year, more than four million new female fans entered the NFL market, with an estimated 3.4 million joining Chiefs Kingdom alone. Chiefs owner Clark Hunt later confirmed the shift: the team’s fan base, once evenly split, now skews 57% female, a change he directly attributes in part to Swift’s presence.

But what’s fascinating from a legal lens is how closely this real-world moment mirrors how courts talk about fame. American case law has long acknowledged that public figures carry commercial value simply by being who they are. In Haelan Laboratories v. Topps, the Second Circuit coined the “right of publicity,” recognizing a person’s identity as a monetizable asset. In today’s example: Swift doesn’t just bring market attention, she expanded the economic value of Kelce’s identity, making the Chiefs more valuable as a brand. And let’s not forget when she gave Kelce a cameo on her record-breaking Era’s Tour, adding even more buzz around the tight end’s name. It’s the exact kind of commercial effect the law already takes seriously.

 

So what does all this data tell us? While the star-impact of Swift is solely responsible for the Chiefs increased cultural and economic footprint, none of that would exist without her relationship to Kelce. Does this justify valuing Kelce differently in contract negotiations or trade considerations? Is his relationship status part of his “brand” or commercial identity just as his stats are?

The Rise of the “Social Value” Metric

While celebrity relationships can supercharge visibility, the underlying trend they highlight is much broader: player value today increasingly hinges on social value: a measurable combination of marketability, audience reach, and cultural influence. Front offices across major sports already factor in off-field metrics when evaluating players, from jersey sales and endorsement potential, to social media followings. In many ways, the modern athlete functions not only as a performer on the field, but also as a content generator and brand ambassador whose visibility can meaningfully shift a team’s revenue streams.

This evolution mirrors the name image likeness (NIL) marketplace that has reshaped college athletics. At the collegiate level, brand value is often as decisive as on-field talent: athletes at high-profile programs, or those with massive online followings, routinely secure lucrative deals even before going pro. Cases like O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston established what the NCAA resisted for decades: that athletes don’t just produce wins, they produce value. They bring in viewers, marketing opportunities, and they drive revenue in ways that transcend play-calling and stat sheets. The logic is straightforward: audience attention translates to commercial worth.

This framework translates seamlessly into professional sports. Under these principles, a celebrity partner becomes an extension of an athlete’s brand infrastructure. Their combined platforms can amplify visibility beyond traditional sports audiences, turning athletes into crossover figures who occupy cultural spaces far removed from their sport. A player’s social media following, endorsement profile, or crossover appeal can boost a team’s national visibility or open new global markets. It’s not hypothetical. Teams measure this, agents negotiate it, and brands pay for it.

But this shift also raises an important practical dilemma: if teams increasingly consider social value in roster decisions, where is the line between evaluating a player as a commercial asset and respecting boundaries around personal identity and private relationships? The growing influence of off-field marketability suggests that the future of athlete valuation will be shaped not only by performance analytics, but also by cultural fluency. This trend is consistent with past court decisions regarding the right of publicity and the true value the holder of that right has in the case of celebrities. 

The Power-Couple Premium

Kelce and Swift may be the headline act, but they are far from the only pairing showing how quickly an athlete’s public life can spill into a team’s market calculus. Take Klay Thompson and Megan Thee Stallion. On paper, the NBA and hip-hop worlds have always overlapped, but seeing a high-caliber athlete enter that level of mainstream pop culture creates a whole new kind of crossover. With a celeb like Megan Thee Stallion in floor seats at a Dallas Mavericks game, fans of the Grammy-award winner are bound to tune in or perhaps pay more for premium seating for a chance to get a first-hand view of the star. And let’s not forget the reciprocity of the celebrity-athlete partnership: only a few months after making their relationship public, the singer scored a new sponsorship deal with Fanatics Sportsbook – an official sponsor of the NBA.

The same dynamic is found in the relationship between Stefon Diggs and Cardi B. Her presence alone brings a massive online audience. A single game appearance or Instagram post becomes a multi-media event, and within hours you see it reflected everywhere from jersey sales, to internet hashtags. It’s the kind of cultural bleed-over front offices pretend not to notice, even though the revenue streams speak for themselves. It’s not that these players become “more valuable” overnight in a traditional sense, but their teams undeniably get swept into a bigger cultural orbit.

From a legal standpoint, that visibility is not just “noise.” It’s part of the commercial persona that courts protect under the right of publicity. In her lawsuit against Samsung, Vanna White prevailed on her argument based on California’s statutory right of publicity. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that a person’s NIL or commercial identity extended to the broader concept of one’s identity. The court held that Samsung violated the statute even without using her name or image, but because it used the idea of her. This case underscores the courts’ recognition that association itself creates commercial value. Something that professional sports leagues are already aware of as demonstrated by years of lucrative brand-deals and partnerships. 

Trouble in Paradise: Risks of Monetizing Personal Relationships 

Once you start looking closely at the way these relationships shape fan interest and team economics, it becomes hard to ignore a slightly uncomfortable truth: that there’s a fine line between recognizing and rewarding marketability, and commodifying someone’s personal life. Courts have made clear that a person owns the commercial value of their identity. But what about the commercial value of a relationship? What about their romantic partner’s identity? And what happens when teams start using those dynamics to justify contract decisions?

On one hand, it’s easy to see why teams are tempted to lean in. When an athlete’s significant other can open the door to new audiences or bring an entirely different demographic into the market, that’s real, tangible value. It can mean higher ticket demand, more national airtime, stronger sponsorship interest. In a business as competitive as professional sports, where front offices are constantly searching for any kind of edge, ignoring that kind of upside feels naïve in today’s golden age of social media.

On the flip side, when a player’s personal relationship begins to encroach on contract conversations, suddenly it’s not only about his performance on the field, but also off the field. Front offices now run the risk of causing contractual provisions or other incentives to be based on how much of the player’s private life he’s willing to have consumed by the public. It creates a market-based precedent where a romantic partner isn’t just a companion. That “companion” becomes part of a player’s “brand portfolio” whether or not they want that designation. 

And the even bigger risk at the end of this slippery slope? The potential legal consequences teams could face in a cause of action by a celebrity who discovers another party is profiting off of her NIL without first obtaining that celeb’s consent. Or one who finds her commercial identity being used as a bargaining chip in player compensation or trade negotiations. 

Legal Stakes in Love 

Think about it this way: if there was any evidence of a contract provision between a team and a player, that implicitly or explicitly stated that the player may be compensated for the impact/result of another person’s (celebrity’s) presence, and that person was not a party to the agreement, and thus did not consent to the monetization of her persona…a court could easily recognize an action for appropriation of name or likeness. On the other hand, could the commoditization of a player’s personal relationship be taken as pressure on the athlete from the team to exploit their private lives for value? It seems this risk could move a team dangerously close to the line of unwanted commercial exploitation.

The Price of Love and the Future of Player Valuation 

Aaron Rodgers says he “didn’t do myself any favors” dating famous women

As fun as it is to watch sports and pop culture collide, it’s hard not to wonder where this all could lead, especially from a legal standpoint. If romantic relationships can dramatically shape revenue, influence fan bases, and transform a player’s commercial identity…how long before they quietly shape front-office decisions too? Should they? Where should the legal and ethical boundaries sit between commercial identity, intellectual property, and fair contracting? In a modern sports landscape where we’ve been witness to how a romantic relationship can redefine a franchise’s reach, the real question is no longer whether off-field identity carries monetary value, but how far we’re willing to let that value shape the way athletes are analyzed, compensated, and ultimately valued. 

Fame, Free Speech, and Fantasy: Why It’s Time for Federal Action

The rise of fantasy sports has transformed how fans engage with professional athletics, blurring the boundaries between data, identity, and commerce. But, while online fantasy sports platforms continue to evolve into a mature, multi-billion-dollar industry, the balance between the publicity rights of the professional athletes featured on those mediums, and the First Amendment rights of the online intermediaries is still on delicate footing. 

As these platforms continue to advance, they expose a fundamental tension in our legal system: the fragmented and inconsistent nature of publicity rights across states. Professional athletes argue that the unlicensed or unapproved use of their names and statistics constitutes a commercial exploitation of their identities, while fantasy sports enterprises contend that such data are publicly available facts protected by the First Amendment. This unresolved conflict underscores the urgent need for a federal right of publicity statute…one that harmonizes legal standards, reduces costly litigation, and provides a coherent framework for balancing economic innovation with individual rights in the digital era.

What is the Right of Publicity?

The right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial use of someone’s name, image, or likeness. Most states have a publicity rights statute, however a statute is not a prerequisite to enforce one’s right of publicity. Many courts arrive at the same outcome using state common law.

In New York, the state’s publicity rights statute was interpreted by the court in Stephano v. News Group Publications, Inc.. In this case, the plaintiff was a fashion model who brought suit against the defendant, a photographer, who used his picture for commercial advertising purposes without the plaintiff’s consent, thus violating his statutory right of publicity. Here, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Moreover, the court reasoned that the statute is not limited to situations where the defendant’s conduct has caused distress or harm to a person who wishes to lead a “private life free of all commercial publicity.” Rather, the court held that by its plain language, the statute applies to any use of any person’s image for commercial purposes whenever the defendant has not obtained the person’s written consent to do so. It follows from this decision that, regardless of a person’s publicity status (i.e., a professional athlete v. your average Joe), he is covered under the statute.

What’s in a Name?  

So — what does the court’s decision in Stephano have to do with the world of online fantasy sports and professional athletes? Well, athletes argue that the use of their names, images, and stats constitutes a commercial appropriation of their identities, allowing private companies to profit from their identities without consent or compensation. On the other hand, fantasy sports platforms maintain that players’ statistical data are publicly available facts, not proprietary information, and thus their use is protected under the First Amendment. This disagreement has placed courts in a difficult position, as fantasy sports platforms do not fit neatly into either category of commercial exploitation or pure free speech.

Conflict in the Courts

The unpredictable nature of the right of publicity is best illustrated through the inconsistent outcomes in key cases involving fantasy sports platforms. In C.B.C. Distribution & Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, the Eighth Circuit confronted whether the use of player names and statistics in fantasy baseball products violated players’ rights of publicity. While acknowledging that a violation technically existed, the court held that the First Amendment interests in disseminating factual data outweighed those rights.

The District of Minnesota reached a similar conclusion in CBS Interactive v. NFL Players’ Association, extending the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning to fantasy football and reaffirming that the publication of player statistics equates constitutionally protected expression. Conversely, in Gridiron.com, Inc. v. NFL, the court took the opposite approach, rejecting the First Amendment defense and finding that the online platform’s use of player images and information constituted commercial exploitation in violation of the NFL Players Association’s exclusive licensing rights.

High Stakes Moving Forward

The latest test of this legal imbalance is now before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in the case of MLB Players Inc. v. DraftKings & Bet365. In its complaint, MLB Players, Inc. (the MLB’s Player Association group licensing subsidiary) alleges the online fantasy/gambling platforms of misappropriating the images and likenesses of numerous MLB players on their online and mobile platforms. Plaintiff emphasizes it was not suing “to protect MLB players’ personal privacy interest, but rather the commercial value of their NIL rights.” Still pending in federal court, the court’s ruling here could seta new precedent after 71 years of sports-related litigation arguing over professional athlete’s publicity rights.

Without a federal publicity rights statute and a lack of uniformity across jurisdictions, the ultimate burden falls onto the litigants. The troubling fact is that identical conduct may be lawful in one jurisdiction and unlawful in another. The end result? A legal patchwork that breeds uncertainty, invites forum shopping, and imposes significant litigation costs on all parties involved.

“Happy Valentines Day :)”

There can be no doubt that social media has changed our society; changed the way we communicate, the way we obtain information, and, even now, the way we advocate. Social media has developed from a communication tool to a public forum  that individuals use to judge one another.

In the recent weeks the National Football League (NFL) has been put under the lens of the social media microscope. First, Michael Sam, a highly decorated collegiate football player, declared that he was a homosexual male. Once drafted, this will mark the first time in the league’s history that a player who is openly homosexual will play the game. Although many athletes have declared their sexuality once they retired, no player had previous declared such sexuality while playing the game. Of course, Sam’s declaration was thrown into the social media fire. His courage, strength, and self-confidence was met with overwhelming support as athletes from various profession sports chimed in on the topic. Players from various NFL locker rooms took to Twitter and Facebook to support Sam and his journey to the NFL. In the eyes of the public, the NFL gained even more repute than it had previously.

Today, however, the NFL and some of its more notorious players have been summoned to the court of social justice located in the realm of social media. This morning, Ted Wells, an NFL investigator, released a 144 page report documenting instances of hazing, racial slurs, and other degrading behavior performed by Richie Incognito and other Miami Dolphin’s players. This controversy began in October 2013 when Incognito’s teammate Jonathan Martin quit profession football and was hospitalized for mental health. The NFL swiftly jumped in and hired Wells to conduct an investigation.

In reaction to this incident, many took to social media. Some individuals, including NFL players and analysts, believed that Martin was over reacting and should have confronted Incognito. Others rallied behind Martin and deemed Incognito a bully. But no matter what most people believed, expectations changed with the release of the 144 page report. On Espn’s NFL Insiders, airing 3pm Eastern Time, tweets were read indicating the shock of most at the findings. One individual, who was skeptic that Martin’s allegations had merit, admitted that their perspective had changed.

In the shadow of this controversy is Incognito’s tweet from Wednesday stating, “The truth is going to bury you and your entire ‘camp’”. Incognito took to twitter again today after the report had been released, “Pleeeeease Stop The Hate. Happy Valentines Day :)”.

In a controversy as notorious as this, involving a league as acclaimed as the NFL, all eyes are now fixed upon Roger Goodell and other NFL officials. In today’s society, social media has become the quintessential courtroom and all of us, the jury. We obtain information from social media and use it to make “informed decisions.” Then, we use it to either condemn or exonerate those in the spotlight. Social media, whether we like it or not, has become a mechanism for impacting societal justice. This trend will only grow in the future and attorneys should be ready for trial by Twitter.

For more information see ESPN’s web article entitled “Incognito, others tormented Martin”.

 

Skip to toolbar