The Sports Law Playbook returns with our fall 2025 edition, offering a closer look at the legal and business trends reshaping the sports industry. This quarter, we highlight the growing wave of athlete-driven co-brands, where stars are moving beyond endorsements to secure equity, ownership and long-term value. We also break down the complex legal and financial structures behind modern stadium development, and examine how artificial intelligence-generated pitching simulations are changing the game in baseball—bringing both opportunity and new legal questions.

Athlete Co-Brands: When Athletes Become Brands of Their Own

By Loeb & Loeb Advanced Media & Technology associate Lisa Wiznitzer

For years, athletes endorsed products. Today, they increasingly create them. From signature sneakers and performance apparel to tequila lines, energy drinks and media platforms, athletes are building co-brands that blur the line between endorsement and entrepreneurship. These ventures are more than marketing—they are reshaping the athlete’s role in commerce and raising important legal and business questions about intellectual property, ownership and long-term value.

Traditional endorsement deals typically compensated athletes with a fee or royalty payment in exchange for promotional services, while brands retained full control over products, marketing and intellectual property. The new wave of co-branding flips that script. Rather than simply lending their name to a campaign, athletes now seek equity, creative input and ownership of the IP they help create. 

The sneaker industry led the way. Michael Jordan’s groundbreaking partnership with Nike in the 1980s became the template. What began as a groundbreaking exception has since become the expectation, with LeBron James and Serena Williams building collections and collaborations with Nike and Steph Curry building a sub-brand with Under Armour. Athlete-led ventures have also extended beyond apparel, reaching into the lifestyle and spirits industries. Dwyane Wade has a wine label and Conor McGregor’s Proper No. Twelve whiskey proved athletes can dominate consumer categories far outside of sports.

The power of athlete co-brands lies in authenticity. Fans don’t just buy a shoe—they buy a piece of the athlete’s persona, style and story. In the era of social media, athletes control their own distribution channels, giving them a direct line to millions of consumers. For brands, co-branding offers cultural credibility and a built-in audience. For athletes, it offers generational wealth and the ability to extend their influence beyond their playing careers.

But the legal and financial foundations are just as important as the cultural ones. Success—or failure—depends on the contracts and IP strategies underpinning them. 

• Ownership of IP is often the central issue: who owns the trademark, and is it registered to the athlete personally, a joint venture or the sponsoring brand? 
• Exclusivity provisions require careful drafting: a shoe deal may bar a competing apparel line—but does that restriction extend to accessories or other wellness products?
• Compensation structures vary widely: royalties, others profit splits or equity stakes, each with different risks, tax implications and valuation challenges. 
• Exit rights are critical, particularly if the brand is sold, the athlete retires or performance declines. 
• Morals clauses remain another hotly negotiated area, with brands seeking broad protections and athletes resisting restrictions that could cut off revenue streams.

Drafting these agreements requires balancing the brand’s need for control with an athlete’s desire for creative and financial upside.

As lucrative as these deals can be, they are not without risk. Brands tied too closely to an athlete or other public persona can suffer reputational fallout if the product fails or if the brand itself becomes controversial, as the Kanye West–Adidas collapse made painfully clear. Oversaturation is another concern, with so many athlete-backed products crowding the market. From a legal standpoint, disputes over IP ownership are common, particularly when trademarks or design rights aren’t clearly allocated. Valuation disputes also arise, especially when royalties are tied to accounting methods or when brands are sold at contested valuations.

Looking ahead, athlete co-brands are set to become increasingly sophisticated. Differentiation will be the next challenge. As more athletes enter categories like apparel, beverages and wellness, the market risks becoming saturated with look-alike ventures. To stand out, future co-brands will need to focus on distinctive intellectual property—unique trademarks, proprietary product designs and defensible brand narratives that cannot be easily replicated. Legal structures will also play a role in ensuring differentiation: narrowly tailored exclusivity provisions can prevent conflicts across overlapping categories, while careful drafting of licensing and ownership rights can protect an athlete’s ability to expand into new verticals without diluting existing deals. Ultimately, as the model matures, success will hinge not just on popularity, but on the contracts, protections and legal structures underpinning the deal. 

The Legal and Financial Foundation of Stadium Development: Why Deals Are as Complex as the Venues Themselves

By Loeb Advanced Media & Technology associate Lisa Wiznitzer

Few projects capture public imagination—and stir legal debate—quite like the construction of a new sports stadium. From billion-dollar NFL complexes to urban soccer arenas, stadium development is where sports, law, politics and finance collide. For every ribbon-cutting, there are years of negotiations, contracts and compromises that form the true foundation of the venue.

Stadiums are no longer just places to watch games. They have evolved into multi-use hubs that combine retail, entertainment, restaurants and even housing into single developments. They anchor neighborhoods, generate jobs and influence tourism. But they also spark controversy. Who pays? Who profits? And what legal frameworks govern these massive projects?

At the heart of every stadium deal is a legal architecture that defines the balance of risk and reward. Most modern projects involve public–private partnerships, with municipalities contributing through bonds, tax incentives or infrastructure commitments, while team owners or private developers shoulder the rest. Negotiations often center on how that balance is struck and who bears long-term responsibility if projections fall short. Land use and zoning are equally critical, as stadium sites frequently require rezoning approvals or even eminent domain. Environmental impact studies and community benefit agreements have become standard requirements, ensuring local stakeholders have a say in how developments reshape neighborhoods. Once land is secured, team–municipality agreements dictate lease terms, revenue sharing and non-relocation clauses that seek to prevent teams from leaving after taxpayers have invested. On top of that, enormous construction contracts govern everything from timelines to labor rights, often sparking disputes over cost overruns or union requirements.

The financial framework of stadium development is just as intricate. Revenue streams flow not only from ticket sales, but also from naming rights, luxury suites and sponsorship activations that can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of the venue. Mixed-use development, such as shopping districts or hotels surrounding the stadium, is often baked into the financing plan to diversify income. On the public side, financing remains controversial. Cities issue bonds or commit tax revenues to cover their share, sparking criticism that taxpayers rarely see the promised economic return. Private financing models are on the rise, with owners turning to debt or private equity backed by future ticket sales and media revenues. The NFL’s G-4 loan program has also become a key tool, offering league-backed loans to approved projects.

Recent stadium projects highlight the diversity of approaches and the ongoing debates they inspire. In Chicago, the Bears’ proposed move to Arlington Heights has been slowed by disputes over property tax assessments and infrastructure commitments. In New York, NYCFC’s long-awaited soccer-specific stadium in Queens is being financed entirely privately, reflecting a shift away from taxpayer dependence. Meanwhile, the Tennessee Titans’ dome project in Nashville relies heavily on hotel and tourism taxes to offset the public burden.

Legal and political risks are ever-present. Lawsuits frequently challenge whether taxpayer funding for stadiums is constitutional or improperly allocated. Relocation threats loom large, with teams using the prospect of moving to another city as leverage in negotiations. Environmental and community opposition also play a significant role, with legal challenges around displacement, traffic and pollution capable of delaying or even derailing projects.

Yet stadiums also offer opportunities for innovation. Sustainability clauses requiring LEED certification or renewable energy systems are increasingly standard. Community benefit agreements can create legally binding promises to generate local jobs, fund affordable housing or support youth programs. 

Every stadium is a monument not just to sport, but to negotiation. Behind the seats, scoreboards and luxury boxes are contracts that define who pays, who profits and who shoulders the risks. The legal and financial foundation of stadium development is as complex as the architecture itself. For lawyers, policymakers and investors, these projects serve as high-stakes case studies in public–private partnerships, intellectual property monetization and risk allocation.

As the next wave of stadiums rises—from NFL mega-domes to MLS soccer-specific venues—expect the legal debates over funding, land use and community benefits to shape the sports landscape just as much as what happens on the field.

AI-Generated Pitching Simulations: The Next At-Bat for Sports Law

By Loeb Advanced Media & Technology associate Lisa Wiznitzer

Baseball has always been a game of adjustments. Hitters study pitchers, pitchers refine arsenals and teams invest in scouting to gain the smallest of edges. Now, artificial intelligence (AI) is accelerating that process. AI-generated pitching simulations are emerging as a new tool in player development, allowing batters to face digital versions of the pitchers they’ll see tomorrow—complete with realistic motion capture, pitch velocity, spin rates and sequencing.

For players, it’s the ultimate preparation tool. For teams, it’s a competitive advantage. But for lawyers, it raises complex questions about data rights, intellectual property and fairness that the sport has yet to resolve.

What Are AI Pitching Simulations?

AI pitching simulations combine motion-capture technology, pitch-tracking data (like Statcast) and generative AI models to create hyper-realistic digital pitchers. A hitter can strap on a virtual reality headset or stand in a simulator cage and “face” Shohei Ohtani, complete with his actual windup, release point and pitch repertoire. The AI system can even generate likely pitch sequences based on historical tendencies, essentially giving hitters a dress rehearsal before the real game.

This technology isn’t speculative—it’s already being tested. MLB clubs are experimenting with simulators in their player development programs, while training companies and startups are marketing similar tools to colleges, minor leaguers and even youth academies.

The Legal Questions Behind the Simulation

The realism that makes these simulations valuable is also what makes them legally thorny.

First, there’s the issue of data ownership. Pitch-tracking and biomechanical data is collected through league-approved systems like Statcast, Hawk-Eye and wearable sensors. Do pitchers own their own motion data, or is it controlled by MLB and its clubs? Can that data be licensed to third parties building AI simulations? Without clear contractual rules, disputes are inevitable.

Second, there are right of publicity concerns. A pitcher’s delivery, windup and motion are part of their personal identity and marketability. Using those elements in a commercial product—especially one sold outside team control—could trigger claims that their likeness is being exploited without consent. This is the same legal theory athletes use in lawsuits against video game companies for unauthorized digital avatars.

Third, there’s IP and licensing overlap. Broadcast and data rights in MLB are highly regulated, with exclusivity granted to league partners. If an AI simulation company uses in-game data to build its models, does that infringe on MLB’s IP rights? How do these rights intersect with collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provisions that give the MLB Players Association control over licensing group rights?

Competitive Integrity and Fairness

Beyond the contracts and IP, AI pitching simulations pose questions about fairness and competitive balance. If one team has exclusive access to an advanced simulation platform, does that create an uneven playing field? Should the league regulate access, similar to how it monitors sign-stealing technologies or wearable data usage? Just as performance-enhancing drugs once gave players an edge outside the rules, AI-generated reps against opponents could cross into unfair territory if not governed properly.

AI pitching simulations are a natural extension of baseball’s long embrace of analytics and technology. They could extend careers, sharpen hitters and deepen fan engagement. But the technology also forces the sport to confront untested legal ground—data ownership, publicity rights, licensing structures and competitive integrity. Just as Statcast and wearable sensors changed the language of scouting and arbitration hearings, AI-generated simulations may soon reshape how the game is played, trained and litigated.

Takeaway

Baseball has always been about anticipating the next pitch. AI pitching simulations take that literally, offering batters the chance to prepare in ways never before possible. But the legal system must now play catch-up. The future of this technology—and whether it becomes a legitimate training tool or a flashpoint for disputes—will depend on the contracts, CBAs and IP protections negotiated in the years ahead.