Level Playing Field | Athlete image: NIL rights in New Zealand sport

Send us your feedback In our first episode of Level Playing Field, Sports law Partner Richard Wells and Senior Associate Sarah Redding discuss the issues shaping sports law in New Zealand. \[00:05] Richard and Sarah open the episode by explaining Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) rights in New Zealand sport. They outline why NIL is becoming increasingly important for athletes, governing bodies and commercial partners, particularly as new forms of content continue to reshape how athletes are seen, and monetised, beyond the field of play. \[02:12] Sarah begins by explaining the starting point of the legal position in New Zealand. Unlike some overseas jurisdictions, there is no standalone legal right protecting a person’s name, image or likeness. Instead, NIL rights are entirely contractual in nature. While limited remedies may be available under existing laws, such as the Fair Trading Act or passing off, these do not provide a positive right to control or commercialise identity. As a result, the structure and wording of contracts remain central to how NIL is managed across the sports sector. \[04:42] Richard and Sarah discuss how traditionally, NIL has been divided into two well-understood categories. First, team-branded NIL, which is typically assigned to governing bodies through collective agreements and used alongside team intellectual property for sponsorship, merchandising and broadcast purposes. Secondly, personal NIL, which athletes retain and can commercialise independently through endorsement deals and other opportunities unrelated to their team role. This division has historically provided a clear and workable framework for both athletes and sports organisations. \[08:02] They consider, the rise of behind-the-scenes and athlete-led content is beginning to challenge that framework. Documentary-style series, player access content and fan engagement events often feature athletes in non-branded settings, presenting them as individuals rather than uniformed representatives of a team. While this content is clearly sport-related and often produced by governing bodies, it does not sit neatly within traditional concepts of either team-branded or personal NIL. The result is a growing area of uncertainty around ownership, control and the sharing of commercial value. \[14:39] Richard and Sarah discuss practical implication is that existing contractual arrangements may no longer be fit for purpose. Richard and Sarah suggest that governing bodies and player associations should proactively review and update their agreements to reflect this evolving landscape. In particular, there may be value in introducing a clearer, three-category framework—distinguishing between team-branded use, personal use, and a new hybrid category of sport-related but unbranded content. Greater clarity around consent, control and revenue sharing will be key, alongside careful due diligence by commercial partners to ensure rights are properly secured before content is produced or released.   Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 11 June 2026.   Please contact Richard Wells, Sarah Redding or our Sports team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode.  And don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at [website.enquiries@minterellison.co.nz](mailto:website.enquiries@minterellison.co.nz) and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here.  For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts