Chinese brand exits from Mbappé endorsements as a test of image rights

Key takeaways

• ESPN reports that Chinese companies using Kylian Mbappé in their advertising are ending their association with him after comments apparently referring to Mao Zedong.
• A footballer's personal endorsement contracts are separate agreements with brands and do not form part of his employment contract with his club.
• Endorsement deals often contain reputation or conduct clauses, which can let a brand end the relationship if something the player says or does harms the brand.
• A player's commercial value depends on markets and audiences that his club, his league and the transfer system have no control over.

Chinese brand withdrawals from Mbappé endorsements

ESPN reports that Mbappé's face has been used in advertising across China and that companies there are now ending their ties with him. According to the report, this follows comments he made that apparently referred to Mao Zedong, a figure who remains politically sensitive in China.

Some details are not known from that report. It does not settle which companies are involved, how many deals are affected, what each contract said or whether any money is due on either side. It is also not known whether the brands are using a contractual right to terminate, letting agreements lapse, or simply stopping campaigns while the contracts technically continue. Those are different legal positions, and the public record does not yet show which applies in each case.

What can be explained is the framework that makes a withdrawal like this possible, and why it touches the player's commercial side rather than his position as a registered footballer.

Reputation clauses in personal endorsement contracts

A personal endorsement is a commercial contract between a brand and a player, usually negotiated by the player's representatives or by a company that holds his commercial rights. The brand pays for the right to link its products with the player's name, image and likeness, often within set territories, product categories and periods.

Brands protect themselves with what are usually called morality, conduct or reputation clauses. The wording varies a great deal, but the idea is the same: if the player behaves in a way, or says something, that brings the brand into disrepute or damages its standing with its customers, the brand may suspend payments, stop using the player's image or end the contract. Some clauses are tightly worded and list specific events. Others are broad and leave the brand wide discretion to judge what counts as damage to its reputation.

The player's side usually tries to narrow these clauses. Typical aims are an objective test instead of the brand's own judgement, a chance to respond before termination, and the keeping of payments already earned. How the clause is drafted therefore decides whether a brand can leave cleanly or faces a dispute over compensation.

Territory matters too. A brand selling mainly in one country judges reputational risk by the views of that market's consumers and regulators. A remark that causes little reaction in one country can make an association commercially impossible in another. Clauses are drafted with that in mind, and brands working in politically sensitive markets tend to want broader protection.

Image rights and the player–club division

Professional footballers sell their image commercially through two channels. The first is the club. Under his employment contract, a player usually agrees to appear in club marketing, team photographs and campaigns for the club's own sponsors. The second is personal. The player keeps some freedom to sign his own deals with brands, within limits set by the club contract.

How these rights are divided is a regular part of contract negotiations. Some clubs take a share of a player's individual image income. Others leave most of it with the player and limit only deals that clash with club sponsors, for example a personal boot or kit deal that competes with the club's suppliers. The exact split for any particular player is a private matter unless it has been officially disclosed. The terms of Mbappé's arrangement with Real Madrid are not part of the material reported here.

This division explains why brands leaving a player do not, in themselves, change his status at his club. His registration, his employment contract and his eligibility to play all sit within the regulatory system run by the club, the league and the national and international governing bodies. Endorsements sit outside it. A brand can walk away without any effect on the player's football contract, and the player can lose sponsorship income while his club salary stays as it was.

The link runs in one direction during negotiations, though. When a club signs a player, his wider commercial appeal can affect how both sides value the move, especially where the club expects to take some of the image income. A sudden loss of personal deals in one market can therefore matter to everyone who has a stake in his commercial rights.

China as a commercial market for European football

For years, leading European clubs and players have treated China as an important commercial territory. Pre-season tours, regional sponsorship categories, digital content made for local platforms and individual endorsements have all been part of that effort. Brands there use well-known foreign footballers because of their fame with local audiences, not because of any sporting tie to the country.

That brings a particular exposure. The value an endorsement adds depends on how consumers in that market see the player. Political and historical subjects that are sensitive in China can change that view quickly, and brands there have generally reacted fast when a foreign public figure is seen to have crossed such a line. For the brand, ending the deal is a way to limit risk to its own reputation. For the player, the result is the loss of income from a single territory, which may be large even though it has nothing to do with his football.

This volatility is part of what any player and his representatives accept when they build a global endorsement portfolio. Wider international reach brings more income and also more sets of local sensitivities to manage.

What the withdrawals reveal about a player's commercial value

Taken together, these points show that a modern footballer's value is not one figure set by his club contract or by the transfer market. It is spread across several separate legal relationships: an employment contract governed by football's regulations, an image rights arrangement agreed with the club, and a set of private endorsement contracts, each with its own territory, term and termination rights.

Those relationships respond to different pressures. The football contract is protected by regulations that make ending it difficult and expensive. Endorsement contracts are deliberately more fragile, because brands pay for an association they can drop if it becomes a liability. This difference is why a player can face major commercial consequences in one market while nothing about his sporting position changes.

For squad building and contract negotiations, the practical lesson concerns how risk is shared. Clubs that take a share of image income share in commercial upside and also in exposure to events like this. Players who keep their image rights carry that risk themselves. How the split is set, and how reputation clauses are drafted in each personal deal, decides who bears the cost when a market turns away from a player.

Sources and further reading

• ESPN: the original report on Chinese companies ending their ties with Kylian Mbappé after his comments.
• FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players: background on how player employment contracts and registration are governed.
• Sports law commentary on image rights: general analysis of how image rights are divided between players and clubs.
• Sports business and sponsorship industry analysis: background on reputation clauses and how brands manage risk in endorsement deals.