Sports Bill 2026 sponsorship provisions are set to change how sponsorship, merchandising and media rights deals in Kenyan sport get built. Until now, they have relied on a patchwork of contract clauses standing in for a right that does not yet exist in statute. The draft Sports Bill, 2026 would change that foundation. For anyone currently negotiating, or sitting inside, a sponsorship, merchandising or broadcast agreement involving Kenyan athletes or clubs, the practical question is not whether the law might change, but which clauses in existing contracts were drafted to work around a gap the Bill is designed to close.
The gap that today’s contracts are built to fill
Because Kenya has no standalone image right, sponsorship agreements typically do a great deal of work that a statutory right would otherwise do automatically. Warranties that the athlete has authority to grant image rights, indemnities against third party claims, and detailed definitions of what counts as “commercial use” all exist, in part, to substitute for a right the law does not yet confer. Once Section 95 of the draft Bill takes effect, conferring on every sports person a direct right to control the commercial use of their name, image and likeness, some of that contractual scaffolding becomes reinforcement rather than substitute, and some of it may need to be renegotiated to reflect a different starting position.
Sports Bill 2026 sponsorship agreements
Sponsorship contracts should be reviewed for how they define the scope of image rights granted, whether that grant is exclusive, and what happens if the athlete’s statutory rights are later found to exceed what the contract assumed. A sponsor that negotiated broad, perpetual image rights on the basis that no competing statutory right existed may find that assumption tested once Section 95 is in force. Term length, territorial scope and the treatment of image use after a sponsorship ends are all areas where a statutory right could shift the balance of negotiating leverage toward the athlete.
Merchandising arrangements
Merchandising raises a related but distinct issue: who has authority to license an athlete’s name or image onto physical products, and on what terms. Clubs and federations that currently rely on player contracts, appearance agreements or federation rules to justify merchandising activity should check whether those instruments actually address image rights with the specificity a statutory regime would expect. Section 97 of the draft Bill, which would require commercial sports organisations to operate through recognised legal structures and obtain accreditation, also has implications here: a merchandising arrangement structured through an unaccredited entity could face a different legal footing once that framework is in force.
Media rights and broadcasting
Section 96 of the draft Bill expressly promotes the commercialisation of sport through media rights, among other channels. Broadcasters negotiating long-term rights deals with Kenyan federations or clubs should consider how a statutory image right for individual athletes interacts with collectively negotiated broadcast rights. Where broadcast footage incidentally features identifiable athletes in ways that go beyond match coverage, for example in promotional material built around a particular player, the distinction between broadcasting a competition and commercially exploiting an individual’s image becomes more legally significant once Section 95 applies.
Enforcement and dispute resolution clauses
A statutory right changes not only who holds an entitlement, but how a dispute over it is likely to be resolved. Where a claim currently has to be built from contract, trade mark or passing off principles, each with its own procedural rules and forum, a direct statutory right under Section 95 would give an athlete a clearer, more direct cause of action against unauthorised commercial use. Contracts that currently route image rights disputes through general commercial arbitration or the ordinary courts should be reviewed to confirm that dispute resolution clauses are broad enough to capture claims arising under a future statutory right, rather than only the narrower contractual claims they were originally drafted to cover.
What to do while the Bill remains in draft
The draft Sports Bill, 2026 has not been introduced in the National Assembly and remains a ministerial taskforce document, so nothing in it is binding yet. That said, contracts being signed today with multi-year terms will likely still be running once, if, the Bill is enacted. It is more efficient to build flexibility into new agreements now, through review clauses or defined renegotiation triggers tied to changes in Kenyan law, than to renegotiate every active sponsorship, merchandising and media rights contract at the point of enactment. Parties with agreements already in place should at minimum map which contracts contain image rights provisions that assume the current, fragmented legal position, so that a future change in law does not arrive as a surprise.
How We Can Help
Clay & Associates Advocates reviews and drafts sponsorship, merchandising and media rights agreements for athletes, clubs, federations, sponsors and broadcasters operating in Kenya, with particular attention to how emerging image rights legislation could affect existing and future arrangements. Contact our Intellectual Property team to have your current contracts reviewed against the draft Sports Bill, 2026.
Sources: draft Sports Bill, 2026 (Ministry of Youth Affairs, Creative Economy and Sports, prepared by ministerial taskforce), sections 95 to 97. See also our overview of the Bill’s new statutory image right.
Frequently asked questions
Do I need to renegotiate existing sponsorship contracts now?
Not necessarily. The draft Bill has not been introduced in the National Assembly. It is more useful at this stage to identify which existing contracts rely on assumptions the Bill could change, so you are ready to act once its status advances.
Will Section 95 override existing contractual image rights clauses?
It would not automatically void existing agreements, but it would give athletes a statutory right that sits alongside those contracts. Clauses that assumed no such right existed may need to be interpreted, or renegotiated, in that new light.
Does the accreditation requirement in Section 97 affect merchandising deals already in place?
It could, particularly where merchandising is structured through an entity that would not qualify as an accredited commercial sports organisation under the framework the draft Bill proposes. This is worth reviewing before the framework takes effect.
How does this affect broadcasters rather than sponsors?
Broadcast rights are generally negotiated collectively with a federation or club, but promotional material that commercially exploits an individual athlete’s image sits closer to the personal right Section 95 would create, and broadcasters should distinguish between the two in their contracts.
