Posts
The Asian Extraction Model
How FIFA Profits From Asia While Players Get Nothing
Who Owns The Game? – Part 9 | February 16, 2026
Parts 0-8: The U.S. model (NFL, copyright law, why athletes don't own their performances)
Part 9: The Asian Extraction Model ← YOU ARE HERE
Coming: The Bundesliga Exception, The Global Scorecard
After publishing the 8-part "Who Owns The Game?" investigation into U.S. sports IP rights, we started getting significant international traffic—particularly from Vietnam, China, Southeast Asia, and Germany. Readers in these regions were asking: "Does this apply to our leagues too?"
The answer: Yes. And often it's worse.
So we're expanding the series to cover how athlete IP rights work (or don't work) globally. Same investigative model. Same human/AI collaboration. Same transparency. But now examining: How does FIFA extract value from Asian markets? Why do German players have protections American athletes don't? Who owns the game in Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam, Thailand?
This isn't about becoming "experts" on international sports. It's about blazing trails—showing that rigorous, sourced, collaborative investigation can reveal patterns of extraction across every sports market in the world.
Let's go. 🔥
The Money: How Much FIFA Earns From Asia
Let's start with the numbers.
FIFA's 2023-2026 revenue cycle (which includes the 2022 Qatar World Cup and 2026 World Cup) is projected at $11 billion. A significant portion comes from Asian broadcasting rights.
Breakdown of FIFA's Asian media rights deals:
China: FIFA sold Chinese media rights for the 2022 World Cup to a consortium including CCTV (state broadcaster) and digital platforms. Estimated value: $400-500 million for the tournament alone. Over the full 2023-2026 cycle (including qualifiers, other FIFA competitions), estimated at $700 million - $1 billion.
Japan: NHK (public broadcaster) and commercial networks pay FIFA for World Cup and FIFA competition rights. Estimated: $200-300 million per four-year cycle.
South Korea: Similar structure to Japan (mix of public and commercial broadcasters). Estimated: $150-200 million per cycle.
Southeast Asia (Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia combined): Rights sold regionally, often through intermediaries. Estimated: $300-500 million per cycle.
India and South Asia: Growing market. Estimated: $100-200 million per cycle.
Total estimated Asian broadcasting revenue for FIFA (2023-2026 cycle): $1.5 billion - $2.2 billion
This is 14-20% of FIFA's total revenue—from a region where the governing body invests relatively little in grassroots development compared to Europe or South America.
Players' share of this revenue: $0 in direct compensation for footage reuse.
CHINA:
• CCTV + digital platforms
• Estimated: $700M - $1B (4-year cycle)
• Includes World Cup, qualifiers, FIFA competitions
JAPAN:
• NHK + commercial networks
• Estimated: $200M - $300M
SOUTH KOREA:
• Public + commercial broadcasters
• Estimated: $150M - $200M
SOUTHEAST ASIA (Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia):
• Regional rights bundles
• Estimated: $300M - $500M
INDIA & SOUTH ASIA:
• Growing market
• Estimated: $100M - $200M
TOTAL ASIAN BROADCASTING REVENUE:
$1.5 billion - $2.2 billion (14-20% of FIFA's total revenue)
PLAYERS' SHARE OF FOOTAGE REUSE REVENUE:
$0
FIFA keeps it all. Broadcasters pay FIFA, not players. Same model as NFL, same result.
The Leagues: How Asian Football Works
To understand why Asian players have zero image rights, we need to understand how Asian leagues operate.
Chinese Super League (CSL)
The CSL exploded in the mid-2010s when Chinese clubs—backed by state-owned enterprises and wealthy businessmen with government connections—started paying European stars enormous salaries to relocate.
Examples:
- Oscar (Brazilian midfielder): Moved from Chelsea to Shanghai SIPG for £60 million transfer fee + £400,000/week salary (2017)
- Carlos Tevez (Argentine striker): Moved to Shanghai Shenhua for reported £615,000/week (2017)
- Hulk, Paulinho, and others: Multi-million-dollar deals to play in China
The Chinese government backed this spending as part of a broader strategy to develop Chinese football and raise the sport's profile domestically.
But by 2020, the bubble burst. The government imposed salary caps, restricted foreign player signings, and several clubs went bankrupt. The CSL's spending spree collapsed.
Player IP rights during this period: Zero.
Despite earning enormous salaries, CSL players had no image rights protections. Contracts were structured as pure employment agreements—salary for playing, nothing more. When highlights were rebroadcast, when footage was licensed internationally, when documentary filmmakers used CSL games in productions, players received no additional compensation.
Why? Chinese labor law does not recognize image rights as a distinct form of property (unlike European civil law). And CSL players—both foreign and domestic—had no collective bargaining power to demand them.
J-League (Japan)
Japan's J-League, founded in 1993, is one of Asia's most established professional leagues. It's produced world-class players like Hidetoshi Nakata, Shinji Kagawa, and Takefusa Kubo.
The league is well-run, financially stable, and culturally significant in Japan. But players have minimal image rights protections.
Japanese law does recognize publicity rights (the right to control commercial use of one's image), rooted in Article 709 of the Civil Code (protection of personal rights). But these rights are weaker than European image rights and don't typically extend to footage owned by broadcasters.
When NHK or commercial networks rebroadcast J-League highlights, players don't get paid. When J-League footage is licensed to international broadcasters or documentary filmmakers, players don't get paid.
The one exception: individual endorsement deals. Top J-League players (especially those who also play for the national team) can negotiate sponsorship deals with companies like Adidas, Mizuno, or Asics. But this is separate from broadcast/footage rights—it's traditional endorsement income.
For footage reuse? $0.
K-League (South Korea)
South Korea's K-League has a similar structure to the J-League. Established in 1983, it's produced stars like Son Heung-min, Park Ji-sung, and Cha Bum-kun.
South Korean players have successfully sued broadcasters in some cases (as we noted in Part 7), but these were exceptional cases involving commercial repackaging of footage beyond the original journalistic purpose.
For standard broadcast and highlight use? Players have no rights and receive no compensation.
Southeast Asian Leagues (Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines)
Southeast Asian football is growing rapidly, driven by passionate fan bases, increasing investment, and improved infrastructure. But player rights remain virtually nonexistent.
Examples:
- Vietnam's V.League: Growing in popularity, but players earn modest salaries (top players make $50,000-$200,000/year—far below European or even Chinese levels). No image rights provisions in contracts.
- Thailand's Thai League: Backed by wealthy Thai businessmen and some foreign investment. Players earn more than Vietnam but still have zero image rights protections.
- Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia: Similar story—growing leagues, passionate fans, zero player IP rights.
The pattern across Southeast Asia: leagues are developing, investment is increasing, but players are treated as pure labor—paid a salary, given no ownership stake in their image or performance footage.
CHINESE SUPER LEAGUE (CSL):
• 2015-2020: Massive spending ($60M transfers, £400K/week salaries)
• 2020+: Government-imposed caps, bankruptcies, collapse
• Player image rights: ZERO (Chinese law doesn't recognize image rights as property)
• Footage reuse compensation: $0
J-LEAGUE (JAPAN):
• Established 1993, financially stable, culturally significant
• Japanese law recognizes publicity rights (Civil Code Art. 709)
• But publicity rights don't extend to broadcaster-owned footage
• Players get endorsement deals (separate from footage rights)
• Footage reuse compensation: $0
K-LEAGUE (SOUTH KOREA):
• Established 1983, produced world-class talent
• Some successful lawsuits over commercial repackaging (rare exceptions)
• Standard broadcast/highlight use: no player rights
• Footage reuse compensation: $0
SOUTHEAST ASIA (Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia):
• Growing leagues, passionate fanbases, increasing investment
• Player salaries: $50K-$200K/year (top players)
• Image rights provisions: ZERO
• Footage reuse compensation: $0
THE PATTERN:
Across Asia, players are treated as pure labor. Salary for playing, nothing for image
or footage reuse. Even in the richest Asian leagues (CSL at its peak), zero IP rights.
Why Asian Players Have Even Less Power Than American Athletes
We've established that American athletes have weak IP protections (no residuals, no image rights fees, copyright preempts publicity rights). But Asian players have it worse. Here's why:
1. Weaker (or Nonexistent) Legal Frameworks for Image Rights
European countries recognize image rights as property under civil law. The U.S. has state-level publicity rights (though preempted by copyright in sports contexts).
Most Asian countries have weaker or nonexistent legal frameworks:
- China: No recognition of image rights as distinct property. Personal rights exist under Civil Code, but they're limited and don't create commercial licensing rights.
- Japan: Publicity rights exist (Article 709), but they're weaker than European image rights and don't typically survive when footage is owned by broadcasters.
- South Korea: Similar to Japan—some publicity rights, but limited application to broadcast footage.
- Southeast Asia: Varies by country, but generally minimal legal recognition of image rights.
Without a strong legal foundation, players have no basis to demand image rights fees in contracts.
2. No Effective Players' Unions
The NFLPA is weak compared to European football unions, but it's far stronger than most Asian players' unions.
Examples:
- China: The Chinese Football Association Players' Union exists, but it's closely aligned with government interests and has minimal independence. Chinese labor law restricts independent union organizing.
- Japan: J-League players have an association, but it focuses on working conditions and career transition support—not IP rights or residuals.
- South Korea: Similar to Japan—players' association exists but has limited bargaining power.
- Southeast Asia: Most countries have no effective players' unions at all.
Without strong unions, players can't collectively bargain for image rights or footage residuals.
3. Short Career Windows + Economic Pressure
Asian players face the same short-career problem as American athletes, but with less financial security.
NFL players earn millions even if their careers are short (3.3 years average). They can afford to walk away if contract terms are unfavorable.
Most Asian players earn far less:
- J-League average salary: ~$200,000-$300,000/year (far below European leagues)
- K-League average salary: ~$100,000-$200,000/year
- CSL (post-cap era): ~$300,000-$500,000/year for good players
- Southeast Asian leagues: $20,000-$100,000/year
Players can't afford to hold out for better contract terms when their earning window is 5-10 years and their alternative is far lower-paying work.
4. Cultural Deference to Authority
This is harder to quantify, but it matters: many Asian cultures emphasize respect for hierarchy and institutional authority.
Challenging a league, a club owner, or a broadcaster is culturally riskier in many Asian countries than in Europe or the U.S. Players who demand image rights or residuals might be seen as greedy, disrespectful, or disruptive.
This isn't universal (South Korean players have sued broadcasters, Japanese players have pushed for better working conditions), but it's a factor that reduces player leverage.
5. FIFA and AFC Don't Require Player Protections
FIFA sets rules for international football, but it doesn't mandate that national leagues provide image rights protections to players.
The Asian Football Confederation (AFC)—FIFA's regional body for Asia—similarly has no requirements for player IP rights.
So Asian leagues can structure contracts however they want, and there's no international oversight forcing them to compensate players for footage reuse.
1. WEAKER LEGAL FRAMEWORKS
• China: No image rights as property
• Japan/South Korea: Limited publicity rights, don't extend to broadcaster-owned footage
• Southeast Asia: Minimal legal recognition
• Result: No legal basis to demand image rights fees
2. NO EFFECTIVE UNIONS
• China: Government-aligned union, minimal independence
• Japan/South Korea: Associations exist but focus on working conditions, not IP
• Southeast Asia: No effective unions
• Result: No collective bargaining for residuals or image rights
3. LOWER SALARIES = LESS LEVERAGE
• J-League: $200K-$300K/year average
• K-League: $100K-$200K/year
• Southeast Asia: $20K-$100K/year
• Short careers + low pay = can't afford to hold out for better terms
4. CULTURAL FACTORS
• Challenging authority culturally riskier in many Asian countries
• Players who demand image rights seen as greedy/disrespectful
• Not universal, but reduces leverage
5. NO FIFA/AFC MANDATES
• FIFA doesn't require national leagues to provide player IP protections
• AFC (Asian Football Confederation) has no image rights requirements
• Leagues can structure contracts however they want
RESULT:
Asian players have weaker legal protections, less union power, lower salaries, and
less cultural space to demand change. Even worse off than American athletes.
The Saudi Factor: How Middle Eastern Money Changes the Game (But Not for Players)
We can't talk about Asian football without addressing the elephant in the room: Saudi Arabia's massive investment in football, both regionally and globally.
Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) has spent billions to:
- Build the Saudi Pro League into a destination for European stars (Cristiano Ronaldo, Karim Benzema, N'Golo Kanté, and others moved to Saudi clubs for enormous salaries in 2023-2024)
- Invest in European clubs (Newcastle United purchased by PIF-backed consortium)
- Sponsor FIFA competitions (Saudi Aramco is a major FIFA sponsor)
- Host the 2034 FIFA World Cup (awarded to Saudi Arabia in 2023)
This spending has ripple effects across Asia:
1. It raises salary expectations. When Ronaldo earns a reported $200+ million/year in Saudi Arabia, it creates upward pressure on salaries across the region (though most Asian leagues can't match Saudi spending).
2. It doesn't create player IP rights. Despite the massive salaries, Saudi Pro League contracts are structured the same way as CSL or J-League contracts: salary for playing, zero image rights fees, zero footage residuals.
3. It strengthens the extraction model. Saudi investment reinforces the idea that football is about paying stars enormous salaries while retaining total control over footage, highlights, and commercial rights. Players get cash up front; leagues/owners keep the IP forever.
So Saudi money changes the financial scale of Asian football, but it doesn't change the fundamental structure: players are paid labor, not IP owners.
What Asian Players Could Demand (But Won't Get)
If Asian players had the leverage and legal framework to demand fair compensation, what would it look like?
Option 1: Image Rights Fees (European Model)
Players could negotiate contracts that include:
- Salary: Payment for playing
- Image rights fees: Payment for the club's/league's right to use the player's image in broadcasts, marketing, and merchandise
For a top J-League or K-League player earning $300,000/year, adding 20-30% in image rights fees would mean an additional $60,000-$90,000/year. For CSL stars (before the cap), it could have meant millions.
Option 2: Residuals for Footage Reuse (Actor Model)
Leagues and broadcasters could pay players residuals every time highlights or archival footage is rebroadcast or licensed.
If FIFA's Asian broadcasting revenue ($1.5-2.2 billion per cycle) included a 10-20% residual pool for players, that would be $150-440 million distributed to players over four years—or $37-110 million per year split among thousands of players who appeared in FIFA competitions.
Option 3: Collective Licensing (Like Madden)
Asian leagues could create group licensing programs similar to the NFLPA's deal with EA Sports. Broadcasters and documentary filmmakers would pay a collective fee to use player likenesses, distributed to players based on appearances and playing time.
Why none of this will happen:
- Players lack legal rights to demand it (most Asian countries don't recognize image rights as property)
- Unions are too weak to negotiate it
- FIFA and AFC don't require it
- Leagues and broadcasters have no incentive to voluntarily share revenue
So the extraction continues.
OPTION 1: IMAGE RIGHTS FEES (EUROPEAN MODEL)
• Contracts include: Salary + image rights fees (20-30% of total comp)
• Example: J-League player earning $300K/year + $60K-$90K image rights = $360K-$390K total
• Why it won't happen: Asian law doesn't recognize image rights as property, unions too weak
OPTION 2: RESIDUALS FOR FOOTAGE REUSE (ACTOR MODEL)
• FIFA's Asian broadcasting revenue: $1.5B-$2.2B per cycle
• If 10-20% went to players as residuals: $150M-$440M over 4 years
• $37M-$110M/year distributed to players based on appearances
• Why it won't happen: No legal framework, FIFA won't voluntarily share, players can't force it
OPTION 3: COLLECTIVE LICENSING (LIKE MADDEN)
• Broadcasters/docs pay collective fee to use player likenesses
• Distributed to players based on playing time, appearances
• Example: EA pays NFLPA $228M/year for Madden; Asian leagues could create similar model
• Why it won't happen: Requires strong union + legal framework Asian players don't have
REALITY:
None of these will happen. Players lack legal rights, union power, and leverage to demand
fair compensation. Extraction continues. Forever.
The Uncomfortable Pattern
Across this series, we've now documented the same extraction model in:
- The United States (NFL earns $2-3B/year from footage, players get $0)
- FIFA globally ($11B revenue, 96.8% kept by FIFA, 3.2% to clubs/players)
- Asia ($1.5-2.2B in FIFA broadcasting rights + domestic league revenue, players get salary only)
The pattern is universal:
- Players create the performances that generate value
- Leagues/governing bodies own the footage (via copyright or contractual control)
- Broadcasters pay leagues for rights, leagues keep the money
- Players get salaries (one-time payment for labor) but zero ongoing compensation for footage reuse
- Legal frameworks and weak unions prevent players from challenging the arrangement
This isn't unique to the NFL. It's not unique to FIFA. It's the global business model for sports.
And it works because players—everywhere—are defined as labor, not creators. They're paid to perform, not to own what they create.
The question we started with was: "Who owns the game?"
The answer, across every continent: Not the people who play it.
Next in this series: The Bundesliga Exception—how German labor law gives European players protections Asian and American athletes can only dream of. And why that model will never spread beyond Europe.
RESEARCH APPROACH:
Randy directed expansion: "Our international readers (Vietnam, China, Southeast Asia) are asking if this applies to their leagues. Let's find out." Claude researched Asian football structures (CSL, J-League, K-League, Southeast Asian leagues), FIFA's Asian broadcasting revenue (estimated from public deals and sports business reporting), legal frameworks for image rights in China/Japan/South Korea/Southeast Asia, players' union structures and effectiveness, Saudi Pro League investment and its regional effects, and comparative salary data across Asian leagues.
FINDINGS:
• FIFA earns $1.5B-$2.2B from Asian broadcasting (14-20% of total revenue)
• Players across Asian leagues get $0 from footage reuse (same as NFL/FIFA pattern)
• Asian players have weaker legal protections than American athletes:
→ China: No image rights as property
→ Japan/South Korea: Limited publicity rights, don't extend to broadcaster-owned footage
→ Southeast Asia: Minimal legal recognition
• Unions weaker or nonexistent (China government-aligned, Japan/Korea limited, SEA none)
• Lower salaries = less leverage (J-League $200K-$300K avg, SEA $20K-$100K)
• Saudi investment raises salaries but doesn't create player IP rights
• Result: Same extraction model globally—players paid once (salary), leagues profit forever (footage)
WHAT THIS MEANS:
The "Who Owns The Game?" question isn't U.S.-specific. It's global. Asian players have it worse than American athletes (weaker laws, weaker unions, lower pay, less leverage). The extraction model is universal: players create value, leagues own it, legal/economic structures prevent reform. This isn't accident—it's design.
NEXT IN SERIES:
Part 10 examines the exception: Why German players negotiate image rights fees (20-40% of comp), how German labor law creates player power, and why this model works in Europe but won't spread to U.S. or Asia. The Bundesliga Exception.
Sources: FIFA broadcasting revenue estimates (sports business publications, public contract reporting); Asian league salary data (Transfermarkt, football finance reports); Chinese/Japanese/South Korean IP law (Civil Code provisions, legal analysis); players' union structures (public organization documents, sports labor reporting); Saudi Pro League investment (PIF disclosures, transfer reporting). All estimates clearly labeled. Full citations available on request.
Thank you for reading. We're blazing this trail together—human and AI, transparently and rigorously.
— Randy & Claude, February 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment