TLDR: Cole Palmer didn't just trademark a shiver—he built a governance framework around viral moment monetisation. His move protects "Cold Palmer" across merchandise, games, and licensing whilst forcing clearer contracting between players, clubs, and commercial partners. The lesson? Structure your IP early, or watch someone else cash in on your brand.
Field Vision X Goal Assist Partnership
Whether you’re building a career, growing a business, or offering a service to clubs, your income is tied to your access, relationships and Visibility.
Hello, Hi Visionaries!
Let's talk about Cole Palmer turning a celebration into a commercial asset and why this matters for anyone working in sports governance, brand partnerships, or player IP.
Palmer's "Cold Palmer" trademark isn't about ego. It's about revenue capture, governance clarity, and long-tail monetisation. And if you're advising clubs, players, or brands, you need to understand the mechanics behind this because it's the future of player IP.
What a Trademark Actually Gives Palmer
A registered trademark is a commercial rights tool, not a "nobody else can do this ever" blanket ban.
It gives Palmer (or more accurately, his image rights company) the right to stop others using the same or similar sign in the course of trade for registered goods and services like clothing, toys, media, and games. That phrase "in the course of trade" is critical.
So here's what it means practically:
Fans wearing homemade "Cold Palmer" signs at Stamford Bridge? Not in trade → usually fine.
A third-party brand flogging "Cold Palmer" hoodies on Instagram? This is trademark territory → Palmer can demand takedowns, licensing fees, or legal action.
What's Actually Protected (The IP Bundle)
Palmer's filings aren't just a logo. They're a structured brand portfolio that includes:
Word marks (e.g., "COLD PALMER" as a brand name)
Name and signature
Portrait/likeness-type marks
Motion mark (the celebration itself, registered as a video sequence)
This matters because player IP in the real world isn't one thing, it's a bundle comprising:
Trade marks (brands, logos, names, slogans, motions)
Contractual image rights (licensing via player companies/agents/club arrangements)
Copyright and design rights (original artwork, graphic designs)
Reputation/passing off (UK common law protection against misrepresentation)
Trademarks are operationally the most useful because they're clear, registrable, and enforceable in merchandise and licensing contexts.
Does He "Own" the Celebration?
Not in the way people assume.
A celebration trademark, especially a motion mark, is mainly about stopping commercial exploitation of that distinctive sign. For example:
Branding a clothing line with the motion
Using it in advertisements
Putting it into paid media or promotions
Licensing it for games and entertainment
It generally does not mean:
He can stop other players doing something similar on the pitch (that's not commercial use and would be borderline impossible to police anyway)
So it's less "you can't copy my celebration" and more "you can't monetise my celebration without permission."
Historical Precedent: From Gazza to Griezmann
This isn't new—it's just better executed.
Paul Gascoigne's "dentist chair" celebration (Euro '96) was never formally protected. Result? Anyone could monetise it.
Antoine Griezmann's "Take the L" Fortnite emote led to a legal dispute about whether Epic Games owed him for commercialising his dance. (Spoiler: messy, and largely came down to who structured IP rights properly.)
Cristiano Ronaldo's "Sii" jump became globally iconic but wasn't comprehensively trademarked early enough—leaving licensing leverage on the table.
Palmer's team has learnt from these cases. They've filed early, filed broadly, and created enforceable commercial boundaries before third parties could stake claims.
What This Means for Different Stakeholders
Think in categories:
A) Other Players Doing the Celebration
Usually fine (not commercial trademark use). It might annoy Palmer culturally, but it's not the legal battleground.
B) Clubs, Broadcasters, Sponsors
This is where it gets interesting.
If a club or sponsor uses Cold Palmer branding (or the celebration mark) in:
Official merchandise
Marketing campaigns
Brand collaborations
Monetised content
…then it becomes a licensing conversation rather than "free marketing." This forces better governance around who owns what, who gets paid, and how conflicts with existing club or league sponsors are managed.
C) Video Games and Collectibles
This is the real monetisation engine.
If EA Sports FC wants to include the "Cold Palmer" celebration as a selectable, branded asset, especially in Ultimate Team, that may require direct licensing from Palmer's image rights company, separate from standard FIFPro or league licences.
Why? Because the celebration isn't just player likeness anymore. It's a discrete, monetisable game asset that can be:
Unlocked via packs
Marketed as signature content
Sold as cosmetic DLC
This mirrors how NBA 2K handles signature animations and how Fortnite licenses emotes. Football is catching up.
A Realistic Licensing Structure (EA Sports FC Example)
Let's say EA wants "Cold Palmer" in FC 26. Here's how the deal might look:
Option A: One-Off Buyout
Fixed fee (£50k–£250k depending on prominence, marketing usage, exclusivity)
Use for one game cycle
Renewal required for future versions
Option B: Annual Licence + Renewals
£75k base licence
+£25k if used in marketing materials
Escalators if Palmer's rating increases or Ultimate Team usage exceeds thresholds
1–3% of net revenue attributable to the celebration
Or milestone payments (e.g., 1m unlocks = £X, 5m unlocks = £Y)
This isn't hypothetical. It's how you can set up signature content licensing across gaming. Football has just been slower to adopt it.
Could Palmer's Club Restrict the Celebration?
In theory, yes. In practice, it's nuanced.
Standard player contracts usually cover:
Image rights exploitation
Use of player likeness in club marketing
Media obligations
Sponsorship conflicts
What clubs usually do not do:
Ban celebrations outright
Claim ownership of spontaneous player IP
Where it could get contractual is if Palmer tried to monetise the celebration during matches in a way that:
Conflicts with club sponsors (e.g., celebration linked to a rival brand), or
Implies a personal brand deal on the pitch
But simply doing the celebration is usually treated as sporting expression, not IP exploitation. Clubs benefit from viral moments too and banning them would be commercially and culturally damaging.
The real leverage point is off-pitch monetisation, not the act itself.
The Governance!
What Palmer has done is smart, early-stage brand governance:
On-pitch celebration → cultural signal
Trademark → commercial perimeter
Image rights → endorsement control
Club contract → boundary management
He's effectively said: "This belongs to me commercially, even if it lives in public culture."
For brands, clubs, and investors, the lesson is simple:
Virality creates IP
IP without structure leaks value
Structure without clarity creates disputes
This is why governance matters. Not because it's bureaucratic box-ticking, but because it determines who captures the upside when a moment becomes more.
And if you're building player IP frameworks, advising on brand partnerships, or structuring club contracts, this is a starting point. Protect the asset early. Define the boundaries clearly. Monetise strategically.
What's Next?
Palmer isn't monetising a goal. He's monetising repeatable digital behaviour and that's the future of player IP. Celebrations, gestures, poses, emotes, animations.
If you're working in sports governance, brand strategy, or commercial partnerships, the question isn't whether player IP will become more structured. It's whether you'll be ahead of it or scrambling to catch up.
This newsletter is for informational purposes only and is not financial or business advice in any capacity. The information shared is our thoughts & opinions and does not represent the opinions of any other person, business, entity, or sponsor. The contents of this newsletter also should not be used in any public or private domain without the authors express permission.