The last issue looked at how athletes have become media channels in their own right, running the content half of a media business. This month goes underneath that content, to the signal it produces, and asks a narrower question. When an audience tells an athlete exactly who it is, who is actually listening?

What follows is not a case against platforms. They are the most effective discovery engine sport has ever had, and they now hand athletes considerably more than reach. It is a closer look at what that signal is worth, who currently holds it, and how much of it the people who generate it never see.

Thomas

ATHLETES ARE SITTING ON GOLD THEY NEVER BOTHER TO MINE

Someone else already is.

Some years ago, while I was at Adidas, one of the most recognisable Olympic athletes in the world was in the middle of a personal scandal. The juicy details were everywhere. The gossip press was running them daily, and many of the scandalous details were largely invented. The instinct in the room was the familiar one. Do not rub the stain. Say nothing. Wait for it to pass. Do not feed the story.

The agent wanted silence. The athlete wanted to speak out, and correct a narrative that was hardening around things that had not actually happened. The athlete made the call, as the athlete always does, and spoke plainly, without a media wall in front of them.

What came back was not the thing the silence had been guarding against. It was relief. The audience had been waiting to be trusted with the real version, and when it arrived, they closed around the athlete. The support did not simply return. It deepened. The invented stories lost their oxygen, not because they were rebutted line by line, but because the people who mattered had been handed something truer to hold, and they held it.

The agent and the athlete were reading the same audience and reaching opposite conclusions. The agent saw a crowd to be managed and a risk to be contained. The athlete saw specific people they already understood, and knew, correctly, how those people would respond to vulnerable honesty and a well-meant apology. One of them was reading the audience. The other was reading its size and guarding against commercial risks. That difference has a name.

The exhaust that was the asset

The athlete in that story ran no data operation (very few athletes do). What they had was audience intelligence in its oldest form, a correct read on who was listening, held in instinct rather than in any system. At that moment it was the most valuable asset in the room. It is the same capability that now exists in recorded form, as a body of behaviour almost every athlete produces and almost none keep.

Every time an audience interacts with an athlete, it leaves a record. The follower count measures interest and little else. The signal underneath it is another thing entirely: what this audience responds to, where it is, what it buys, what it cares about enough to act on. Institutions spend heavily to approximate that record. They commission studies, buy panels, and model behaviour they cannot observe directly, because the behaviour they most want to price sits one layer closer to the audience than they can reach. The athlete generates the real thing continuously, as a by-product of showing up, and files it as exhaust. A follower count is a figure athletes and the press are invited to admire. What sits beneath it is a figure someone else is quietly turning into a price. They are not the same asset, and treating them as one is where the problem starts.

The false choice

The industry files audience intelligence as an institutional capability, the thing leagues, clubs, federations, and data companies invest in, and files the platforms as either the threat or the whole answer. Both readings are wrong, and the second is the more expensive. The platform is not the threat. Nothing has ever been better at putting an athlete in front of new people. And it now hands the athlete far more than a crowd.

A second misreading, quieter and more damaging, holds that an athlete who has not built a database is doing it wrong. Messi, LeBron, Ronaldo and Serena Williams are the standing refutation. Each built enormous commercial value without running a first-party data operation, and none of them needed one. The Olympic athlete who spoke into their own scandal held nothing more sophisticated than an accurate understanding of their own audience. Ownership is not the price of entry for value. It is the multiplier on value already created, and the insurance underneath it. The mistake is the binary itself, platform against ownership, when the move that holds is platform and ownership together. The platform carries the audience to the door in numbers no athlete could generate alone. What happens once they are through it is a separate question, and it is the one almost nobody is answering.

The word for what closes the gap is not scale. It is contact. Reach is the ability to appear in front of an audience when a system permits it. Contact is the ability to reach the people who have chosen to hear from you. The first is granted, and can be withdrawn. The second is a relationship, and it is the one that goes unbuilt.

Contact matters because of what already sits on the other side of it. The fan feels they know the athlete. The athlete, in most cases, does not know the fan back. That one-way intimacy is the parasocial bond at the base of an athlete’s audience, and it is not a flaw to be fixed. It is the asset. Audience intelligence is the athlete finally reading a relationship the fan has been inside all along.

Who holds the keys

In a direct-to-audience economy, whoever holds the clearest picture of what an audience responds to and will pay for holds the advantage in every commercial conversation. That picture is now being assembled in two places at once, and neither of them is hostile to the athlete.

The first is the platform itself. Meta’s own creator tooling has become more generous than most athletes have noticed. Broadcast channels reach an opted-in audience by direct notification, largely outside the feed algorithm, so that line to the audience depends less on being surfaced by a system the athlete does not control. Subscriptions convert engagement into revenue, and attach a badge that lets an athlete recognise their most committed followers by name. And the audience data these tools generate, who these people are and what they respond to, is shown back to the account owner. It is not generally visible to brands, competitors or potential partners unless the athlete chooses to share it. None of this is ownership. The platform still owns the building and the rules, and can change either. What it hands the athlete is a direct route in, and a dashboard onto the people inside. That is not the same as owning the relationship. But it is far more than reach, and most athletes use neither.

The asymmetry here is strange. The party the platform will show the data to is usually the one that is not looking. The parties studying that audience hardest are the ones the platform will not show it to, so they go and build their own picture instead.

That is the second place the picture gets assembled. Companies whose entire business is data build one from billions of transactions, read the purchase behaviour of an athlete’s audience with a precision the athlete can never match, and sell that reading to the brands sitting across the table from them. The mechanism is easiest to see at the scale of a single moment. When FIFA’s channel posted a Julián Álvarez goal that travelled across the 2026 World Cup, the views and the re-contactable audience it drove went to the channel, not to Álvarez. He generated it. Someone else kept the record of it.

What the record already shows

In August 2025, Serena Williams fronted a campaign for the telehealth company Ro, promoting a GLP-1 weight-loss treatment. The reach was never the interesting part. What is interesting is what got measured afterwards, and by whom. In the same window, the Genius Sports Fan Project, fifth edition, recorded that fans of women’s sport spent 45% more per person than the general population in that category, and that among those who bought, average spend ran 270% higher. The campaign ran, and the spending moved together. The record of exactly how much, and among whom, was captured, quantified and packaged, by a data company, for brands, not by Serena.

The pattern is not confined to one campaign. Across the same body of data, fans of women’s sport were 10x more likely than the general population to buy from an athlete-owned brand, and 87% of those buyers put their spending behind a single athlete’s brand. Concentration is the tell. An audience that spreads its spending thinly is a crowd. An audience that puts it behind one name is a relationship, and a relationship is the thing a contract is meant to price. The data reads the relationship precisely. The athlete, more often than not, is still looking at the crowd. Set against that, a 2025 WSC Sports study found more than half of respondents likely to buy merchandise or tickets through a personalised highlight tied to a favourite player. The behaviour is ready and waiting. The reading of it sits with everyone except the person it describes.

Women’s sport is where the record happens to be cleanest, because someone chose to measure it there first. The mechanism is not particular to it. It is visible from the buy-side too. In PwC’s 2026 Global Sports Survey of 517 executives across 48 countries, 78% expected investors to favour assets with diverse revenue streams beyond media rights, a shift the report itself ties to a sharper focus on owning the relationship with the fan. The people buying sport have already worked out where the value is moving. It is the people generating it who have not all noticed yet.

The price of not reading it

An athlete who accumulates a following without ever reading the signal underneath it is building an asset they cannot value, cannot defend in a negotiation, and cannot activate on their own terms. The exposure is real. The understanding of it is not.

The cost shows up in the room. When a brand knows more about an athlete’s audience than the athlete or their agent does, the athlete is negotiating blind against a counterparty holding the map. And it is rarely just one map. The same brands and rightsholders arrive with a compiled record of the athlete too, the performance history, the social data, the years of press, assembled into a valuation the athlete has never seen and cannot check. What an athlete is worth is being decided from a file they do not hold a copy of.

A second cost is slower to arrive. An athlete who cannot read their own audience cannot tell a deal that fits it from one that does not, until the campaign has run and the response has come back thin. The mismatch was visible in advance to the party holding the data. The athlete learns it in public, at their own expense. An audience read only by others still creates value. The advantage inside it accrues to whoever did the reading.

Who carries this now?

The platform has done what it can: make the audience reachable. It will not do the rest, because the rest was never its job. The institution may read the signal, but it will do so for its own purposes, not on the athlete’s behalf. That leaves the athlete and the people who advise them. Not to build anything elaborate, Serena needs nothing of the kind, but to know what is theirs already, and to decide, deliberately, how much of the relationship to hold rather than rent. The same holds for the record itself. An athlete who begins keeping their own, from today rather than reconstructing it later, stops handing the only copy to everyone else. The Olympic athlete who spoke into their own scandal had that decision made for them by instinct. Most will not be so lucky, and most audiences will not announce themselves so clearly.

Taking greater ownership does not require building a data business. It requires knowing what is already there, keeping a copy of it, and noticing the steady transfer of the rest to whoever asks first. The athletes who notice will not out-reach the ones who do not. They will outlast them. The commercial conversation happening now is already being priced against data the athlete never collected.

If the argument in this issue holds, then the most valuable thing an athlete owns is not the size of the audience in front of them, but the understanding of it that they alone are entitled to and rarely claim. Most people reading this are already sensing the gap. They see it when a brand walks into a negotiation knowing more about an athlete’s audience than the athlete’s own team does. They feel it when a partnership is priced against a picture nobody at the table built.

My work sits at that intersection. I support athletes, brands, federations, and events that need clarity on where the value actually sits, and who is currently holding it, before delay turns a soft advantage into a hard disadvantage. Not by prescribing tactics, but by helping decision-makers see the structure they are already inside.

If this piece surfaced questions you are already working through, you are welcome to continue the conversation privately.

Request a private conversation

What an athlete knows about specific, identifiable fans is business intelligence, and it still mostly goes unmined. That is the subject of “Better understand your audience” in The Athlete Brand Book.

Thomas

Every athlete now has the tools to be their own media company. Almost none of them are running one.

This month’s edition looks at what that gap actually costs. The infrastructure to own a direct relationship with an audience already exists, and platforms are building deliberately toward it. What’s missing isn’t access. It’s a decision: most athletes are publishing without ever deciding what the publishing is for.

What follows is a closer look at the athletes already building something that compounds, and what the rest are leaving on the table.

Thomas

ATHLETES ARE BECOMING MEDIA CHANNELS

Attention is cheap. Ownership is rare.

One in three people who come to Instagram are coming to watch athlete content. One and a half million professional athletes have an Instagram account. Meta itself calls this a billion-user platform built on athlete attention. These are Meta’s own figures, disclosed in December 2025. Athlete content is a main reason people open the app, not a side effect.

By now, almost every professional athlete produces some kind of content. The tools to do it are everywhere. What is missing across most of the 1.5 million accounts Meta counts is any clear idea of what the content is for and, more precisely, who it actually serves. Getting more followers does not automatically create more value. Making more posts doesn’t mean you have a plan. Both are signs of activity without a reason, and at this scale, that lack of direction is one of the biggest sources of unused commercial value in sport.

THE ATHLETE WAS ALWAYS THE SUBJECT

Sport is storytelling. The athlete is the relatable hero, the real, physically tested, high-stakes person around whom almost every story in sport is built. The 2025/26 WSC Sports Fan Engagement Study found that Gen Z fans feel more connected to individual athletes than to the teams they play for, the first generation in the study where that balance has shifted. For decades, the team or league was the stable part of the relationship, and the athlete moved through it, here today, sidelined, injured, transferred, or retired tomorrow. For the youngest fans now joining the audience, the athlete is becoming the stable part, and the team is what changes around them.

This is not only happening in sports. Solo artists increasingly dominate music charts over groups. Gaming audiences watch streamers more than they play the games themselves. In the news, audiences increasingly follow individual reporters over the media corporations they work for. The pattern is the same everywhere: the individual is rising compared to the institution, not because institutions have gotten weaker, but because reaching an audience no longer requires one. What once required a broadcast licence and a production team now requires a phone that every athlete already carries.

For decades, athletes accepted this because there simply wasn’t an alternative. The league owned the rights. The broadcaster owned the distribution. The sponsor owned the campaign. The athlete was the subject and was paid for showing up. That no longer fully holds. The question is no longer whether athletes can own their relationship with their audience. A small group has already shown they can. The question is whether the rest understand what it actually takes to own it.

WHAT THE INDUSTRY KEEPS MISREADING

The common view of athlete content is that it is extra, a social media layer, a behind-the-scenes add-on, something to fill the gap between campaigns. Campaigns have a start and an end. They are priced against a window of exposure and measured when that window closes. That logic worked when the media operation belonged to an institution and the athlete’s role inside it was small and clearly defined. It no longer describes what is happening now.

A media company does not think in campaigns. It thinks in continuity, the same distinction the subtitle of this piece is pointing at: attention is what a campaign buys, ownership is what continuity builds. The goal is not more followers or more posts. Those targets show up in every content brief that treats follower growth as the main measure of success, in every sponsorship deal that prices an athlete by impressions. They are signs of campaign thinking applied to something that is no longer a campaign.

What is changing is not just how much content athletes produce, but who controls it, who benefits from it, and what it can become when it has a real reason to exist. The athlete is no longer only the subject of someone else’s media operation. They can, if they choose, run their own.

WHAT INTENT LOOKS LIKE WHEN IT IS PRESENT

In August 2024, Cristiano Ronaldo launched a YouTube channel called UR. One million subscribers arrived within ninety minutes. Fifty million within seven days, breaking every record the platform had ever recorded. No broadcaster commissioned it. An audience built over two decades was turned into a direct channel the moment he decided it should exist. The tools had always been there. The decision was what had been missing.

Erling Haaland’s YouTube channel, launched in October 2025, shows how that decision pays off over time. His first video, filmed in his kitchen in Cheshire, brought in one million subscribers in thirty-five days. The same footage fed his Instagram Reels at the same time: five Reels in the first half of 2025, nineteen in the second, adding 1.6 million new followers in the first half and 5.5 million in the second, with over 500 million Reels views across the year. He decides what gets made. The platforms simply help it travel further.

US rugby player Ilona Maher knew what she was building before she started. She described her original content strategy for the Tokyo Olympics as a clear business decision aimed at growing women’s rugby. By Paris 2024, she had 8.6 million followers, more than any other rugby player in the world, male or female. House of Maher, the podcast she launched with her sisters in March 2025, is growing with guests who deliberately link sport, lifestyle, and culture. The sponsors came after she built the audience, not before.

Jason and Travis Kelce launched New Heights in 2022 while both were still playing in the NFL. The Amazon Wondery deal signed in August 2024 was reported to be worth $100 million. In August 2025, Taylor Swift chose their show to announce her new album. 9.6 million people watched that episode. The Kelces did not make a podcast. They built a place that other famous people choose because it reaches an audience that no one else does.

What separates these athletes from everyone else using the same tools is not talent or money. Every one of them made an early decision about what the content was for and who it served. That decision is rarer than the tools now available to every creator or competitor.

WHAT THE AUDIENCE IS ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO

The best camera, as the photographer Chase Jarvis once said, is the one you have with you. Haaland proved the same is true for content: no background in filming, no production team, just a willingness to start with the camera already in his pocket. What actually drives engagement is not how polished something looks. It’s how close it feels, the clear sense that this is a real person, talking to you, right now, with nothing standing in between.

The Kelce podcast feels like sitting in the locker room after a game. Maher’s content feels like a message from a friend who happens to be an Olympian, a natural storyteller with a real sense of humour. The personality is genuine. What is not an accident is the decision to put that personality directly in front of an audience, consistently, on her own terms, instead of filtering it through scripted answers. That decision, not the charm itself, is what builds over time.

The same WSC study found that Gen Z fans are 162% more likely than Gen X fans to choose athlete-driven or behind-the-scenes content among the content they watch most. For younger audiences, this is no longer extra; it is one of the main ways they experience sport. A follower count is not the same as reach. It is closer to a list of people who, at some point, said they wanted to hear more from this person. Whether that interest turns into anything real depends on the algorithm showing the content at all, whether the content is worth watching once it does, and whether the relationship carries enough trust for someone to act on it. Trust is the hardest of the three to fake. A post made because a contract requires it and a post made because the athlete actually wanted to make it may look almost the same, but people will still feel the difference.

THE GIDSEL CIRCLE

The clearest example of what it looks like to build something alongside the platforms, not instead of them, is a newsletter in a sport the industry has mostly ignored. Mathias Gidsel is the best handball player in the world, playing a sport without the broadcast machine that surrounds football or basketball. He is active on Instagram, like any top athlete. He also writes a monthly newsletter. The Gidsel Circle reaches over 25,000 subscribers. All of it is his voice, his photos, his words. He started it because he is genuinely grateful for his fans’ support and wanted to give back to the fans and the sport, not a sponsored post, not a content plan handled by someone else.

Every subscriber chose, actively, to be there. They handed over their contact details. They can be reached directly, no matter what any platform’s algorithm decides to show that day. An athlete with 2 million Instagram followers has a bigger number. That does not mean a bigger asset. The 25,000 sought out the relationship on purpose. That match, between what the athlete intended and what the subscriber wanted, is not something any sponsorship deal currently measures. It is what makes this a media business rather than just a content feed, and it sits next to his Instagram presence, not in place of it.

WHAT THE ABSENCE OF OWNERSHIP ACTUALLY COSTS

Every morning, the media company wakes up inside the athlete. Every athlete is already running a content operation. Few have built anything next to it that actually belongs to them. The posting schedule exists. The follower count grows every quarter. None of this is an owned asset in any commercial sense that matters; it is an activity sitting on infrastructure the athlete does not control, run by someone else’s business model.

This is not a complaint about platforms. Meta has openly described its own strategy as deepening the direct connection between athletes and fans, and the tools to do that are already shipping. The opportunity is real and growing. What most athletes are missing is the second layer built on top of it. Rival IQ and Emplifi’s 2025 benchmark data put median organic reach on Instagram at 3% to 5% for brand content and 5% to 12% for athlete and creator accounts. An athlete with 2 million Instagram followers reaches somewhere between 100,000 and 240,000 people without paying for extra reach. The deal was priced at 2 million. That gap is exactly what an owned channel built alongside the platform is meant to close.

WHO OWNS THE OUTCOME

The gap between what gets measured and what actually works is not invisible to the people who sign these deals. It shows up in post-campaign reviews where reach targets were hit, but the response was weak. It shows up in renewals where the numbers look fine, but the relationship feels thinner than before. The numbers show activity. They do not show direction.

What this chapter describes is already happening. Ronaldo, the Kelces, Maher, Gidsel, none of these are exceptions that prove a rule. They are early signs of a shift that is speeding up. The athletes pulling ahead fastest are not the ones who walked away from platforms to build something of their own. They are the ones building both, on purpose, at the same time.

A media operation built entirely on someone else’s infrastructure is not yet a media operation. It is unpaid distribution. The question of what it is all for has not yet been asked at the level of the deal.

It will be.

If the argument in this issue holds, then most athlete media operations are already producing the content. They are just not producing the asset.

Most people reading this are already seeing the gap. They see it in deals priced against a follower count that turns out to reach a fraction of it. They hear it in conversations about why a talented athlete’s commercial value never quite matches their reputation. The instruments report activity. They were never built to report direction.

My work sits at that intersection. I support athletes, agents, rightsholders, and brands who need clarity on what they are actually building, and what it would take to make it last. Not by prescribing tactics, but by helping decision-makers see the structure they are already operating inside.

If this piece surfaced questions you are already working through, you are welcome to continue the conversation privately.

Request a private conversation

If you want the complete framework behind this thinking, the Athlete Brand Book covers owned audience strategy, channel architecture, and direct fan monetisation across 600 pages. It is the system behind the argument. Get the book

Thomas

The previous issue argued that belief, not reach, is what now limits influence. This one looks at where belief actually forms.

It does not form in a crowd. A crowd gathers around a moment, registers as reach, and disperses just as fast. It forms in something slower and harder to count: a community built over time. The industry has spent two decades learning to grow and sell the first. It has built almost nothing to recognise the second.

What follows is not a case against scale. It is a closer look at why a thousand committed fans outperform a million passive ones, and why that gap widens precisely as automated content makes attention cheaper to produce than ever.

Thomas

1,000 TRUE FANS BEAT A MILLION VIEWERS. EVERY TIME.

The Follower Illusion

There is a difference between a crowd and a community. It sounds like a philosophical distinction. In practice, it is a commercial one. A crowd forms around a moment. It arrives fast, registers as reach, and disperses just as fast. A community forms around a person, a cause, or a shared identity. It takes longer to build, is harder to measure, and converts at rates a crowd cannot approach. Most of what the sports industry currently calls “audience” is rarely more than a crowd. The commercial infrastructure has been built to grow it, count it, and sell exposure to it. What it has not been built to do is distinguish a crowd from something worth belonging to. That distinction is now the most commercially consequential gap in athlete brand strategy. And it is widening.

THE LADDER NOBODY READS TO THE TOP

Sports psychologist Daniel Wann spent the 1990s establishing what now reads as obvious: that fan attachment is not binary but varies in intensity, and that the most identified fans behave in measurably different ways from casual ones. I have taken that foundation and reinterpreted it for the way audiences form today. The Fan Involvement Ladder, as I use it, maps nine distinct stages of relationship: from the Suspect, someone who has simply heard of an athlete or asset, through Prospect, Follower, Subscriber, Customer, Client, Member, Advocate, and at the top, the Raving Fan, the person for whom following this athlete is not a fun activity but a defining part of their identity. The Follower and Subscriber rungs are mine, lenses, the original work never needed because the digital relationships they describe did not yet exist. The ladder gets referenced frequently. Its commercial implications are often ignored.

Research consistently shows the top two rungs, Raving Fans and Advocates, account for the majority of direct commercial returns across every sport and athlete category examined. They are also the dominant marketing force for everyone below them on the ladder. They do not need to be acquired through paid channels. They engage, create, recruit, and amplify. They convert the people around them, organically and continuously, without cost to the athlete, club, federation, or event. The bottom seven rungs consume marketing budget. The top two generate it.

Most athletes, and most of the institutions investing in them, are optimising for the bottom of the ladder. Follower counts, impression totals, and reach metrics measure how many people have heard of someone. They say almost nothing about how many people have connected and committed. The distance between a Follower and a Raving Fan is not a matter of degree. It is a structural difference in the nature of the relationship. A Follower has pressed a button. A Raving Fan is committed in ways that can never be purchased.

THE ECONOMICS OF DEPTH

Gen Z fans are 96% more likely than Gen X fans to feel more connected to individual athletes than to the teams they represent, and 25% less likely to feel primary attachment to institutions. The direction of travel is clear: for a growing share of the audience being formed right now, the entry point into a sport is a person rather than a property. The athlete has become the primary gateway into fandom. What this means commercially is that the athlete at the centre of that relationship holds something the institution cannot offer or replicate. The question is whether that relationship is being structured, or left to accumulate by chance, only to dissipate the moment the platform changes its terms.

Kevin Kelly’s 2008 essay on True Fans is widely known, but its implications for athlete valuations are still being underapplied. The argument is not that mass audiences are worthless. It is that 1,000 deeply committed fans, people who purchase consistently, attend events, and recruit others, generate more durable commercial value than audiences ten or fifty times their size that have never moved past passive consumption. Kelly’s original calculation put direct annual spend at $100 per true fan: enough to sustain a creative career without a single institutional deal. At $1,000, it is a substantial business. Mid-tier athletes across disciplines are already building at this level through direct-to-fan e-commerce, coaching access, and community membership. The structural logic does not change with scale.

The athletes who have built the most durable commercial platforms, those whose value has survived performance downturns, platform changes, and career transitions, have done so on the basis of depth rather than breadth. David Beckham is the clearest long-form example: commercial value that continued compounding for decades after peak performance, sustained not by statistics but by an identity deep enough to survive every context it moved through. The following was the visible output. The relationships he built underneath it were the assets.

The useful question is no longer how many people have heard of an athlete. It is how many have made a commitment, and what that commitment is worth per person, per year, over the course of a career, and beyond.

WHAT AUTOMATED CONTENT CHANGES

AI-assisted production has compressed the cost of creating content to near zero. Editing, translation, caption writing, clip selection, and distribution optimisation: tasks that required time, skill, and budget are now largely automated. The result is not that content is better. It is that content is everywhere. The volume of material competing for attention in any given feed has increased faster than any audience’s capacity to process it. In that environment, the filter audiences apply is not quality. It is relationship. Whose content gets opened is determined less by what it contains and more by who sent it.

When production was the bottleneck, the athlete or institution with the best content operation held a structural advantage. When production is automated and universal, the advantage migrates entirely to whoever holds the prior relationship. Content without community behind it is indistinguishable from noise.

That prior relationship also determines who does the distributing. The distribution model is shifting in the same direction. One-to-many broadcasting, an athlete or institution pushing content outward to a passive audience, is the model platforms were built to enable and that measurement systems were built to count. What compounds differently is many-to-many: content that a community generates, shares, and amplifies among itself, with the athlete at the centre as the originating signal rather than the sole producer. Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour is the clearest proof of this at scale. The tour generated over one billion dollars in direct revenue, a figure driven substantially by community behaviour rather than official channels. The Swifties created discourse, recruited new audiences, and sustained cultural relevance between show dates through content no artist’s own operation could have matched. Swift did not out-create her community. She created the conditions under which her community created for one another.

Data accumulates in the same direction. Athletes who have built direct audience relationships hold first-party insight into what their community responds to, what it will pay for, and how it prefers to engage. That intelligence does not exist in platform analytics, which measure aggregate behaviour across millions of accounts. The athlete who has not built that relationship is negotiating their own commercial value using someone else’s data.

Exclusive content models, paid tiers, subscriber-only access, and direct monetisation of audience relationships are commercially viable only when the community is already in place. The relationship has to precede the ask. An athlete who moves to paid access before the community is established is not monetising an audience. They are testing whether strangers will pay to become fans, which is not how fandom works. The parasocial relationship, the sense of genuine personal connection that makes a Raving Fan willing to pay for the perception of proximity, is built through distinctive, consistent, identity-led presence. It cannot be constructed behind a paywall. It has to exist before one is introduced.

The monetisation is the harvest. The community is the crop. Attempting the former without the latter does not accelerate the timeline. It eliminates it.

A CASE IN POINT

A top-ranked athlete in an Olympic sport, with around 300,000 followers, converted roughly 10% of that audience into a directly owned subscriber base in under two months. No media spend. No platform partnership. No campaign. The conversion happened because the trust and genuine relationships were already in place, built over years of consistent, specific, identity-led communication that the platform had been measuring as ordinary engagement. What looked like a social following was, underneath, a community that had never been given a direct channel.

The significance is not the subscriber number. It is what that number represents structurally: an audience the athlete now reaches directly, independently of any platform’s distribution logic, on terms they control. That is not an incremental improvement on the original following. It is a categorically different asset. The athlete’s sponsors could purchase access to the former. They now have a partner who controls the latter.

THE CROWD DOES NOT CONVERT

Audiences are built on attention. Communities are built on trust. Exposure can be generated quickly, purchased, and directed. Trust accumulates slowly, through consistent identity, repeated presence, and the absence of contradiction between what an athlete says and what they do. Once eroded, it does not recover on a campaign timeline.

A sponsor placed within a genuine community is not buying proximity to an audience. They are being granted access to an existing system of trust. Whether that access is felt as belonging or intrusion depends principally on whether the brand contributes to the community or simply extracts from it. Brands that belong get embraced and amplified by the same people who recruit new fans organically. Brands that do not belong get ignored, regardless of the size of the logo or the length of the contract.

At Adidas, I watched a pattern emerge across major football sponsorships. Visibility was not the problem. Belonging was. The three stripes could be in every frame, on every kit, present at every fixture, and still sit outside the communities it was sponsoring. The decision to build what became Team Messi came from that observation: that committing to a player’s identity, not just their club or their competition, produced something a logo placement never could. We had a stake. We could lose. And only because we could lose were we allowed to belong. The following grew to over five million. The commercial outcome reached $150M in revenue. More importantly, the relationship moved from sponsorship to shared identity. The Real Madrid partnership grew in the same direction over time. Belonging is not a zero-sum position. But it requires something the visibility strategy never did: the willingness to choose, and lose.

The deal structures, content obligations, and measurement frameworks that govern athlete partnerships were designed to grow and monetise crowds. What they have consistently underpriced is the cost of building genuine community depth, and the return on doing so.

An athlete with reach but no community has not built an asset. They are renting attention from whoever controls the platform that day, on terms that can change without notice. An athlete with a community owns a relationship that spans platforms, survives algorithmic shifts, and compounds in commercial value with every year of consistent investment. Those are not variations on the same model. They are different businesses.

WHERE RESPONSIBILITY SITS

The gap between what is being counted and what is commercially performing is not an athlete problem. It sits with the agents, development teams, commercial directors, and federation programmes whose social media guidelines, charter rules, and governance structures design the conditions under which athlete brands operate. Those conditions currently reward visibility. They rarely reward the slower, less legible work of building community depth. The metrics that matter in a crowd economy are easy to report upward. The metrics that matter in a relationship economy require different instruments, different incentives, and a different level of patience than most commercial timelines allow.

The Fan Involvement Ladder has been available to anyone running athlete programmes for decades. Its commercial implication, that value concentrates at the top two rungs rather than distributed across the full nine, has never been more actionable than it is now, and remains consistently absent from the measurement frameworks that determine whether partnership agreements are renewed.

What has changed is not the framework. It is the cost of continuing to misread it. A community cannot be purchased. It forms around people who showed up, connected, and belonged, before there was anything to sell.

The gap this piece describes is no longer theoretical for most readers of this newsletter. It shows up when a roster’s reach looks impressive, but the commercial returns do not follow, when a federation’s investment in visibility produces no asset it can point to afterwards, when a community a brand thought it had bought turns out to belong to someone else.

If you are working through any part of that in your current context, I am happy to think it through with you directly.

Thomas

The previous four issues of this series examined where control has moved in modern sport: away from events, away from institutions, away from traditional measures of performance. This month’s edition examines what determines whether that shift produces anything durable.

The argument is simple and uncomfortable in equal measure. Reach is no longer the constraint. Belief is. And the commercial infrastructure of sport, including most of the partnerships currently being signed, was never built to measure the difference.

What follows is not a new model. It is a closer look at what is already working in the partnerships that do, and why there is so much more of it available than most people currently access.

Thomas

REACH IS CHEAP. TRUST IS RARE.

Why belief has become the real constraint on influence

The signal that stopped meaning anything

Visibility has never been easier to generate. Audiences have never been harder to move. Algorithmic amplification, paid distribution, and platform incentives mean almost anybody can accumulate reach. Follower counts grow. Impression totals accumulate. Posts circulate. Across sports, the same pattern emerges: athletes with substantial followings underperform in commercial activations; brand campaigns hit their reach targets but generate weak responses; sponsorship packages deliver the promised impressions but fail to move the metrics that actually matter. The instruments report success, but the results feel off.

The industry’s standard response is to reach further. Create more content, post on more platforms, and increase the volume. That response only compounds the problem because it misidentifies it. Reach is no longer scarce. Belief is. And as the previous chapter in this series established, the commercial infrastructure of sport was never built to measure the difference.

The conditions that make belief scarce are not unique to sport. Trust in institutions has been declining across media, politics, and public life for more than a decade. Audiences have not stopped trusting. They have become more selective about who earns it, and more practiced at identifying when it is being performed rather than demonstrated.

What the numbers cannot see

The previous four chapters documented where control has moved: meaning no longer resides with the event organizer; distribution no longer flows through institutional channels; value no longer accrues at the moment of competition; the measurement system inherited from the broadcast era cannot see what is actually performing. In each case, control shifted away from the institution and toward the individual. This chapter concerns the variable that determines what happens once that shift is complete.

The standard assumption is that reach, if large enough, converts. That made sense when distribution was scarce, and attention was concentrated by design. Being seen reliably meant being noticed. Impressions translated, imperfectly but predictably, into impact. That translation has become less reliable. In an environment where audiences encounter more commercial signals than they can meaningfully process, exposure and influence have disconnected. A logo can appear across thousands of jerseys, perimeter boards, and broadcast backdrops and produce real recall and brand preference, but only where the audience’s existing relationship with the sport, club, or athlete has prepared the ground for it. Where that relationship is absent or thin, repeated exposure without engagement does not build belief. It only conditions the audience to tune out.

What belief actually is

Trust is not sentiment. It is pattern recognition. Audiences read signals fast, but what they are reading against is an accumulated record: months or years of observing how someone acts when the stakes are real, when no camera is obviously present, when the commercial motive is not the only explanation for the choice. As the line attributed to Aristotle goes, one hour of play will tell you more about a person than a lifetime of conversation. We can spot a fake from miles away. For athletes, that record forms faster and with more emotional intensity than for almost any other kind of public figure. Athletic success is one of the few things in modern life that cannot be faked, accelerated, or generated. Everyone understands what it costs. The years, the losses, the discipline, the pain. That shared understanding of cost is the foundation of respect. And respect is the foundation of everything commercial that follows.

Audiences form a working hypothesis about who an athlete is before that athlete makes a single deliberate brand decision. Trust can form quickly. What it cannot do is sustain commercial behavior without confirmation over time. That accumulated pattern is what converts. Instant recognition opens a door. Consistent behavior is what keeps it open. If the pattern breaks, the audience does not deliberate. They do not update their model neutrally. The emotional investment reframes what they thought they knew. That reframing is fast. And it is final.

This is what distinguishes content that builds belief from content that performs it. The distinction is not about polish or production quality. It is about congruence: whether what an athlete communicates across contexts, at scale, under commercial pressure, remains consistent with what they have demonstrably been. Content that performs belief looks aligned. Content that builds belief is aligned. The behavior it records remains the same whether a camera is present or not.

The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer, which surveyed nearly 34,000 people across 28 countries, found that seven in ten people globally are hesitant or unwilling to trust someone who feels different from them. What breaks through that resistance is not polish or production value. It is openness: the sense that someone is not trying to be something they are not, and that what you see is actually what is there. In a world where most institutions have lost the benefit of the doubt, that kind of consistency is one of the few things that still moves people across the barrier.

The most common failure mode is not dishonesty. It is the managed cliché: the press conference answer that could belong to anyone, the social post written by someone without direct access to the athlete it represents, the partnership that makes commercial sense on paper but registers as incoherent to an audience that has spent years reading the athlete’s actual identity. Audiences recognize this immediately, even if they cannot articulate why. Hollow content does not simply fail to build belief. It actively signals that belief is not on offer. The channel becomes background noise. The athlete becomes a managed persona. And once that conclusion forms, it is difficult to reverse. Trust comes on foot and goes by horse.

Contractual obligation produces compliance. Compliance has a texture audiences recognize without being able to name it. Content created without genuine involvement does not simply underperform. It generates a specific signal that tells the audience that belief is not on offer here. The athlete shows up. The audience can tell they would rather not have. Platforms can tell too. Sponsored content that fails to generate organic engagement gets deprioritized by the same algorithms the brand paid to access. The reach that was purchased has to be purchased once again in paid amplification, to reach the audience the original deal was supposed to unlock. So the brand pays twice, and the audience still doesn’t believe them.

This failure mode predates AI. I spent 15 years at Adidas building integrated campaigns with some of the world’s most recognized athletes. We ghostwrote posts. We placed athletes in CGI stadiums that did not exist, in situations they never inhabited. We worked as close to the athlete as we could because we instinctively understood that proximity to the real person was where the value lived. The audience understood the implicit contract: this is spectacle, this is commercial, this is craft. They filed it accordingly. The mediation was always there. What has changed is the audience’s ability to see it.

AI did not invent this substitution. It removed the signals that told the audience which layer they were in. At Adidas, we created a visual spectacle that announced itself as a spectacle. The construction was visible and therefore forgivable. What AI produces presents itself differently. It colonizes the register once reserved for the unmediated real. It offers access rather than craft. And because it does so without the evidence of human presence behind it, the audience faces a question they never had to ask before: Is anyone actually there? That question, once asked, does not stay contained. It spreads to everything around it. For athletes, whose trust premium rests on the audience’s belief that a real person is behind the work, that is not a content problem; it is a structural challenge.

Trust can form quickly. What it cannot survive is a single signal that breaks the pattern. The emotional investment an audience has built does not neutrally update when that happens. It reframes, fast and ferocious. A misaligned partnership does not simply underperform. It reaches back and recontextualizes what came before it. The 2026 Edelman research puts a number on this: when a trusted voice endorses something the audience does not believe in, about 1 in 7 people lose trust not just in the deal but in the person behind it. That cost never shows up in the reach metrics. It is the credibility spent across everything that preceded the deal, and it cannot be recovered on a campaign timeline.

Where the gap becomes visible

In November 2022, Cristiano Ronaldo launched a co-branded NFT collection with Binance. The reach was never in question. Ronaldo is the most-followed individual on any platform on Earth. According to the subsequent class-action lawsuit filed in the United States, his promotional campaign generated a 500% spike in searches for Binance. That is not a soft engagement metric. It is documented proof that the distribution functioned exactly as purchased.

The NFTs, initially priced at around $77, were trading at approximately $1 within a year of launch. A class-action lawsuit seeking over $1 billion in damages followed, with plaintiffs alleging that Ronaldo’s endorsement encouraged investment in products that subsequently collapsed in value, and that compensation for the promotion was not disclosed as required under U.S. securities law. A federal judge denied Ronaldo’s motion to dismiss the case, ruling the plaintiffs’ claims sufficiently plausible to proceed. The lawsuit remains ongoing, and no liability has been established. What is established is the gap between what the campaign generated in attention and what it produced in durable commercial value.

That gap was not primarily a cryptocurrency problem. It was a trust issue. By the time Ronaldo’s campaign launched, Binance was already operating under significant regulatory scrutiny. Audience trust in crypto assets had been severely damaged by the FTX collapse. Ronaldo’s global fanbase, built over decades around his relationship to excellence, competitive discipline, and a specific kind of sporting identity, was being asked to transfer that trust to a speculative digital asset in a category they had already learned to distrust. The 500% search spike confirmed they got the message. Some bought. The NFT price trajectory shows the belief was not there to sustain what the reach had started. The market priced Ronaldo’s reach. The audience evaluated the fit. And that fit, once the initial signal had faded, was not enough to hold the value the campaign had initially created.

This case is not exceptional solely because of its scale. It is instructive because the data is unusually clean. Most commercial failures of this kind are obscured by category headwinds, campaign timing, or the difficulty of attributing conversion to any single variable. Here, the reach, the outcome, and the gap between them are all documented. What the standard sponsorship architecture could not foresee, the audience had already concluded. The instruments reported extraordinary visibility scores. They had no instrument for everything else.

A 2025 Edelman study of UK sports fans found that 71% believe sporting organizations prioritize money over athlete wellbeing, and 40% believe sponsors and advertisers benefit most from sport’s commercial model, ahead of owners, teams, or the athletes themselves. Audiences are not waiting for visible failures to reach these conclusions. They arrive at them continuously, through pattern recognition, long before the commercial data confirms it. The value glorified in raving sponsorship proposals and the value perceived by fans are increasingly different.

What audiences are already signaling

The 2025 WSC Sports Fan Engagement Study offers a clear indicator of where audiences direct their trust-building attention. When asked about behind-the-scenes and off-field content, nearly 80% of fans described it as at least somewhat important to their engagement. Among Gen Y, nearly 60% described such access as extremely or very important. This is not a content format preference. It is about how belief actually forms. Audiences are not asking for more content. They are asking for content that provides evidence of a specific person: choices made under real conditions, positions held without a branded brief, and consistency across moments not designed exclusively for commercial use.

A separate YouGov study of US sports fans, conducted in early 2025, reinforces the commercial consequence. Sports fans are 18% more likely to buy a product endorsed by an athlete than one endorsed by a celebrity, musician, or actor. Off-field personality is cited by 35% of fans as a reason they like a particular athlete, sitting second only to skill. What audiences are responding to is not the performance alone. It is the person they believe to know behind it. That premium is real but also fragile and not automatically preserved by volume.

The self-limiting strategy

Optimizing for visibility while allowing credibility to erode is a strategy with a built-in expiry date. Each high-volume, low-coherence campaign consumes a portion of the audience’s willingness to attend to the next one. The reach remains. The relationship it was supposed to represent has quietly stopped functioning.

The same YouGov data shows that one in five sports fans has started following a new sport entirely because of a specific athlete. That audience arrived through belief, not broadcast. It cannot be retained through exposure alone. Once it forms around an individual, the conditions that shaped it need to be maintained, not managed away.

A new category of commercial infrastructure is now being built around this logic. AI-extended identity platforms, systems that turn an athlete’s voice, personality, and presence into a scalable, always-on product layer, are entering the market with a clear value proposition: continuous access, global reach, and monetization activated from day one. That proposition is real. So is the risk. These systems can extend a genuine identity into markets and moments the real person could never reach. They can also expose the absence of one. The digital twin is only as valuable as what it is built on. An athlete with a rich, consistent, documented record of being themselves has something worth scaling. An athlete without that record has nothing the platform can manufacture. The value is not in the technology. It is in what was there before the technology arrived.

Who carries this now?

The constraint is no longer reach. It is belief. And the responsibility for whether investment builds sustainable credibility or spends consumable visibility now sits with the people making commercial decisions, not with the platforms distributing the content.

The argument here is not that athlete partnerships do not work. They do, and when the conditions are right, more powerfully than almost any other commercial model available to brands today. Fans place more trust in athletes than in any other category of public figures. That premium is real and significant. What is being systematically left on the table is depth. Most partnerships are built for exposure and stop there, when the same investment in genuine fit, real involvement, and coherent identity could compound into something the audience actually believes. Brand, commercial, and communications leaders who price partnerships based solely on reach are not making the wrong choice. They are making an incomplete one, leaving the most valuable part of the arrangement unmeasured and therefore unclaimed.

The same logic applies to athletes, but in the opposite direction. Every genuine moment outside sport, a perspective shared without a brief, an interest pursued without a sponsor, a sentiment expressed without a media team behind it, is evidence of a more distinct identity. That evidence is what extends commercial relevance beyond their athletic career and into categories sport alone could never reach. The athlete who builds that deliberately, not randomly, not performatively, but with genuine intent about what they want to be recognized for, is not broadening their brand. They are deepening it. And depth, in this environment, is what compounds most reliably.

Audiences have always known the difference between someone who was in it and someone who was trying to look like they were in it. That knowledge is the foundation of every commercial premium described in this chapter. The partnerships that will compound, the identities that will last, the relevance that will still be there in five years, all of them trace back to the same source. A real person, consistently themselves, under real conditions, over real time. That cannot be purchased. It cannot be generated. It can only be earned. And it is built, or it is not, one honest moment at a time.

If the argument in this issue holds, then the most valuable asset in most athlete partnerships is already present. It just isn’t being fully activated.

Most people reading this are already sensing the gap. They see it in post-campaign reviews where the reach numbers look fine, but the attributable response feels weak. They feel it in conversations about why a talented athlete’s commercial value doesn’t match their on-field reputation. They know the measurement system isn’t telling the whole story.

The question is not whether to invest in athlete partnerships. It is about whether to invest in the depth needed to enable them to work as well as they can.

My work sits at that intersection. I support athletes, brands, federations, and events that need clarity on where the value actually sits and how to build the conditions that allow it to compound. Not by prescribing tactics, but by helping decision-makers see the structure they are already inside.

If this piece surfaced questions you are already working through, you are welcome to continue the conversation privately.

Request a private conversation

Thomas

Every industry has instruments it stops questioning. In sport, the measurement architecture around commercial value is one of them. Built for a specific era, refined over decades, and embedded deeply enough that challenging it requires more than new data. It requires a different lens.

That is what this month’s edition attempts.

Thomas

WHY ATHLETES OUTPERFORM RIGHTSHOLDERS

Faces vs. Logos

The sports industry has a measurement problem. Not in the sense that data is unavailable, but that the data being collected was designed for a system that no longer exists. Performance is still being evaluated through metrics built for an era of centralized distribution, scheduled broadcasts, and concentrated audiences. That era ended.

The question this chapter poses is not philosophical. It is empirical. If leverage in sport has genuinely migrated from institutions toward individuals, that shift should be visible in the numbers. Who performs better today: the institution that stages the competition, or the athlete who competes in it? Not as a matter of opinion, but measurable output.

The measurement system sport inherited

For most of the broadcast era, commercial performance in sport was evaluated using a narrow set of metrics. Attendance figures. Television ratings. Sponsorship impressions. Logo visibility counts. Advertising equivalency values. These were not arbitrary choices. They reflected a monetization model built on scarcity. Centralized distribution was not the founding condition. It was the mechanism through which scarce, concentrated attention was made commercially available. The metrics were built to measure how well that mechanism performed.

In that environment, sports television did not simply broadcast competitions to attract viewers. It sold concentrated audiences to advertisers. The institutions that controlled access to those audiences naturally captured the largest share of the system’s commercial value. Leagues scheduled competitions around the windows when audiences could gather. Broadcasters turned those windows into inventory. Sponsors purchased visibility inside them. Success was measured by the number of people who encountered a logo, a broadcast, or a highlight package within a defined window.

Beneath all of them sits a shared assumption the industry has never fully interrogated: that visibility equals influence. Decades of research on media effectiveness suggest the opposite is often true. Repeated exposure without engagement does not build influence. It forces people to ignore the information they no longer need.

In a scarce distribution environment, that assumption was defensible. When audiences gathered around a limited number of channels and attention was concentrated by design, being seen usually meant being noticed. The system was not measuring the wrong things. It was measuring the right things for the system it was built to serve. That system has changed. The measurement architecture has not.

Exposure does not equal activation.

Exposure measures visibility. It records how often a brand, event, or athlete appears before an audience. Activation measures something structurally different: the strength of the relationship between an audience and the entity it follows. Where exposure asks whether something was seen, activation asks whether it mattered. Did it produce recognition, interaction, or a response durable enough to be remembered, shared, or acted upon?

In a media environment flooded with competing signals, visibility can be purchased, distributed, and ignored. A logo can appear across thousands of broadcast minutes without meaningfully registering with viewers. Activation cannot be purchased in the same way. It depends on something the audience must choose to give. Attention that evolves beyond passive exposure, into genuine engagement.

Creator analytics platforms no longer limit their analytics to followers or impressions. They evaluate audience growth trajectories, engagement rates, and behavioral signals that reveal how audiences interact over time. Sport is still pricing the older model. If value in modern sport is increasingly generated by relationships rather than exposure, the industry’s standard instruments are measuring the wrong layer. Three indicators offer a clearer picture: reach, engagement, and conversion.

The reason athletes outperform institutions on all three is not incidental. It is structural. Audiences are wired to form relationships with people rather than organizations. That preference did not begin with social media. It has always been present in how fans talk about sport, argue about it, and decide what to follow. What changed is the distribution environment. In a centralized system, that preference was contained. Institutions controlled access, so the audience’s natural orientation toward individuals was mediated, filtered, and commercially captured by the infrastructure surrounding those individuals. In a networked environment, that mediation collapses. Audiences can follow a person directly, continuously, and without institutional permission. When distribution opened, the relationship preference that was always there became the primary mechanism through which attention flows, and therefore the primary mechanism through which commercial value accumulates. Everything that follows in this chapter is evidence of that single underlying shift.

Reach: Where distribution has shifted

When Shohei Ohtani signed with the Los Angeles Dodgers in December 2023, something happened in Japanese retail markets within days. Dodgers merchandise began selling in Japan at volumes the franchise had never recorded from that geography. The club did not change its marketing strategy; its regional infrastructure did not expand; the only thing that changed was the person wearing the uniform. The Dodgers provided the platform. Ohtani carried the audience. Revenue was recorded institutionally. Demand originated individually.

That separation, between where commercial value is generated and where it is formally captured, is what the reach data consistently reveals. Official league and federation accounts grow through broadcast cycles, seasonal campaigns, and event windows. Athletes grow their social media accounts continuously, between seasons, across geographies, and independent of the institutional calendar. The growth curves no longer move in parallel. They diverge structurally because one is tied to an event schedule and the other to a person.

That divergence matters commercially because reach in a networked environment is not simply about audience size. It is about access to a specific, recurring relationship. An athlete with a direct line to a defined audience in a particular market represents something a broadcast deal cannot replicate: predictable, continuous contact with people who have actively chosen to follow. Brands sourcing that audience through institutional channels are buying proximity to it. Through the athlete, they are accessing the relationship itself.

The WSC Sports 2025 Fan Engagement Study makes the directional shift legible. Gen Z fans are 96% more likely than Gen X fans to feel more connected to players than to teams, and 25% less likely to identify primary attachment as institutional. Audience formation is increasingly beginning with a person rather than a property. Distribution follows the same logic.

Engagement: The asymmetry that rate cards miss

Reach establishes access. Engagement reveals whether that access produces a relationship worth pricing. The pattern across platforms and disciplines is consistent enough that it can no longer be treated as a series of individual anomalies. When equivalent content is published by an athlete and by the institution they represent, the athlete’s version generates higher interaction in almost every documented case. The gap is not explained by production quality, posting frequency, or timing. It is explained by what the audience responds to.

Institutions communicate. Athletes connect.

That distinction has measurable commercial consequences. Engagement is not a vanity metric. It is a behavioral signal that correlates directly with recall, intent, and action. An audience actively interacting with content is paying attention rather than merely tolerating exposure. Sponsors have understood for decades that emotional engagement drives purchase intent. What has shifted is where that engagement is most reliably produced.

Behind-the-scenes and off-field content generates the highest engagement rates in sport by a considerable margin. The WSC Sports 2025 study found that 78.6% of fans consider such access at least somewhat important to their engagement, with over half of Gen Y fans describing it as extremely or very important. That category belongs almost entirely to athletes. What audiences are responding to is not production value. It is the proximity to a person.

The rate card does not yet reflect this. Sponsorship packages price logo placement and broadcast visibility because those are the assets institutions control and can guarantee. The athlete’s capacity to generate genuine engagement sits alongside those agreements, often listed as added value or social amplification. Acknowledged, in other words. Not priced.

Conversion: Where behavior confirms the structure

Engagement without economic consequence remains an interesting observation. Conversion makes it a structural argument. Athlete transfers provide the clearest recurring evidence. When a player of genuine commercial gravity moves clubs, demand for merchandise in previously indifferent markets activates within days. The receiving institution processes the transaction. The trigger is the person. What transfers is not simply competitive ability but an audience that follows the individual rather than the crest.

The NIL market illustrates the same mechanism at a different level. College athletes in the United States were generating commercial value for their institutions long before rule changes formally allowed them to capture any of it. The market that subsequently emerged, surpassing one billion dollars in 2024 and projected to reach 1.6 to 1.7 billion by the 2025 to 2026 academic year, is not a new phenomenon. It is the formalization of value that was already present but flowing exclusively through institutional structures. What the exploding NIL market shows is that individual identity has always been a commercial asset. The accounting simply had not separated it from the institutional bundle.

The generational data points in the same direction. The WSC Sports 2025 study found that Gen Z fans are 84.3% more likely than Gen Y to begin following a new athlete, and that discovery is increasingly person-led rather than institution-led. Affinity forms around an individual first. Institutional attachment, if it develops at all, follows. That sequence is not a threat to rightsholders. It is the most efficient gateway to their long-term fan relationships. The athlete is not the end of the funnel. For a growing share of the next generation, the athlete is the entrance.

Direct-to-consumer athlete ventures confirm the pattern from a third angle. Athletes building product lines, media platforms, and community memberships are capturing value between events, continuous audience engagement that institutions have not historically monetized, and that brands are increasingly willing to access through the athlete directly. Conversion is not replacing institutional commerce. It is revealing that a significant portion of that commerce was always driven by individual identity, and the existing structures were not designed to surface it.

The pricing gap

None of this has gone unnoticed. Marketing directors and content teams are already negotiating for ten minutes of an athlete’s time, knowing that a single unscripted post to an engaged audience will outperform the campaign they spent months building. Sponsorship directors and partnership leads sense the same discrepancy in post-campaign reviews, when exposure metrics are strong, yet the attributable behavioral response seems weak or absent. The numbers look fine, but the results feel wrong. That tension is not a communication problem. It is not a resource problem. It is a measurement problem. The system is producing the outcomes it was designed to produce. It was just designed for a different era.

The underlying issue is structural. Valuation models were built for a system in which institutions controlled distribution, and attention was concentrated in broadcast windows. Those models produced defensible numbers within that logic. Revising them requires acknowledging that the most commercially productive asset in many partnership arrangements is not the logo placement, the broadcast slot, or the event association. It is the athlete’s pre-existing relationship with an audience that the institution did not build and cannot replicate through its own channels.

Markets are adjusting, unevenly and late. Record-breaking contracts, athlete-specific sponsorship premiums, NIL valuations, and the growing category of athlete-led content partnerships are all partial corrections to the same underlying gap. But aggregate exposure metrics still anchor most commercial negotiations. The gap between what is measured and what performs continues to widen while the instruments used to close deals remain calibrated to the older layer.

The audit

This is not an argument about who wins. It is a measurement audit of where value is already moving. Reach, engagement, and conversion, evaluated consistently across geographies, sports, and competitive levels, point toward the same conclusion. In an activation-driven media environment, the most commercially productive assets in sport are being systematically undervalued by the measurement systems designed to price them. That is not a problem for athletes; it is an industry problem. And it is costing both sides.

The sports industry does not have a performance problem. It has a pricing problem. Exposure metrics inherited from the broadcast era are being used to value assets that now primarily operate at the activation and experience layers. The instruments and the reality they are meant to measure have quietly separated.

That gap does not stay theoretical indefinitely. At some point, the difference between what is being measured and what is actually performing becomes visible to enough parties simultaneously that the terms of the conversation change. The question is not whether that moment arrives. It is whether the people in the room have already moved.

The tension this piece describes is not theoretical. It shows up in real conversations, in how partnerships are valued, how athlete contributions are priced, and how performance is reported to people who set budgets based on what the instruments show.

If you are working through any part of that in your current context, I am happy to think it through with you directly.

Thomas

In the first two issues, we looked at how attention and influence in sport have reorganised. This month, we examine what happens when money begins to follow that shift.

Across leagues, federations, and boardrooms, debates around athlete compensation are intensifying. Framed publicly as questions of fairness or excess, they are, in reality, responses to something more structural: a shift in where value is formed and who carries it.

What follows is not an argument for higher pay, nor a critique of institutions, but a closer look at how financial systems in sport are adjusting, unevenly and late, to a redistribution of power already well underway.

Thomas

FROM BEING PLAYED TO GETTING PAID

The Power Shift Sport Failed to Price

Athlete compensation is frequently framed as a question of excess or fairness. That framing hides what has actually changed. The issue is not what athletes are paid, but whether compensation still reflects where value is created and who actually controls access to audiences. What appears to be a debate about money is, in practice, a debate about power.

This is not driven by athlete demands or generosity. It is a delayed financial response to a power transition that began years ago. It unfolded slowly enough to go unannounced, yet steadily enough to change who now controls audience access.

For decades, sport aligned three things: where value was created, who controlled its distribution, and how income was allocated. Performance happened in competition. Institutions controlled access through schedules, venues, IP, and broadcast rights. Revenue flowed back through leagues, federations, and teams, and athletes were compensated for their participation. That alignment broke when the way sport is consumed changed. Attention fragmented. Distribution escaped its traditional channels. Audiences reorganized around individuals. Stories now travel further than events. Sport still prices participation and exposure. Markets now pay for sustained attention between events.

The shift is clear when we examine audience scale. In 2024, the combined followers of major leagues like the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, and the FIFA World Cup totaled about 400 million. In contrast, individual athletes such as Lionel Messi, Neymar Jr., and Cristiano Ronaldo command over 1.9 billion followers; more than four times the total of these leagues combined. This highlights the fundamental shift in power: athletes, not leagues, now control the most valuable access to global audiences.

Attendance and logo visibility are finite. Personal following is not. It grows across platforms and over time. It travels through stories, memory, and identity. It does not expire when the event ends. That power is built on something simple: people choose who they feel connected to. Fans are no longer passive consumers. They decide where to invest their attention and loyalty.

In global markets, even small differences in personal appeal now lead to very different financial outcomes. When distribution scales, attention stops spreading evenly, and marginal differences can produce outsized commercial outcomes. For decades, institutional strength and athlete visibility moved in the same direction. Star power amplified league power. Revenue growth benefited both. That alignment created the perception that control and value were inseparable. When distribution was centralized, that assumption held. In a networked environment, that assumption breaks.

Institutions built to protect their position often still price participation as if power flows only from the top down. Contracts and governance structures reflect that inheritance. The goal is stability. The result can be constraint. When personal following grows but is not built into the system, tension follows. What is defended as discipline can feel like under-recognition.

Humans are bigger than highlights. The fixture anchors the schedule. The person carries the story. Once that leverage became visible and economically usable, the limits of the old “owners pay, athletes play” model became harder to conceal. The pricing model didn’t adjust because it was never built to. The system knew how to price events, media rights, and logo visibility. It never learned how to price personal following. Nike’s direct-to-consumer (DTC) revenue share has reached 44% of total sales, according to its audited financial statements, reflecting a structural shift toward direct audience relationships.

Money Follows Power

This lag was not accidental. Modern sports were built with control at the core: leagues structured around media rights, advertising, sponsorships, and broadcast schedules that defined ‘value windows.’ These systems concentrated attention and monetized access. Intellectual property was centralized, and membership models extended fan lifetime value. Association with established marks delivered predictable returns. Even always-on media channels evolved to reinforce event cycles rather than replace them. The system was built to concentrate attention and monetize access to it.

That structure shaped how money was distributed. Media rights were negotiated years in advance. Sponsorship agreements relied on fixed exposure guarantees. Public funding prioritized certainty. Governance frameworks optimized predictability over adaptation. Each piece made sense on its own. Together, they slowed change. This is why financial change in sport feels abrupt. By the time money shifts, the behavior it reflects has already settled. What appears sudden is often structural. A clear example of this shift is seen in women’s sports. UEFA reported a +145% increase in sponsorship revenue for the 2025 Women’s Euro. This increase reflects recognition that audiences were already there. Investment followed attention that had long been underpriced.

Income is increasingly arising outside traditional structures: fluid fandom models, new event formats, direct-to-consumer offers, speaking engagements, streams, and athlete-led communities. When compensation fails to reward individual leverage, value doesn’t disappear; it reroutes. This isn’t a story of decline; the sports market continues to grow. Media rights remain valuable. In an era of on-demand consumption and fragmented viewing, live sport remains one of the few cultural assets that consistently commands real-time mass audiences. Major events still anchor collective attention. The system is growing. What is changing is who captures the value inside it.

Rightsholders and traditional media outlets are not reacting to money leaving the industry. They are adjusting to the erosion of their exclusive control over attention, audience relationships, and commercial gravity.

The competition has also changed. Sport no longer competes only with rival leagues for revenue share. It competes with gaming platforms, creator ecosystems, streaming libraries, and decentralized entertainment models for time. In that contest, suppressing athlete leverage does not preserve institutional strength. It narrows the collective ceiling. When institutions treat their strongest source of demand as a cost to be contained rather than a force to be expanded, they do not protect value. They limit it. In fragmented attention environments, individuals now carry reach, trust, and conversion directly. The question is no longer whether this movement is justified. The question is whether the existing economic model still fits the reality of modern sport, or whether it is pricing a version of sport that no longer exists.

What Sport Still Believes It’s Pricing

For most of modern sport, athletes created value through participation. They competed within a structured system. Performance generated interest: ticket sales, broadcast audiences, and sponsor exposure. That interest justified media and commercial agreements. Institutions monetized it and distributed revenue back through leagues, teams, and contracts. Athlete compensation reflected a defined role within that production chain. That logic continues to anchor most economic models in sport. Contracts, sponsorship valuations, and rights negotiations still assume that value is created during competition and captured through institutional control of the event. While that structure has remained largely the same, what has changed is where value is created.

Markets now reward lasting identity: the recognition and affinity created by personalities, stories, communities, and memories. That identity travels beyond the match, persists between seasons, and compounds across platforms. It draws attention before competition begins and keeps it long after the final whistle. It is this continuity, not just isolated broadcast rights, that is increasingly anchoring value. As Heidi Browning Pearson, the NHL’s CMO, has said: “Some fans are even following athletes in sports they don’t watch just because they’re interesting humans. So, this idea of humans over highlights… showing who they are, both on the ice and off the ice, is a huge mission of ours.”

This concentration dynamic is not new. In her 2013 book Blockbusters, Anita Elberse demonstrated how Real Madrid’s “Galácticos” generated disproportionate attention beyond team performance. Media coverage, global sponsorship interest, and commercial returns clustered around star players, whose recognition extended well beyond the match itself. Attention was attracted first, and revenue followed. 15 years ago, that concentration reinforced institutional power because distribution remained contained. Clubs and broadcasters controlled the primary channels, and star gravity amplified their reach. That monopoly is beginning to fade. Distribution is now global and continuous. Attention moves across platforms athletes increasingly control, with value forming beyond traditional broadcast deals. In a linear system, star power reinforced the institution. In a networked system, it can exceed it.

Behavioral evidence reflects this transition. A 2025 WSC Sports Fan Engagement Study found that over half of Gen Y and Gen X fans are likely to purchase personalized highlights tied to a favorite player, with nearly half of Gen Z expressing similar intent. Commerce increasingly activates through individual affinity rather than institutional loyalty. The financial system has not fully adjusted to that shift. The gap between what is priced and what is rewarded is where confusion emerges.

Sponsors continue to buy brand exposure, even as impact increasingly depends on alignment. Rights holders monetize events, even as engagement extends beyond them. Teams compensate athletes primarily for performance, even as their commercial gravity operates year-round. Each practice remains rational within its original logic. Together, they reveal a system pricing participation while markets reward leverage.

Consider a Kylian Mbappé jersey. The transaction is recorded as institutional merchandise revenue. The crest, apparel marks, and league identifiers reflect the infrastructure that stages competition. Yet in the buyer’s mind, the purchase is anchored to the player. Revenue flows vertically through organizations. Demand flows horizontally through identity. This is why debates about overpayment and underpayment feel circular. Compensation is not responding to sentiment. It is responding, unevenly and late, to a change in how value is being formed.

Sport continues to behave as if its primary assets are logos, trophies, and historical IP. Institutions act as though tradition, titles, and brand marks are the enduring source of value, and that athletes rotate through that structure as contributors to it. Fans increasingly behave differently. They orient around individuals; the people they choose to watch, support, and return to. Stories travel further than crests. Personalities outlast seasons. As long as pricing remains anchored to institutional assets while attention concentrates on individuals, distortion is not an anomaly. It is a structural outcome.

When Pricing Lags Value

The current moment in sport feels unstable because it is often mistaken for acceleration. In reality, it is a correction. And like most corrections in sport, it arrives late. Financial systems in sport were designed for predictability. Media rights are negotiated years in advance. Sponsorship agreements rely on fixed deliverables. Governance models favor stability over adaptability. These structures smooth volatility. They do not chase shifting attention. The result is a built-in lag between where value moves and when money follows.

For most of modern sport, athletes were compensated through a labor model. They were paid for time, availability, and performance within a defined system. Contracts reflected participation in an event-driven economy funded by attendance, broadcast agreements, and sponsorship. Pay bands relied on comparables. This logic worked because value creation was largely contained within competition, and competition was institutionally controlled. That containment no longer exists. Athletes now generate value beyond fixtures and broadcast windows. They carry narrative and conversion across platforms and seasons, activating communities independent of schedules. In doing so, they operate simultaneously in two systems: inside institutions, they remain labor; in markets, they steward the relationships that generate value.

In the old system, most athletes lived in the middle. A few stars earned more, a few earned less, but the majority clustered in predictable ranges because value was tied to the event. In today’s environment, attention no longer spreads evenly. A slightly more compelling athlete can capture a vastly larger share of global visibility due to distribution scale. Being slightly better is no longer enough. When audiences can choose globally and continuously, value concentrates around an anchored identity or a defined community. The rest become interchangeable.

What distinguishes the durable from the replaceable is not simply performance, but the depth of connection. Attention may be scaled, but loyalty forms around meaning. At the same time, smaller athletes can sustain themselves through deeply aligned niche communities, including those in smaller sports or markets. The most exposed group is the middle: visible enough to be compared, but not distinctive enough to be indispensable.

When compensation frameworks continue to price the first system while value increasingly accumulates in the second, misalignment appears. Income begins to surface outside traditional channels. The NIL market, which surpassed $1 billion in 2024, is now projected to reach $1.6–$1.7 billion by the 2025-2026 academic year, according to leading NIL market analysts and valuation firms. Direct merchandise, speaking engagements, athlete-led media, community platforms, and independent commercial deals are often described as side activities. They are better understood as signals. Whenever official compensation fails to absorb the value being generated, that value does not disappear. It reroutes. What is being monetized in these new channels is not attention alone, but trust and affinity that were always present, often previously captured by institutions.

This dynamic is not confined to a handful of global superstars. It appears across levels, disciplines, and geographies. In some cases, the effect is modest but meaningful, supplementing underpriced participation. In others, it becomes substantial enough to rival institutional compensation. The scale varies. The mechanism does not. College athletes were creating value long before NIL formalized it. Women’s sport built audiences long before commercial budgets adjusted. In each case, behavior changed first. Recognition followed. Financial acknowledgement arrived last. What appears to be escalation is accounting catching up with reality.

This is why extreme contracts tend to shock the system. Shohei Ohtani’s $700 million agreement did not create value. It priced it. It formalized accumulated global audience leverage already visible in ratings, sponsorship demand, and cross-border engagement. Compensation surged once that leverage was priced within a single agreement. By the time numbers reach that scale, the economic shift has been underway for years. For decades, financial lag was manageable because distribution remained centralized and value creation stayed tied to events. That buffer has eroded. As leverage migrates beyond institutional boundaries, delayed recognition becomes more visible and more concentrated when it arrives.

The implications are structural. Systems designed to monetize exposure now operate in an environment where identity sustains value between events. When institutions continue to price participation while markets reward control over audience relationships, the gap ceases to be temporary.

None of this exists without fans. Every contract, sponsorship, and rights deal ultimately traces back to individuals seeking connection, identity, and shared experience. The emotional foundation of sport has not changed. Fans have always cared. What has changed is the infrastructure through which that care is accessed and organized. Distribution control has loosened. Compensation systems built for a contained environment have not fully recalibrated.

For decades, institutions mediated attachment. Events concentrated attention. Broadcasts framed narratives. Revenue flowed through centralized structures. Distribution has since opened. Athletes now sustain direct audience relationships that operate parallel to, and sometimes beyond, institutional control.

Distribution is more open. Athletes can sustain direct audience relationships, creating new revenue pathways. Winning still matters, and institutions remain essential, but they are no longer the sole holders of value. The power dynamic has shifted. Identity now travels beyond the competition, compounding long after the final whistle.

The debate over athlete pay is less about magnitude than about fit. Sport is still pricing participation while markets are pricing control over audience relationships. Compensation systems built for contained distribution now operate in a networked environment. The question is not whether athletes are earning more. It is whether the system reflects where power now sits.

Money did not move first. Control over distribution did. Compensation follows power, unevenly and late. Continuing to price participation while markets reward control over audience relationships isn’t neutral. It’s a structural choice. And structural choices have consequences. When pricing lags leverage, tension builds quietly. Talent looks elsewhere. Income finds new paths. Governance comes under pressure. What feels manageable for a while rarely stays that way.

If the argument in this issue holds, then the debate over athlete compensation is not about numbers. It is about whether our pricing models still reflect how sport now works. Financial systems were built for a contained era. Distribution was centralized. Value was measured at the event. That era has shifted. Attention moves differently. Demand concentrates differently.

Institutions and sponsors still matter. Performance still matters. But pricing that ignores where audience relationships now sit will continue to fall short of the value it depends on. Most leaders in sport already recognize this tension. The question is not whether adjustment will happen. It is whether it happens by design, or only once pressure leaves no alternative.

If this topic is already part of your current discussions, feel free to reply directly. I’m always open to thinking it through together.

Thomas

This month’s edition looks at a shift that has been building quietly for years, but is now impossible to ignore. Across sport, the center of gravity is moving, not away from institutions, but increasingly through athletes themselves.

What follows is not a prediction, nor a critique of existing systems, but a clear view of how power, reach, and value are already reorganising in plain sight. As you read, notice where this pattern is already showing up in your own work.

Thomas

THE WAR FOR TALENT IS OVER. TALENT WON

How Power, Reach, and Value Shifted to the Athlete

In December 2025, Caitlin Clark signed a $28 million deal with Nike: the largest ever for a women’s basketball player. She became one of only a handful of athletes to receive a custom signature logo and a full-scale brand platform. But the deal wasn’t just historic in scale; it was radical in structure: no WNBA branding, no league approval, no institutional sign-off. It was a new kind of power move, built entirely around the leverage of one athlete.

Clark’s impact on the WNBA has been immediate and measurable. Ticket demand spiked. Merchandise sold out. Indiana Fever games became national broadcasts. Her presence reportedly accounted for over 25% of the WNBA’s revenue in 2024. She wasn’t just playing in the league; she was reprogramming its gravity: shaping schedules, altering narratives, driving revenue. This wasn’t a hype wave. It was a structural rewiring of where influence originates.

That momentum continued into 2026. Nike launched a high-visibility campaign titled “From Anywhere,” starring Clark and featuring cameos from Travis and Jason Kelce, Travis Scott, Michael Che, and coach Lisa Bluder. The campaign rolled out the Double C logo across a full apparel range, building toward a major signature shoe launch. Multiple player-exclusive colorways sold out instantly, and the CC-branded line is positioned as a long-term product ecosystem. Nike’s strategy is clear: Clark isn’t just a sponsored athlete. She’s a franchise. A cultural force with commercial velocity and emotional resonance. She’s building a durable brand architecture early.

Consider reach at scale.

Across Facebook, Instagram, and X, the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, and FIFA World Cup collectively hold around 415 million followers. In contrast, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, and Neymar Jr. command a combined audience of 1.9 billion, over four times that total. Meta reports that one in three Instagram users, more than a billion people, actively engage with athlete content. The message is clear. Athletes aren’t just featured on platforms. They are first-party distribution channels. They command the interface, the traffic, and the culture.

Athletes have always been visible, but what’s changed is that visibility now converts directly into influence, commerce, and social impact. In today’s media economy, attention is currency; and athletes now extract, transact, and compound it more directly than any institution. For decades, institutions owned the distribution stack: broadcast deals, venue access, brand placement. Athletes performed within those frames. Social platforms and direct-to-fan tools have redrawn the foundational mechanics. The athlete is now the broadcaster, the algorithm, the lens. The institution no longer monopolizes reach, engagement, or fan spending, and that inversion is redrawing the map of where, and how, value is created.

As the Super Bowl approaches each year, it no longer functions merely as a championship game, but as the most concentrated attention moment in sport; a live demonstration of how cultural gravity now flows through individual faces rather than institutional frames. Long before kickoff, and long after the final whistle, that attention is shaped, amplified, and monetized through athlete-owned channels, extending the broadcast moment into a longer and more durable cultural cycle.

That expansion has already become visible in how the Super Bowl ecosystem supports athlete-led storytelling at scale, from documentary series like Quarterback, which centered not on the game itself but on the lives, relationships, and routines surrounding it, to narrative arcs that culminated on the sport’s biggest stage, as the Kelce brothers faced each other under the brightest spotlight in American sport.

When Value Moves From Rights to Reach

Historically, rights holders monetized access to the event: live games, highlight reels, locker room exclusives. The logic was linear. Control the content, and you control the revenue. Licensing, sponsorships, and syndication were the primary levers. Today, value no longer forms at the moment of performance; it forms in the ongoing cultural extension of that moment. It lives in who can extend it, interpret it, and keep it culturally relevant. Across sports and geographies, athletes are proving more effective than institutions at attracting, engaging, and activating audiences.

An athlete with 250,000 followers and a functioning content loop is no longer a promotional tool; they are a full‑stack distribution channel. Their tunnel fits, workout clips, post-game reflections, and emotional reveals consistently outperform official highlights in reach, relevance, and return. Brands aren’t just chasing visibility. They are seeking story, identity, attribution, and cultural alignment. Logos don’t sign autographs. Athletes do. And in a market where emotion drives action, identity doesn’t just outperform infrastructure. It becomes the infrastructure. Sports fans don’t rally behind logos. They follow faces. That’s not a metaphor. It’s a map.

Consider this: Cristiano Ronaldo and the Portuguese Football Federation posted the same goal celebration photo. The federation’s post received under 64,000 likes. Ronaldo’s received over 4.5 million. That 70‑to‑1 engagement gap is not vanity; it’s a structural valuation signal about where influence and economic leverage actually reside. It’s why brands now build around athlete presence, not institutional affiliation. This isn’t incidental. It signals a new default setting for influence and return. The blockbuster economy didn’t vanish. It got digitized, atomized, and personalized; shifting power from producers to protagonists. As Anita Elberse showed, value concentrates on a few megastars. What’s changed is who holds the leverage. It is no longer leagues or studios. It is the athlete.

Digital platforms supercharge visibility by rewarding individual expression, eliminating distribution costs, and enabling instant global reach. Algorithms don’t just surface talent; they concentrate attention into disproportionate cultural gravity. This creates a flywheel effect where scale accelerates itself. We have already seen the numbers: Ronaldo, Messi, and Neymar outpace every major league combined. These aren’t just star athletes; they’re full-stack media networks. In a digital ecosystem where attention compounds and relevance converts, athletes aren’t riding the system. They’re building their own. In a calendar now shaped by tentpole moments like the Super Bowl and the Olympic Games, the real competition is no longer for broadcast slots, but for sustained relevance before, during, and long after the event itself.

The Era of Personified Power

The Caitlin Clark example is powerful, but it is not unique. Across every level of sport, athletes are building audiences and monetizing attention. CrossFit professionals, esports streamers, and para-athletes are growing businesses with only a fraction of traditional media exposure. NCAA players now sign six-figure NIL deals before turning professional. High school athletes launch their own brands. Some already earn more than their coaches. Reach no longer depends on scale. A para-athlete with 20,000 loyal fans can outperform a top-tier club in conversions. In the new economy, depth outweighs breadth. Micro‑communities are not peripheral curiosities; they are distinct hubs of sustained influence, trust, and monetizable engagement.

A beach volleyball player in Brazil can outsell a national federation. This is not a short-term spike. It is a reset in how value moves through sport. And this reset isn’t reserved for megastars. The theory of “1,000 True Fans” now applies with unprecedented precision. Even niche athletes can build sustainable income and cultural influence, not through mass reach, but through deep resonance. That reset is also economic. Elite athletes now generate value beyond performance alone. They’re not just athletes. They’re the infrastructure of attention and engines of enterprise value. Teams no longer pay just for goals; they pay for gravity.

This pattern mirrors broader cultural transformations. Solo artists now dominate music charts while bands fade. Gaming audiences follow streamers more than studios. Journalists build direct audiences outside traditional newsrooms. CEOs attract more attention than the companies they lead. Sport is simply the most visible edge of a broader realignment that favors people over platforms. Elon Musk does not just lead Tesla, SpaceX, and X. He personifies them. His presence drives headlines, moves markets, and shapes public perception more than the products themselves. He is not adjacent to the brand. He is the brand. Donald Trump followed a similar path. He did not borrow power from the Republican Party. He replaced it. The party structure remained, but the narrative shifted. Identity became more powerful than ideology.

Caitlin Clark reflects this same logic in sport. Her cultural and commercial gravity rivals the league she plays in. She is not an outlier. She is the blueprint. A clear signal that the center of gravity has moved from institutions to individuals. These figures do not simply tell stories. They create connection. They generate emotional investment, shape cultural momentum, and travel further than any logo or scripted campaign. In today’s media environment, relatability beats reach. Faces outperform formats because faces carry meaning.

A powerful example of identity compounding into sustained cultural and commercial value comes from a global documentary series about David Beckham. Long after his playing career ended, Beckham’s brand kept growing, powered by a story that transcended sport. The documentary became one of the most-watched Netflix releases in key markets, drawing millions of viewers in its first weeks and topping English-language charts. Audience data showed that his story resonated far beyond traditional football fans, and it held the number one spot in major territories for consecutive weeks.

The value wasn’t Beckham’s fame alone, it was the narrative infrastructure that reframed adversity into meaning and converted cultural attention into durable symbolic equity. The series traced his arc from adversity to triumph, shaping a coherent and emotionally resonant narrative that multiplied his cultural footprint. It showed how longevity in influence comes from narrative depth rather than performance alone, and how cultural crossover multiplies brand equity. Beckham was presented not just as a footballer but as a global cultural figure with relevance in multiple categories.

For modern athletes, this is instructive. Brand value today is less about peak performance and more about how that performance is woven into an ongoing narrative meaning. The documentary highlighted that sustained engagement and cultural resonance can continue to grow decades after an athlete’s competitive career has ended. That kind of long-term narrative value is precisely what the emerging architecture of athlete influence now rewards.

Athletes as Multifaceted Rightsholders

Athletes aren’t just part of the system; they’ve become its engine; self-contained enterprises of brand, media, and commerce. They shape the sports economy, not as participants, but as architects. Across five foundational layers, they operate as full‑spectrum rightsholders:

1. Narrative Ownership: They don’t wait for media to tell their story. They tell it themselves, owning the clips, angles, and emotions that define how they’re remembered.

2. Audience Ownership: They don’t just attract fans. They build communities: segmented, intentional, monetizable. Alignment is the new scale.

3. Commercial Storytelling: Personality is the new differentiator. Endorsements now feel like embedded narratives, not ads. Fans buy into stories, not slots.

4. Platform Control: From live games to podcasts to private communities, athletes now control the format, the channel, and the access.

5. Data Ownership: They own the loop. Direct platforms give athletes real-time feedback, informing what to sell, and what to build next.

At the center sits IP; not as legal jargon, but as lived identity. It’s what fans recognize before any deal is signed. And it’s evolving fast: from control to orchestration, from protection to participation. The smartest athletes and federations are moving from creating for fans to designing with them. IP today isn’t just about control. It’s about momentum. Platforms that open the gates, through implied or more explicit invitations, challenges, and remixable formats, collaborative licensing, and participatory storytelling, will move faster and reach further. Those who treat IP as a closed asset will be outpaced by those who treat it as an open invitation. This shift redefines distribution itself.

A related risk emerges when identity becomes negotiable. In early 2026, Brooklyn Beckham, the son of David and Victoria Beckham and part of one of the most iconic family brands in global sport and entertainment, publicly rejected the narrative his family had built. In a viral Instagram post, he accused his parents of prioritizing brand image over personal truth. The impact was immediate. A carefully managed legacy brand was disrupted from within. The episode underscores a core truth of modern identity strategy. When identity becomes an asset, agency becomes central. IP is no longer a static portfolio to be protected. It is a living narrative to be negotiated. It can amplify institutional value or unravel it. Designing for that tension is now essential to any resilient IP architecture.

Together, these layers make clear: athlete amplification isn’t “bonus” reach. It is the reach. Rightsholders who view athletes as promotional assets are misreading the map. The athlete isn’t an add-on. They are the axis. This isn’t just about sport. Several powerful forces now explain why elite talent commands such a premium; and why that premium is accelerating. Together, these forces have reshaped sport into a global, data‑driven entertainment economy. Athletes are no longer participants in that system. They are the system. Whether you have 600 million followers or just 6,000 deeply engaged ones, the architecture works. The economy of influence is shifting from audience size to audience alignment.

1. Superstar Economy: Winner‑takes‑most dynamics amplified by global reach and zero marginal distribution costs.

2. Attention Economy: Platforms reward emotional, identity‑driven engagement over passive consumption.

3. Creator Economy: Individuals operate as independent media and commerce entities, not just performers.

4. Power‑Law Platforms: Value and visibility concentrate exponentially at the top.

5. Direct‑to‑Audience Markets: Audience ownership now unlocks revenue streams previously gated by institutions.

These aren’t edge cases. They’re systemic transformations. And they’re rewriting the economic architecture of athlete leverage.

Where Institutions Still Matter

As the Winter Olympics enter their media crescendo, they stand as the last great proof point of institutional spectacle, increasingly dependent on athlete-driven narratives to sustain relevance at global scale. Even the world’s most centralized sporting event now relies on individual athletes to carry the story forward, across platforms, across time zones, and beyond the confines of the competition itself.

This evolution isn’t the end of leagues or federations, but it is the end of their monopoly on relevance. Institutions remain essential infrastructure: they organize competition, enforce standards, and stage elite moments. What they no longer control is cultural gravity. That power now originates with athletes.

Legacy institutions didn’t fall behind due to a lack of resources. They fell behind because they misread where influence was concentrating. In 2026, reach no longer flows through logos or schedules. It flows through people. Institutions still have weight; but athletes create orbit. To remain indispensable, institutions must realign around three outcomes:

• Athletes as the Entry Point: Fan journeys increasingly start with faces, not franchises. The algorithm is the front door, and athletes are the interface.

• Value Beyond the Event: Highlights, co-streams, and behind-the-scenes content now outperform live moments in reach and memory. Cultural value compounds off the field.

• Shared Ownership Models: Athletes drive growth but rarely share in the upside. That imbalance won’t hold. Future-ready systems co-own IP, share revenue by engagement, and build with athletes, not around them.

The strategy isn’t control. It’s alignment. Institutions that thrive won’t try to contain influence; they’ll design their systems to multiply it.

Designing for Decentralization: The Realignment Moment

If the athlete is now the ecosystem, legacy systems must re-architect around that reality. The core strategic error in 2026 isn’t losing rights; it’s assuming rights still guarantee relevance. Logos, archives, and live moments remain valuable, but they no longer anchor attention or culture.

This is no longer a promotional challenge. It’s a structural one. Athletes now operate as autonomous engines of narrative, distribution, and commerce. That shift reshapes the economics of media, sponsorship, and IP, not incrementally, but fundamentally. For strategists, the implication is clear: the old model: own the rights, control the message, rent the face, doesn’t scale in a system where athletes build their own brands, audiences, and commercial loops. Influence no longer needs permission.

Future-ready systems will align incentives with storytelling, not exposure; share upside by engagement, not exclusivity; and replace paternalism with partnership. And for athlete brand architects, the mandate is simple: don’t compete for space inside legacy systems. Design decentralized ones that compound value over time. Legacy is no longer retrospective. It’s built live through visibility, alignment, and cultural durability.

A Shift Already in Motion

This isn’t a future trend. It’s a current reality. From elite global icons to grassroots athlete-creators, the power center has shifted. The question isn’t whether athletes hold influence. It’s whether your systems are structured to grow because of it. In the next era of sport, visibility is just the start. Whether you move millions or mobilize a few thousand, value comes from velocity, resonance, and alignment, with the people who count. As Clark demonstrates, influence is no longer inherited from a system, it is architected deliberately, continuously, and at scale.

If the shift outlined above is accurate, then many of the most consequential decisions in sport are no longer about optimizing existing structures, but about recognizing how influence, distribution, and value now move across a more decentralized landscape, shaped jointly by institutions and the individuals within them.

Most people reading this are already navigating these conditions in practice. Often without shared language internally. Often without alignment across stakeholders. And often while operating inside systems that were designed for a more centralized era.

My work operates at that inflection point. I support athletes, teams, federations, and partners who need clarity on how roles, responsibility, and leverage are evolving, before delay turns uncertainty into constraint. Not by prescribing tactics, but by helping decision-makers see the structure they are already inside.

If this piece surfaced questions you are already dealing with, you are welcome to continue the conversation privately.

Request a private conversation

Happy 2026. This year, The Insider returns to a monthly cadence. Fewer issues, more depth. Each edition is a long-form piece, designed to build on the last and compound insight over time, while leaving room for more frequent writing elsewhere.

This month’s article was triggered by an episode of the StreamTime Sports Podcast, hosted by Nick Meacham, featuring Rob Pilgrim, Head of Sport for EMEA at Meta. One comment reframed the entire discussion. It clarified a shift many in sport are sensing, but few have put into words.

What follows examines how live sport still anchors the industry, but how the value it creates now extends far beyond the broadcast window, into moments that remain systematically undervalued.

Let’s begin.

Best, Thomas

THE EVENT IS NO LONGER THE STORY

How Meaning, Memory, and Money Moved Beyond the Scoreline

Long before the match begins, the event is already at work. Tickets are bought. Line-ups debated. Predictions made. Clips from previous encounters resurface. Group chats warm up. Expectations take shape. By the time players step onto the pitch, attention has already been activated, shaped, and distributed. Once play begins, that attention does not settle. It splits.

Within the venue, in front of the TV, and everywhere in between, fans divide their focus across multiple layers. They follow the action, respond to it with those around them, create content of their own, and consume the reactions of others in real time. Co-streams run in parallel. Missed chances are debated as they happen. Referee decisions are replayed in slow motion before the game resumes. Live statistics refresh while emotions rise and fall. Clips circulate before the action is even over.

In elite sports venues today, screens and cameras outnumber attendees. No major event passes without thousands of personal recordings, captions, and reactions appearing instantly. What once seemed to be individual behavior has become a new collective habit. The layered experience is no longer an exception. It is the default.

Mark Cuban once described sport as an industry built on selling shared experiences. That remains true. What has changed is how those experiences are formed, and when and where they unfold. Live events now generate value on two sides: the front edge of anticipation and the long tail of interpretation. A home game of the Indiana Fever is no longer limited to the Gainbridge Fieldhouse, and it doesn’t begin at tip-off or end at the final buzzer. It can be consumed from anywhere in the world, builds in anticipation, and extends through interpretation. What people carry forward is not simply what happened, but what that moment became while it unfolded.

When Competition Becomes Continuity

This helps explain why some of the most powerful sports narratives today no longer live in the event itself, but in the unscripted drama around it. Drive to Survive didn’t invent this dynamic, but it made it visible. By showing the people behind the helmets, it repositioned Formula 1 as a character-led story engine. It worked: over half of U.S. F1 fans now say they started watching because of the series, not the races.

What has changed is that these human storylines are now surfaced, prioritized, extended, and consumed continuously, closer in structure to a real-life soap opera than to a single competitive outcome. Meaning no longer concludes at the final scoreline. It accumulates across episodes, platforms, and perspectives, drawing in audiences who may never have followed the sport before.

A related shift is even harder for traditional structures to acknowledge. Increasingly, some of the most commercially successful sporting formats are not built around the best athletes, but around the most watchable ones. The rise of properties such as the Savannah Bananas, the Netflix Cup, the Kings League, and the Baller League clearly illustrates this inversion. These formats do not compete on technical supremacy alone. They compete on accessibility, personality, pacing, and narrative continuity, often organized around individuals rather than institutions.

This isn’t a decline in sporting quality; it’s a decoupling of excellence and engagement. Elite performance still matters, but it no longer guarantees attention, engagement, or commercial gravity in itself. In a media environment defined by abundance and choice, audiences increasingly reward what sustains interest, invites participation, and carries a story.

As immediate attention fades, the pressure does not disappear. It concentrates. A comment in a mixed zone. A decision questioned. A gesture replayed, reframed, and reinterpreted. Public discourse detaches from the event itself and begins to orbit something else entirely, often the athlete at its center. This is not a marginal shift in media behavior. It is a structural one. Live events still concentrate attention. Value compounds in what those moments come to mean over time.

The Last Unforgeable Category

This diffusion of attention does not mean that live sport has lost its value. In fact, the opposite is true. Live sport remains one of the last content categories that cannot be convincingly fabricated, and that makes athletes uniquely irreplaceable. In a media environment increasingly shaped by generative systems, almost everything else can be simulated: faces, voices, performances, even entire narratives. Influence can be manufactured. Authenticity can be approximated. Reality itself can be edited. Sport resists this.

A real Olympic final cannot be generated. A last-second goal cannot be scripted. An upset that shocks millions at the same time cannot be convincingly faked. Competition, by definition, requires uncertainty. Outcomes cannot be predetermined. Stakes are real precisely because they are uncontrollable. This is what makes live sport structurally different. Not emotionally special, but economically and culturally defensible.

In an on-demand world where almost all content is skippable, pausable, bingeable, or deferred, sport still insists on being experienced as it happens. Miss the moment, and the meaning collapses. This forced immediacy creates something algorithms cannot reproduce: real-time, mass participation around the same unfolding reality. That simultaneity matters.

It remains one of the last contexts in which millions of people watch the same thing, at the same time, with the same emotional stakes. A stadium erupting. A nation holding its breath. A global audience reacting in sync. These are not nostalgic images. They are structural conditions. They are what make sport the last true cultural campfire in a fragmented media landscape.

This is also why live sports rights remain so fiercely contested. They anchor platforms, drive subscriptions, and reduce churn. They justify premium pricing. They spill into betting ecosystems, social feeds, public spaces, and national rituals. No other content category exerts this kind of multi-layered economic gravity. Live sport remains uniquely scarce and unforgeable. But scarcity alone no longer determines where value settles. This creates a quiet imbalance. Live rights absorb the largest share of industry investment because they are visible, defensible, and familiar. Yet many of the formats that now generate the strongest engagement, cultural reach, and memory effects, especially those driven by athletes, are still treated as secondary, bundled, or promotional.

Live rights still anchor the industry. But the fastest-growing sources of cultural leverage now sit outside the broadcast window, particularly in narrative access and extended storytelling that build meaning over time. The issue isn’t that live sport is overpriced. It’s that adjacent layers remain systematically undervalued, despite the influence they now hold. Sports media rights are nearing $60 billion globally, yet visibility metrics still shape how value is priced. Meanwhile, research shows athletic programming delivers 47% higher brand recall than general content; proof that attention quality matters more than exposure alone.

This reveals a quiet contradiction. Formats like highlight reels, behind-the-scenes access, and athlete-led storytelling often operate on the margins of the rights economy, as promotional tools or soft add-ons. Yet they deliver outsized impact at minimal cost. Their purpose isn’t to replace the main event, but to reframe what it ultimately means.

Attention Has Not Disappeared. It Has Diffused.

The sports industry continues to plan as if the live event were the primary destination, largely because its economic importance remains undeniable. Rights deals anchor balance sheets. Broadcast moments still deliver scale. Stadiums still matter. However, audience behavior tells a more complex story.

For many younger audiences, television is no longer the dominant screen. Mobile has become the primary site of conversation. Whether in stadiums or on sofas, fans now experience events through an additional layer of interaction: messaging, filming, commenting, sharing, and reacting. Sure, there are still moments when the broadcast demands their undivided attention, a decisive goal, a controversial call, a defining play, but just as often the main screen recedes while the conversation accelerates elsewhere. This is not a decline. It is diffusion. The strategic mistake is not a misunderstanding of attention, but rather continuing to value it as if it still behaves the same way.

Live sport still triggers the moment, but meaning now unfolds across time, platforms, and geographies, among audiences who may never share the same place, schedule, or broadcast. What fans debate, defend, and remember is increasingly shaped not only in anticipation of, or after, the event has ended, but also while it is still unfolding. The industry, however, continues to plan as if the event itself were the endpoint.

In the final days of 2025, this shift was formalised by TikTok. The platform announced GamePlan, a sports framework designed to organise discovery, anticipation, and participation around live events inside the app. The significance lies not in the feature set, but in the underlying assumption: sport is now treated as a continuous narrative environment rather than a moment-bound broadcast. When platforms begin designing for interpretation, it becomes harder to argue that the event itself remains the primary unit of value.

The Misread That Still Shapes Value

For decades, sport operated on a simple assumption: win the moment, and the narrative will follow. That logic made sense when attention and interpretation shared the same place, when broadcast controlled the frame, and when geography and timing limited who could participate in the conversation. Those rules no longer apply.

Narratives now fragment, recombine, and travel independently of the live event. Highlights circulate detached from their full context. Behind-the-scenes material reframes performances as journeys rather than outcomes. Debate, conflict, and emotion extend relevance far beyond the scoreline, the highlights, and authorized behind-the-scenes content.

Yet valuation models, sponsorship structures, and performance metrics continue to over-index on traditional live ratings, logo exposure, and peak attention. The industry still prices visibility as if it were scarce, even as interpretation has become the true bottleneck. Increasingly, what happens around events carries significantly more cultural, reputational, and commercial weight than the event itself.

When Sport Moved From Moments to Memory

For most of sporting history, moments mattered because they were all we could capture. If you missed the goal, the finish, the knockout, it was gone. Memory was fragile. It lived in the super-slow-motion replay, in photographs, in short highlight reels, in the archive, or in whatever survived the limits of technology. Presence carried weight because absence meant loss. Those moments were priceless precisely because they could not be fully recovered. Today, those conditions no longer hold.

Almost everything is captured, stored, copied, searchable, and available. High-resolution footage exists from every angle. Archives grow rather than fade. Old performances resurface years later, cut differently, contextualized anew, reinterpreted through fresh cultural lenses. Forgetting has become more complicated than remembering. This has quietly changed where sport experiences actually live.

They no longer reside primarily in the instant of occurrence, but in anticipation and memory. Emotional capital accumulates over time. Legacy is no longer something assessed decades later. It is actively built, revisited, and reshaped in the present. Past moments do not sit still. They are edited, captioned, gamified, absorbed into new trends, and reframed for new audiences.

Even the crafts surrounding sport reflect this shift. Sports photography was once about capturing the exact right moment, the peak action, the decisive expression. Today, with everything already captured at high resolution, value shifts toward selection, framing, and editing. Meaning emerges not from what was caught, but from what is chosen. Memory, in this environment, is no longer a faithful record. It is a living construction.

Public perception often outweighs factual sequence. The line “I never said most of the things I said”, attributed to Yogi Berra, endures precisely because it captures this paradox. What survives is not what was actually said and by whom, but what was remembered. In modern sport, history is no longer written by skill or results alone. It is written by what circulates, what resonates, and what communities decide to carry forward.

The Quiet Redefinition of the Fan

As sport globalized, another assumption quietly broke. For a long time, legitimacy was tied to proximity. Being there mattered. Attendance was proof. Watching live, sharing that moment, and reacting in real time were treated as markers of authentic fandom. That hierarchy no longer holds.

Many fans today will never attend a match in person. Not because they lack interest, but because geography, economics, or time zones make it impossible. Others may never watch live, not by choice but because rights fragmentation or daily realities compel them to engage in asynchronous viewing. Highlights are watched later. Conversations are joined after the fact. Context is absorbed socially rather than synchronously. And yet their emotional involvement and economic potential are real.

These fans feel wins and losses. They argue, defend, celebrate, and grieve. They follow athletes across seasons, understand rivalries, and carry stories forward. Their engagement is not diluted by distance. It is simply structured differently. In many cases, it is more narrative than moment-based. Meaning is built through continuity rather than presence. Through story rather than spectacle. In a global, fluid audience, the most consequential question is no longer who attended, but who felt included.

Where the Value Actually Compounds

The paradox is that some of the most powerful narrative layers in sport are still treated as by-products. Highlights, extended storytelling, behind-the-scenes access, and personality-driven formats are often given away, even as they increasingly host the most sustained engagement.

If you observe how fans actually behave, this hierarchy feels increasingly misaligned. The premium moment is not always the linear live broadcast itself, but rather the engagement surrounding it: the debates, the reframing, the accumulation of context that turns an event into a story.

A recent example illustrates this shift clearly. The global conversation surrounding the fight between Jake Paul and Anthony Joshua MBE was shaped less by the bout itself than by everything around it, from the speculation and anticipation that built beforehand to the developments that followed, keeping both athletes in the global conversation well beyond the ring. Many fans may have never watched the fight in real time. Some never watched it at all. Yet they were deeply engaged in its meaning.

Notably, the fights did not originate with a title, a federation, or a traditional event owner. It emerged around individuals, carried by audience interpretation rather than institutional framing. The value of the event was not exhausted by the broadcast. It was produced before the event, in parallel with the live broadcast itself, and in what unfolded after it.

From Audience to Co-Author

If events are no longer limited to the competition itself, and if fandom is no longer defined by presence or simultaneity, then the roles of athletes and the crowd begin to change. What surrounds major sporting moments today is not silence, but production.

Fans clip, remix, react, reinterpret, parody, analyze, and argue. They create content for other fans, often more quickly and with greater emotional currency than any central operation could manage. This is not a threat to official storytelling. It is the raw material of it. No individual, not even the biggest star, will be able to out-create their community. What they can do instead is set the conditions under which that community creates.

Events become orchestration points rather than finished products. A decisive play, a visible emotion, a disputed decision becomes a trigger. What follows is a distributed storytelling effort shaped by thousands of perspectives, cultures, and contexts. Meaning spreads horizontally, not vertically.

New AI-powered tools accelerate this shift, not by replacing creativity, but by lowering the friction of participation. Fans who would never have considered themselves creators now contribute. Clips are edited, contextualized, reinterpreted, translated, and recirculated across borders and time zones. Narratives evolve collaboratively.

The athlete’s role in this environment is not to compete with their community for attention, but to guide it. To signal what matters. To recognize what resonates. To selectively amplify rather than constantly produce. This fragmented landscape doesn’t just distribute attention; it multiplies leverage. Athletes now hold more entry points into relevance, with personal moments, off-field context, and narrative continuity becoming key assets in building long-term brand equity.

The Shift That Follows

In this model, the event is no longer the story. It is the spark. The stories gain durability through the engagement fans create for one another. Once meaning becomes shared: co-owned and co-authored, it no longer self-regulates.

Not control, but judgment. Not volume, but intent. Because when narratives shape value more than moments do, responsibility no longer sits with those who stage the event alone, but with those who choose what is amplified, remembered, and carried forward.

When performance is no longer the only organising principle

If the shift outlined above is accurate, then many of the most consequential decisions in sport are no longer about optimisation, but about acknowledgement. Live sport still anchors the industry, but the conditions under which value is created, extended, and retained have changed.

Most people reading this are already navigating these conditions in practice. Often, without a shared, internal language. Frequently without alignment across stakeholders. And usually, while operating within structures built for a different set of assumptions.

My work operates at that inflection point. I support athletes, teams, federations, and partners who need clarity on where responsibility, leverage, and risk now sit, before delay turns uncertainty into constraint. Not by prescribing tactics, but by helping decision-makers see the structure they are already inside.

If this piece surfaced questions you are already dealing with, you are welcome to continue the conversation privately.

Request a private conversation.

Over the past two days, we’ve explored the rise of athlete brand infrastructure and how modern athletes are building scalable systems for influence and ownership.

In Part I, we introduced The Infrastructure Era, in which athlete brands are no longer built on virality but on systems. In Part II, we broke down The Athlete Brand Stack, a modular framework for turning identity into sustained value.

Today in Part III: Platform Execution Maps, we focus on real-world applications: how elite athletes deploy these systems across platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Meta, Discord, and more, without burning out or diluting their message.

This is where architecture meets execution.

Best,

Thomas

State of Athlete Branding 2026

Part III: Platform Execution Maps

In 2026, athlete brands don’t beat the algorithm. They engineer for it. Every major platform now functions as its own operating system. Each one has its own logic, signals, and interaction modes. The old playbook of showing up, posting content, and hoping it spreads no longer applies. The best athlete brands in 2026 understand this. They do not just exist across platforms. They build platform-specific infrastructure. Each expression is tuned while the underlying system remains constant.

This is the Platform Execution Map: a systems-first approach to distributing identity across channels without diluting the message, burning out, or chasing shallow metrics.

The Composite Athlete: One Engine, Many Terrains

Picture a mid-career sprinter on the road to Olympic qualification. She trains in silence, competes worldwide, and builds a fan base that transcends disciplines, geography, and formats. Her brand is not fragmented. It is mapped. On YouTube, her coach produces weekly long-form vlogs that detail biomechanics and recovery protocols. On TikTok, short, tightly edited clips break down starts, speed drills, and footwork with expert commentary. On Instagram, a performance brand partnership unfolds through modular creative optimized for the feed and stories. On Snapchat, her morning reflections reach her core audience through raw, real-time voice notes. On Google, queries like “explosive start technique” or “elite sprinter mental prep” surface her content organically. This is not omnipresence. It is orchestration. Every channel and every piece serve a function.

YouTube: The Narrative Stack

YouTube in 2026 is the storytelling backbone. It rewards depth over bursts. Athletes who succeed here treat their content like serialized programming. Long-form videos anchor the brand through training breakdowns, day-in-the-life episodes, or docu-style interviews. Shorts serve as discovery tools that pull new audiences into the ecosystem. YouTube’s AI-native tooling automates editing and metadata, giving athletes more leverage with less lift. What matters is not just consistency but clarity. Each episode and each short plays a role in the larger narrative.

TikTok: The Precision Lab

TikTok is where content gets tested. The platform has evolved into a real-time lab for resonance. It rewards not just entertainment but iteration. Watch time, saves, and loop completions are the signals that matter. Athletes who succeed do not chase trends. They own niches. Recovery tips, sprint mechanics, and mental prep become micro-formats that test and teach. TikTok becomes the proving ground. A hook that works here often evolves into a long-form YouTube segment or an email subject line. It is fast, volatile, and essential.

Instagram: The Proof Layer

Instagram has shifted from highlight reel to validation layer. Meta’s algorithm now favors modular content designed for sponsor integration and audience segmentation. Athletes no longer post reactively. They deploy content in kits that include feed assets, interactive stories, and ad-ready formats. Stories now act as feedback loops. Polls, taps, and reactions gather insight and inform drops, launches, and premium content pushes elsewhere. Instagram is no longer just about aesthetics. It is a platform for proving fit and performance.

Snapchat: The Intimacy Engine

Snapchat has re-emerged as the most human channel. It is where athlete brands feel least curated and most consistent. The rise of AR, wearable tech, and Perplexity-enhanced tools makes it easy to capture and share the in-between moments. For younger fans and core communities, Snap is not noise. It is access. These are not broadcasts. They are touchpoints that reinforce trust.

Kajabi, OnlyFans, Patreon, Substack: The Ownership Layer

Ownership in 2026 goes beyond gated access and subscriptions. Platforms like Substack and Kajabi remain critical, but Patreon offers a model of what creative infrastructure can become. Once known for subscriptions, Patreon is now a programmable ecosystem where access, commerce, and identity intersect. It supports flexible memberships with tailored perks, curates themed experiences to spark ongoing engagement, and promotes deeper relationships through community initiatives. With enhanced tools for mobile publishing, product sales, and community management, Patreon gives athlete brands full control over both storytelling and monetization. This model blends intimacy, access, and commerce in a way that protects brand identity and scales fan connection.

Google and Gemini: The Discovery Layer

Search in 2026 is predictive. Gemini does not just index content. It interprets intent and delivers contextually relevant answers in AI-powered experiences. Athletes who want to be discovered must become semantically aligned. That means publishing blog posts, video content, and interviews with structured metadata that responds to real questions. Pages titled “How I Build Sprint Power in 30 Days” surface more than generic ones. Visibility is no longer accidental. It is the result of systems that teach AI who you are, how you think, and what you solve.

Discord: The Culture Node

Discord is the home for athlete brands that aim to build movements rather than just audiences. It functions as a creative lab, social hub, and community command center. Fans do not just observe. They contribute. Daily check-ins, AMA threads, merch feedback, and training templates transform passive followers into collaborators. With AI supporting moderation and tagging behaviors, Discord becomes an intelligent infrastructure for engagement and iteration.

Closing Thought: Systems, Not Sprints

The Athlete Brand Stack does not run on volume. It runs on orchestration. Each platform is a unique terrain. The underlying system remains constant, rooted in identity, powered by AI, and owned by the athlete. Precision replaces performance. Execution replaces exhaustion. This is not about doing more. It is about designing with intention.

Over the course of this series, we have traced a shift. Part I introduced the Infrastructure Era and the rise of athlete brands built like modern systems. Part II laid out the Athlete Brand Stack, a layered framework for scalable brand architecture. And now in Part III, we have shown how that system oAperates in the real world, across the platforms that shape culture and commerce. In 2026, athlete influence isn’t something you chase. It’s something you build. Performance remains the foundation. Systems make it last.

📘 Get The Athlete Brand Book.

If this series resonates, there’s more where it came from. Our 600-page guide is the most complete resource in the game, packed with frameworks, tools, and real-world examples to help athletes build brand equity, not just attention. 👉 Grab your copy now.

🌍 Know Someone We Should Meet?

We’re growing, and your intros help us reach the right rooms. If you know of a podcast, panel, accelerator, or workshop aligned with this work, I’d appreciate a referral. 🤝 Make a connection.

📣 Share This Series

If this sparked something, don’t keep it to yourself. Please forward it to a teammate, coach, agent, or brand partner and help us build a stronger, smarter support system for athletes everywhere. 📬

As we head into 2026, athlete branding is undergoing its most fundamental transformation yet; not just in reach, but in infrastructure, systems, and long-term value. This week, we’re sharing a special 3-part Influence Insider series on the future of athlete brands: how they’re built, scaled, and sustained in the new era.

Yesterday in Part I: The Infrastructure Era, we explored the shift from personality-driven content to scalable systems and support frameworks.

Today in Part II: Building The Athlete Brand Stack, we go deeper into what those systems actually look like and how elite athletes are using a five-layer stack to protect their identity, grow with precision, and operate with leverage.

Best,
Thomas

State of Athlete Branding 2026

Part II: BUILDING THE ATHLETE BRAND STACK

In an era where attention is engineered, the athlete brand must evolve from expression to execution. This shift isn’t just about what you say or post. It’s about how your system communicates, shares, and sustains it. This is the blueprint for the Athlete Brand Stack: a modular, scalable infrastructure that turns identity into influence, and influence into ownership.

Identity as Infrastructure

Every system needs a blueprint. In 2026, that blueprint starts with identity, not in the performative sense, but the operational one. Identity is no longer just a logo, a vibe, or a highlight reel. It’s the most critical input your system will ever receive. The best athlete brands are now architected with clarity around tone, values, aesthetics, and language that people recognize, and AI can interpret.

Identity isn’t just expressed through content. It’s embedded in code. It teaches your tools what “you” looks like and sounds like at scale. Without it, automation breaks. Messaging fractures. Fans disconnect. Your brand becomes inconsistent at best, invisible at worst. This codification is not a departure from purpose; it’s a safeguard. A well-built system doesn’t replace the athlete’s pursuit. It protects it.

Building the Stack

The Athlete Brand Stack is not a metaphor. It’s a fundamental framework, made of five interlocking layers. Each one is designed to help you build, sustain, and grow with less waste and more leverage. It starts with your Strategic Gameplan, the choices that define your narrative arcs, voice, values, and visual DNA. This is the part of your system that trains your AI, briefs your collaborators, and ensures your content, even when spread across ten platforms, still feels like you. It aligns everything outward with what matters inward.

Next is the Content Engine. Modular creation workflows now leverage AI for scripting, editing, and sequencing. The athlete shifts from creator to conductor. One story becomes dozens of assets: each tailored to platform, audience, and intent. Timing, cadence, and repackaging are all handled by systems that identify exactly what works best.

Then comes the Audience Layer. This is where platform dependency ends and ownership begins. Leading athlete brands are building direct fan relationships through email, SMS, Discord, and gated communities. They’re not just collecting followers. They’re collecting signals: preferences, behaviors, purchase history. These are sorted and segmented to personalize communication and increase lifetime value, not by guesswork, but by design.

Layer four is Monetization. The old model, passive, brand exposure-centric sponsorships and one-off merch drops, is fading. In its place: integrated brand content, performance-driven campaigns, and whole ecosystems of products and services: coaching, memberships, physical goods, IP-based media. These aren’t vanity plays. They’re strategic, driven by real-time intelligence, and built to compound.

Finally, the Intelligence Layer serves as the system’s brain. It pulls performance data across the stack: content, audience, revenue, and turns it into next steps. AI agents flag drop-offs, spot viral signals, and suggest changes. This isn’t analytics for reporting. It’s intelligence for steering. When all five layers are in sync, your brand compounds. If one of these is missing, you invite friction, fatigue, or fragility.

The New Brand Operator

This model doesn’t sideline the athlete. It elevates them. The athlete becomes the operator-in-chief: the architect who sets the rules, defines the tone, and ensures the brand performs; even when they’re not posting. The mindset shift is subtle but decisive: from being the engine to building the engine. From producing content on demand to leading a system that delivers at scale. From chasing relevance to engineering it. This doesn’t kill creativity. It protects it. It prevents content from becoming a treadmill and ensures value doesn’t disappear the moment a post fades.

Operational Edge: How Elite Brands Execute

Look at the best-performing athlete brands in 2026, and you’ll see a pattern. They’re not chasing virality. They’re running systems. They test 12 video intros overnight using AI, then deploy the top two with the highest watch time. They repurpose long-form interviews into microcontent that fits each platform, each with custom intros and calls to action. They measure sentiment not by likes but by behavior and adjust offers based on what fans actually do.

They know who wants to buy merch, who prefers to subscribe to their newsletter, and who’s ready to buy access. And when brands reach out, these athletes don’t pitch potential. They present a performance stack: reach, retention, ROI, brand fit. They’re not asking to be chosen. They’re proving they’re a channel. This is what it looks like when an athlete brand starts to operate like a startup.

Closing Thought: This Is Your Stack

Legacy doesn’t come from volume. It comes from architecture. The Athlete Brand Stack is the foundation for scale, the safeguard against burnout, and the clearest signal that you’re building something that outlasts seasons, platforms, and trends.

Coming next in Part III: Platform Execution Maps; how to apply this system across YouTube, TikTok, Meta, and more. The future doesn’t reward volume. It rewards those who build with structure.

Before You Go: Three Ways to Dive Deeper

📘 Get The Athlete Brand Book.

If this series resonates, there’s more where it came from. Our 600-page guide is the most complete resource in the game, packed with frameworks, tools, and real-world examples to help athletes build brand equity, not just attention. 👉 Grab your copy now.

🌍 Know Someone We Should Meet?

We’re growing, and your intros help us reach the right rooms. If you know of a podcast, panel, accelerator, or workshop aligned with this work, I’d appreciate a referral. 🤝 Make a connection.

📣 Share This Series

If this sparked something, don’t keep it to yourself. Please forward it to a teammate, coach, agent, or brand partner and help us build a stronger, smarter support system for athletes everywhere. 📬

As we head into 2026, athlete branding is undergoing its most fundamental transformation yet; not just in reach, but in infrastructure, systems, and long-term value. This week, we’re sharing a special 3-part Influence Insider series on the future of athlete brands: how they’re built, scaled, and sustained in the new era.

Today in Part I: The Infrastructure Era, we explore the rise of athlete brand systems; why they matter now, what’s changed, and how performance-first athletes are future-proofing their influence.

Best,

Thomas

State of Athlete Branding 2026

Part I: THE INFRASTRUCTURE ERA

Athlete influence is undergoing its most profound transformation yet, reshaping not just reach but also infrastructure, ownership, and legacy. Imagine this: a rising athlete, laptop open at midnight, watching AI tools cut, caption, and schedule content while a data dashboard reveals which segments of their audience are most likely to buy, engage, or refer. No agent. No creative team. Just systems. Running. It sounds rare. That’s because it is.

Today, in late 2025, this kind of operational infrastructure is still the exception. But in 2026, it won’t be. The shift is already underway, and athletes who embrace it early will define the next era of influence. This isn’t about replacing performance. It’s about respecting it enough to extend its value. Clearly, athletic excellence will always be the mission, the magic, and the meaning. But in 2026, honoring that excellence also means designing systems that protect and project it; at scale, across time, and beyond any one moment. The tooling already exists. The models are in place. The value is undeniable. Support systems are emerging to make it scalable, accessible, and affordable.

The reality is, most athletes shouldn’t have to do this alone. Nor should they. But not doing it yourself should never mean missing out on the value. Rightsholders, agencies, brand partners, and operators now have the ability and the responsibility to support athlete brands in building these systems. Because every week that passes without this infrastructure is a week of compounding missed opportunity, we believe that with the proper support, every athlete can run a brand system that turns attention into equity and performance into legacy. Welcome to the Infrastructure Era.

From Intuition to Infrastructure

For over a decade, athlete brands grew through performance, personality, and posts. Livecast on Instagram. Amplify the win. Drop the video. Go live. Hope it spreads. That model has now been replaced by a more powerful, less visible approach: value engineering.

In 2026, we’ll see athlete brands increasingly assembled like modern tech stacks. They will contain automation layers, AI pipelines, data feedback loops, and modular storytelling systems. Not just reactive or relational, but responsive, intelligent, and measurable. The new athlete brand won’t be a campaign. It will be a machine. This doesn’t eliminate personality or creativity. It enhances it. It doesn’t erase individuality. It amplifies it. The core shift isn’t from emotion to code. It’s from guesswork to growth loops.

The Tech Stack Shifts Reshaping Brand Power

Athletes are no longer just competitors and creators; they’re becoming entrepreneurs, investors, and operators. Or more accurately: they’re working with operators. The tools they use now behave more like operating systems than content apps. Four interlinked changes drive this shift:

• Marketing has moved from one-off campaigns to persistent systems. Content is atomized, repurposed, and distributed by AI. Offers are versioned based on audience data. Scenarios are anticipated. Calendars are predictive. Athlete brands that once relied on bursts of effort are now running modular growth loops.

• AI is no longer just an assistant. It’s becoming a co-founder. Generative tools handle scripting, creation, editing, clip sequencing, and tone-matching. Intelligent agents segment audiences, test creative, and predict engagement drops. Athletes are training AI to become their brand operating layer, or having that done for them.

• Influence is being redefined. It’s not just about visibility. It’s about outcomes. Every asset, from a story highlight to a subscriber email, is now designed for reuse and measurable impact. Brands are shifting focus from virality to repeatable, engineered value.

• Platform dependence is giving way to audience ownership. Algorithm volatility and ad fatigue are pushing athletes toward first-party data ecosystems: email lists, SMS, private communities, and AI-enhanced CRMs. Controlling the relationship is now a requirement, not a luxury.

This is the foundation of what we call the Athlete Brand Stack: a modular, scalable system for building and monetizing attention without burnout.

Platform Power Moves: The 2026 Ecosystem

The major platforms have declared their direction, and athlete-creators need to respond strategically:

• YouTube has become a full-stack studio with built-in AI tools for editing, voice, SEO, and shoppable video. Shorts and long-form content now feed into one another, while Connected TV introduces larger thumbnails, QR-led commerce, and lean-back monetization. This platform favors athletes who think narratively.

• Meta’s Andromeda algorithm can process more ad variants exponentially at speed. Creator-driven ads are now native to Meta’s ad systems, with automated scaling and simplified structures. For athlete brands, this is an ecosystem built for modular creative and seamless sponsor integration.

• Alphabet’s Gemini 3.0 signals a pivot from keyword-based search to AI-enhanced discovery. It’s embedded in Workspace, Cloud, and across monetization layers. Search is evolving into a prediction engine. Athlete-owned web assets, metadata, and semantic clarity now play a bigger role in brand visibility.

• TikTok has shifted its algorithm to reward watch-time and completion rates over raw views. With Oracle managing U.S. operations and a commerce-first design, the platform now emphasizes niche authority and search-optimized visibility. Retention has become the new reach.

• Snapchat is pushing back into relevance through AR. Its partnership with Perplexity AI and the launch of AR glasses open the door to immersive, human-first athlete experiences. The platform leans into authenticity, with sponsored Snaps and daily storytelling. It suits athletes with lifestyle-driven narratives.

• OnlyFans, while not for everyone, points to a broader trend in direct monetization. Its tools for segmentation, scheduling, and community-led engagement represent the future of subscription ecosystems. Whether or not athletes use this platform, its model shows how intimacy and control converge.

Collectively, these shifts tell a single story: 2026 will not be the year of virality. It will be the year of precision, ownership, and platform-aware execution.

Closing Thought: This Is the Infrastructure Era

The follower-first model is fading. The platform-dependent playbook is fragile. The viral lottery is overplayed. In 2026, the most innovative athlete brands will build systems: clear, composable, and constantly compounding. Athletes won’t just compete. They’ll operate.

Up next in Part II - tomorrow: How to build the Athlete Brand Stack, a modular engine for identity, content, data, monetization, and fan ownership.

This is where infrastructure meets legacy.

Before You Go: Three Ways to Dive Deeper

📘 Get The Athlete Brand Book.

If this series resonates, there’s more where it came from. Our 600-page guide is the most complete resource in the game, packed with frameworks, tools, and real-world examples to help athletes build brand equity, not just attention. 👉 Grab your copy now.

🌍 Know Someone We Should Meet?

We’re growing, and your intros help us reach the right rooms. If you know of a podcast, panel, accelerator, or workshop aligned with this work, I’d appreciate a referral. 🤝 Make a connection.

📣 Share This Series

If this sparked something, don’t keep it to yourself. Please forward it to a teammate, coach, agent, or brand partner and help us build a stronger, smarter support system for athletes everywhere. 📬

We used to believe that attention was the finish line. That if you could get seen, you’d win. But this month’s piece explores what many athletes are starting to realize: attention without trust doesn’t go far, and visibility without strategy wears you down.

It’s about the shift from being watched to being chosen. From chasing the algorithm to choosing your audience. And why emotional connection isn’t a soft metric; it’s the only one that lasts.

Hope it lands. And as always, I’d love to hear what it stirs up.

Thomas

THE FOLLOWER IS DEAD

The Shift From Attention to Intimacy

Ahead of the Paris 2024 Games, Norwegian swimmer Henrik Christiansen did something unexpected: he downloaded TikTok. It wasn’t a brand strategy or a monetization plan. Just a way to pass time between races and share a little personality. What happened next surprised everyone, including Henrik.

A video about chocolate muffins in the Olympic Village went viral. Then another. His following exploded; 50,000 overnight, then 140,000. Within days, ‘the Olympic Muffin Man’ had over half a million followers. But here’s the catch: Henrik didn’t monetize it. Not in the traditional sense. No big brand deals. No instant sponsors. Just a lot of attention, goodwill, and emotional connection, but without a plan to carry that momentum forward, most of it stayed on the surface. Still, the experience changed how he saw his role:

“As athletes, we need to embrace the fact that we are part of an entertainment industry. But I’ve realized there’s more than one way to create entertainment value; not just by swimming fast, but also through content that resonates.” It wasn’t just a quirky moment. It revealed a shift that many athletes are waking up to: emotional connection can be just as powerful as performance.

Intimacy Is a System Now

“We are in the business of selling shared experiences.” Mark Cuban

Today, those shared experiences don’t just happen courtside or on TV; they happen at events, in DMs, in closed communities, in private stories, and in newsletters. In the modern attention economy, athletes aren’t rewarded for performance alone. They’re rewarded for their ability to engineer emotional proximity at scale.

Here’s what emotional proximity looks like at scale: OnlyFans creators are projected to earn over $8 billion in 2026. That’s more than the combined salaries of every NBA player. That income isn’t just about nudity, which is widely available for free. It’s about access, context, and emotional connection structured into a system. OnlyFans figured out how to monetize the parasocial relationship: turning admiration into attention, attention into access, and access into income. Elite athletes already have admiration, narrative arcs, and cultural capital. But most still lack a system to turn audience into intimacy, and intimacy into equity.

The Psychology of Attention

Parasocial relationships are the invisible engine of modern fandom. These one-sided emotional bonds link fans to public figures, often more powerfully than any live performance ever could. They don’t just generate attention; they tap into something more profound: the need to belong, to admire, and to feel seen. Fans wear jerseys like badges of identity, queue for selfies long after the whistle, and wait hours for a signature, not for fame, but for recognition. They want to feel part of the story.

Some seek affiliation: “I’m part of this.” Others chase aspiration: “They reflect who I want to become.” Still others crave acknowledgment: “Maybe if I comment enough, they’ll notice me.” That’s why athlete branding is never just about content. It is about context. The most magnetic athletes don’t merely collect views; they create emotional gravity. OnlyFans monetizes intimacy. Dating apps sell desirability. Sports trade in aspiration. All of them compete for the same scarce resource: emotional attention. And that is what makes the difference. Attention is fleeting. Resonance is what people remember.

When Visibility Stops Working

The old playbook was simple: get seen, go viral, grow your following. But that formula no longer works. Algorithms now reward volatility rather than loyalty. The For You Page has flattened branded storytelling, and follower counts no longer signal trust, or even reach. Worse, visibility today comes at a high emotional cost. Racism, trolling, misquotes, and online outrage have made public life feel more like a risk than a privilege. Athletes, like many public figures, are exhausted, but still expected to post through it, defend themselves, and somehow perform. Visibility once meant power. Now, it’s a currency spent by those with short memories, iron resolve, and armor forged in public fire. And the haters shouting in all caps in the comments? They’re never the ones who show up when it matters.

From Everyone to the Right Ones

Smart athletes are opting out of the hollow race for attention, noise, and follower counts. They’re done chasing clout or trying to please everyone. Instead, they’re building trust systems of their own. This isn’t just a change in platform; it’s a shift in philosophy. It’s a move from “look at me” to “come with me,” from content to connection, from passive fandom to active fellowship. This isn’t branding driven by the hunger for attention. It’s branding grounded in agency. Athletes are no longer just being watched. They’re actively shaping how they’re understood. The goal isn’t a million followers. It’s owning your game, your name, and your lane, and resonating deeply with the micro-community that actually matters: your true fans.

Scaling Intimacy, Not Noise

Athletes don’t need to become full-time creators, which is great news because most won’t want to. But they do need a reliable system for closeness. Not daily posts or algorithm-chasing content, but a rhythm that mirrors the sport itself; predictable, honest, and human.

What fans seek isn’t volume, it’s resonance. Supporting an athlete feels personal. It creates identity, belonging, and a sense of shared journey. A win feels like their win. A setback becomes a shared story. Fans project their values onto athletes and draw strength from their resilience, rituals, and comebacks. This is the power of personal brand: intimacy that scales without losing its charge. When athletes offer steady, emotionally honest touchpoints: updates, voice notes, newsletters, and behind-the-scenes moments, they build something more lasting than visibility. They create trust.

In a fragmented media world, every niche has its own icons. A lesser-known athlete with real presence can foster deeper loyalty than a global superstar. The difference is not in reach, but in rhythm. A cadence that fans can rely on. A story they can feel part of. The future of athlete branding won’t be built on more noise. It will be built on coherence, connection, and emotional utility. Because attention may spark interest, but only intimacy will sustain it.

The Illusion of the Feed

The follower didn’t die because platforms stopped working. It died because they started working too well. TikTok’s For You Page and Instagram’s Reels feed don’t prioritize who you follow; they prioritize what keeps people watching. That shift has turned even personal followings into public lottery tickets. The algorithm chooses reach, not the audience. On most platforms today, organic reach is under 4 percent, meaning even your biggest posts are invisible to more than 90 percent of your own followers.

Paradoxically, this efficiency killed loyalty. Content now travels farther than identity. It’s why many athletes with massive followings still wonder why that reach doesn’t convert into real support. That doesn’t mean athletes should abandon these platforms. They still work as discovery engines and cultural radar. But mistaking visibility for belonging is where the trap lies. Platforms generate reach. They don’t build roots.

Real brand equity doesn’t live in the feed. It lives where the algorithm can’t touch it: in email inboxes, private groups, and direct messages. Channels that don’t rent access but reward trust.

How Trust Gets Built

This isn’t about posting more, creating more, or doing more. It’s about designing smarter systems for intimacy, trust, and long-term equity. A modern athlete brand doesn’t need to shout to be heard; it needs to create spaces where belonging is felt. That might look like a newsletter that offers more than stats and match-day recaps, instead sharing personality, perspective, and even vulnerability. It might mean building a gated community that values loyalty over virality, where consistency is rewarded over clout. It could be as simple as a well-timed voice note that lands more deeply than any highly polished, cinematic masterpiece, or a rhythm of content that pairs a public persona with a cause close to their heart. The goal isn’t performance. It’s resonance. The smartest athletes are starting to build structures that turn attention into affection, and affection into action. That’s how brands become movements. And how fans become insiders.

Where to Begin

The game has changed. Athletes no longer need to be everywhere, for everyone. The smart ones are getting selective, deciding who they’re really building for, and reshaping their story to attract not just attention, but alignment. The question isn’t just “who’s watching me now,” but “who do I want watching next?” True brand equity begins where borrowed attention ends. That means choosing a home base you actually control, whether that’s a newsletter, a private podcast, or a community platform, and showing up there with consistency, not just content. It also means rethinking what support actually looks like. It’s not about who clicks. It’s about who stays. It’s about trust, not traffic.

Athletes building for depth know they don’t need a million followers. They need the right thousand. The ones who show up, speak up, and stay close. More than anything, they understand that everything posted in public either builds trust or burns energy. In this game, discernment is not a luxury. It is survival.

Just ask Henrik Christiansen. He didn’t plan to build a brand in Paris. He shared a craving, a smile, a human moment. Half a million followed, not because it was perfect, but because it was real. But connection fades without a system. Visibility exhausts without a strategy. What athletes need isn’t more content, it’s control. Not louder posts, but a deeper presence. Not chasing the algorithm but choosing the audience that actually matters. Because this isn’t just about branding, it’s about agency. It’s about building trust with the people who insist on you, not the ones screaming in all caps in the comment section.

📘 The Athlete Brand Book

If this resonated, the complete Athlete Brand Book goes much further. It’s built for athletes (and those around them) who want to turn attention into trust and story into strategy. Want a copy? Click Here.

🎤 Talks & Strategy Sessions

I work with teams, federations, schools, and sponsors on this exact shift; from visibility to resonance. Keynotes, workshops, or private brand sessions. If that sounds useful, reach out.

🔁 Pass It On

If this landed, consider sharing it with a coach, a comms lead, a founder, or anyone asking the same questions. I’m always looking to connect with people building in this space. Introductions help me sharpen the work, grow the circle, and keep the ideas moving. Thanks for the nudge forward.

Earlier today, I spoke at Sport Forum Hungary about the evolving athlete economy. If you scanned the QR code during that session, I want you to know that you are welcome. If you’re already an Insider, it’s good to have you back.

This piece revisits The Emerging Athlete Era, my very first post here in 2021. What felt like a provocation back then now reads like a timestamp. The update below captures just how far things have shifted, and why we’re only at the beginning.

If it sparks a conversation, a question, or something you’d like to build together, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Warmly,

Thomas

THE ATHLETE ERA, REWRITTEN (2021–2025)

“The war for talent is over. The talent has won.”

That sentence opened my first post on Substack in January of 2021. At the time, it was a provocative claim. Today, it reads more like a timestamp; the calm before sport’s seismic shift. We didn’t know it yet, but tectonic shifts were already underway:

• Athletes becoming media entities, not just performers

• Fans following players, not events, federations, or teams

• Purpose-driven storytelling overtaking logo-driven sponsorships

• Fragmented media creating infinite distribution but chaotic monetization

• The explosion of large language models and no-code tooling.

Those shifts signaled a new kind of power. But in hindsight, they were just the beginning.

Phase Two: From Control to Construction

The first wave of athlete empowerment was about visibility, control, and monetization. It gave rise to the athlete-publisher, the brand-driven sports economy, and a booming creator-athlete class. But AI is now reshaping the very systems those changes sat within.

• Athletes aren’t just creators, they’re becoming infrastructure.

• Content isn’t just scalable, it’s autogenerated, with or without them.

• Sponsorship isn’t just shifting; it’s fragmenting, evolving beyond brand-exposure into value alignment, story integration, and direct revenue participation.

Who’s pausing to read a perimeter ad? Who recalls a jersey sponsor that isn’t tied to their team? Who can name even one logo from a post-match backdrop, without Googling it? The answer is: nearly nobody. Exposure-based sponsorship still works, but only when it’s activated, story-led, and audience-specific. As a one-size-fits-all mechanic, it has lost its effectiveness. These legacy assets were priced for an era when attention was captive. That’s no longer the world we live in.

The next generation of high-value sponsorships won’t be about being seen; they’ll be about being integrated into athlete-led narratives, shared IP, creator content, and direct commercial participation. Most people still ask: “How can AI help me do what I’m already doing; but faster?” The better question is: “What happens when AI changes the game entirely?” In short: the athlete era is entering a second phase. The operating system of sport is being rewritten, in real time.

Glimpses of Phase Two

Take former NFL quarterback Kurt Benkert. In 2021, he was a backup in a system defined by depth charts and playbooks. By 2025, he’s launched The Dime Lab, a business that combines physical products (autographed footballs), digital assets (a downloadable Football 101 guide), and a hardcover playbook titled Think Like a Quarterback. He’s not waiting for network airtime or endorsement deals. He’s building direct-to-fan pipelines, monetizing knowledge and brand trust, and creating a scalable ecosystem around his identity.

The Future Isn’t Fringe

Kings League. Netflix Cup. Duplantis vs. Warholm. Savannah Bananas. Queen & King of the Court. Baller League, and the ‘Jake Paul vs. Anthony Joshua’ fight. These aren’t gimmicks. They’re previews of sport’s next operating system. They reward charisma over rankings, entertainment over tradition. They’re built for audiences that no longer care about federations, formats, or records; just who makes them feel something. Hungarian CrossFit athlete Laura Horváth has twice the Instagram following of the Hungarian Football Federation. That’s not just a fun fact. It’s a flashing signal. The gravity of sport is moving – fast - and it’s orbiting the athlete. Not the institution.

From Followers to Foundations

The athlete era isn’t an Instagram trend. It’s a cross‑platform power shift.

• Kun Agüero: Turns Twitch into a career with Kunisports & Kunitas.

• Woodhall & Davis: Build a full‑scale online empire.

• Kanak Jha: Uses GoFundMe to bypass federation gaps.

• Alysha Newman: Reclaims monetization and intimacy via OnlyFans.

• Kurt Benkert: Builds a direct‑to‑fan stack from merch to e‑books.

Now look at Jason and Travis Kelce. Their podcast New Heights has become a cultural phenomenon, breaking records, charting globally, and recently featuring Travis’ fiancée, Taylor Swift, in a headline-grabbing episode. It wasn’t just content; it was orchestration. Swift gets what most miss: content is created in studios, but scaled through culture. Every Swiftie became a content node, spreading clips, remixes, memes, and messages across the social web.

Smart athletes aren’t just accumulating followers. They’re building direct audience infrastructure: ownable, monetizable, and portable. In the past, influence lived on borrowed land. Today’s creators are buying property, and turning it into business. Influence. Income. Social impact. That’s what ownership and system-level change look like. Athletes aren’t just endorsing brands; they are becoming them. And the infrastructure they build now will outlast their playing careers.

2021 vs. 2025: The Power Flip

· In 2021, athletes were seeking control over their content.

In 2025, they’re building owned ecosystems and fan economies.

· In 2021, federations often competed with athlete brands.

Today, they’re repositioning as athlete service platforms.

· Where social following was once the dominant brand currency,

data sovereignty and direct fan access now define true equity.

· Fans once consumed from media companies.

Now, they co-own, co-create, and even co-fund athlete-led projects.

· And where AI used to simply help edit highlight reels,

it now simulates entire athlete business models.

The Missed Question

When I wrote in 2021, I didn’t fully see the larger question looming: What if the very system we’re optimizing for becomes obsolete? That was the trap: celebrating progress inside a system that’s quietly expiring. The real leap? Rewriting the game entirely. Not just better brand deals; new economic structures. Not just more control; new definitions of value.

A Call to the Athlete Era Architects

If you’re an athlete, a rights holder, an agent, a strategist: this is your inflection point. The opportunity isn’t to play the current game better. It’s to prototype what the next game could look like.

• Build media that moves with your fans

• Create equity that doesn’t disappear post-retirement

• Use AI to simulate, model, and rebuild what doesn’t yet exist

• Don’t just demand better representation; build platforms that make the old ones irrelevant

Federations, in particular, must reckon with this shift. The greatest mistake they can make is believing they own ‘their’ sport. Yes, their logos, legacies, traditions, awards, and archives are highly valued IP, but those aren’t what draw audiences today. Athletes are. The emotional engine of fandom is increasingly tied to people, not institutions.

Unless federations learn to share wealth not just economically but in storytelling, distribution, and brand value, athletes will find (and are already building) alternative platforms that follow the eyeballs elsewhere.

Where This Goes Next

This manifesto isn’t about declaring the future. It’s about recognizing the runway we’re standing on. The 2021 version of me saw the athlete era rising. The 2025 version sees a new layer emerging: Athletes won the war for attention. Now they must learn to govern it. What we build in the next 5–10 years will define not just athlete brands, but the very architecture of influence in sports, culture, and commerce.

The athlete era isn’t just here. It’s being rebuilt.

In public, in code, and in real time.

📘 Own Your Story. Build Your Brand.

Athlete branding isn’t just about followers; it’s about freedom. If you’re serious about building a career on your terms, this is your playbook. Our 600-page Athlete Brand Book is stacked with tools, strategies, and real athlete stories. Create your own game plan.

👉 Grab your copy

🌍 Let’s Team Up

Know a podcast, panel, startup, or team that should hear this message? Send them my way. One intro could help unlock better support for athletes everywhere.

🤝 Make a connection

📣 Pass It On

If this edition made you think, send it to someone in your circle — a teammate, agent, coach, or founder. Let’s build smarter, stronger athlete ecosystems. Together.

Athlete content used to be spectacle. Now it’s part strategy, part simulation.

This week, we delve into the rise of AI-generated athlete media; what happens when your likeness performs without you, your voice speaks without your consent, and your identity becomes a form of infrastructure. It’s not just about presence anymore. It’s about trust.

And trust is becoming increasingly difficult to scale.

Best,

Thomas

DIGITAL DOUBLES

How AI Is Rewriting Athlete Identity

The Spectacle Used to Be Ours

The first time an AI version of #Ronaldo danced on TikTok, he wasn’t even there. The face might have been his; the moves certainly weren’t. An AI-generated deepfake of the Portuguese icon looped endlessly on screen, swaying to a trending sound and earning likes. No context. No disclosure. No permission. Just raw virality. Athletes are crossing a threshold they didn’t design. Their voice, image, and likeness don’t just represent them; they now exist without them.

For decades, visibility was power. Being seen on a billboard, in a highlight reel, or in a sponsored post was the currency of athlete branding. Now, that power is being replicated, remixed, and redistributed by systems that move faster than any media deal.

Not long ago, only the world’s most advanced production teams could make an athlete appear godlike. At adidas, I spent years immersed in the pursuit of spectacle. Multi-million-dollar campaigns weren’t about capturing who an athlete truly was; they were about crafting who they could become. We conjured stadiums from green screens, placed athletes on other planets, and bent time, light, and even physics through post-production. Authenticity was never the brief. Excellence was. Our job was to make people feel awe, never reality. And we did, because no one else could (or could afford it).

Sometimes, we made strange requests; challenging athletes to perform feats that felt daring, disorienting, or outright surreal. We asked them to leap into imagined voids, to sprint through fantasy worlds, to emote without a script. The scenarios weren’t always grounded in their sport, but in visual drama. It worked because they trusted us, and the outcome always made them larger than life. That creative power has now left the studio.

These aren’t new themes for me. In last week’s piece, I argued that the future of athlete branding isn’t about presence, it’s about trust. In ongoing work with Hans Westerbeek, we explore how identity, not just content, is becoming the key asset that athletes must protect and scale.

Identity Has Left the Building

Everyone can now type a phrase into their voice cloning app and hear it spoken in the tone of David Beckham. They can download a lip-sync tool and make Messi dance to a trending sound. These aren’t crude imitations. Some are already quite believable, engaging, and outperforming the real thing in views. Fashion brand H&M recently introduced fully AI-generated twins of 30 of its models. No travel. No jet lag. No crew. The models consented, were paid, and retained rights. It wasn’t a provocation; it is a proof point.

If AI can replace the logistical and physical presence of talent, the brand calculus changes. Athletes, like models, are now digital assets. But unlike models, they bear the weight of parasocial expectations, tribal fan culture, and commercial resonance across entire markets. Their digital double doesn’t just model a product. It impersonates a self. This shift has split the concept of authenticity. Was it ever real, when we were already speeding up footage, reshaping physiques with lenses, and manipulating light to divine status? Or was it always a performance we mistook for presence?

What matters now isn’t whether something is real. It’s whether it feels congruent. Does the content align with what the athlete has earned trust for? With their intent? With their voice? That voice, by the way, is no longer safe. We’ve entered an era where it can be stolen. Not metaphorically, literally. Given a few minutes of audio, AI tools can recreate tone, cadence, and accent. Voice used to be a signature. Now it’s an interface, and a vulnerability. It’s cloned every day.

Platforms like Meta, TikTok, and YouTube aren’t lagging. They’re complicit. They profit from engagement, regardless of whether it’s driven by authenticity or manipulation. Controversy, confusion, and even synthetic impersonation generate traffic. The tools to detect and contain this content already exist, but the will to deploy them at scale does not. When online hate, deepfakes, and fake accounts boost reach, athlete welfare becomes collateral damage. Especially for the youngest and most vulnerable, the message is clear: platform growth takes precedence over athlete protection.

This isn’t hypothetical. We’ve already seen it. Accounts like “AI Sports” generate viral videos of hyper-realistic athlete lookalikes dancing to TikTok sounds. The faces are real. The actions are fake. The engagement is massive. It’s tempting to see it all as harmless fun. But that line blurs fast. These synthetic fragments siphon attention from athlete-owned channels, dilute brand equity, and risk reputational damage for content the athlete never created. When the content feels real, the audience treats it as real. And if they’re upset or misled, they don’t blame the algorithm. They blame the athlete.

We sometimes hear that soap actors are harassed in public for the actions of their characters, because fans are so absorbed in the story that they forget it’s fiction. That confusion is now digital, weaponized by scale, and aimed at people who never stepped into the scene. And here’s the paradox: the same tools that expose athletes to harm also empower them like never before.

Orchestration Beats Creation

Synthetic media enables athletes to appear in places they’ve never been, perform feats they’ve never accomplished, and deliver content around the clock, without the need for travel, fatigue, or even a camera crew. A content strategy that once required 30 people and months of planning can now be initiated with a prompt.

But athletes will never out-create their communities. They can’t scale like the swarm. Which is why the future isn’t just about creating; it’s about orchestrating. Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour is the best example. Swift didn’t just have everything documented. Her fans did so too. Every moment was amplified, remixed, and distributed, creating a cultural footprint far larger than any brand team could have engineered. The same is true in sport. The athlete posts once. The audience replicates it a thousand times. In that swarm, the brand grows and warps.

So, when does amplification become liability instead of equity? When the signal is no longer clear. When the content says something, the athlete never would. When the digital echo becomes louder than the original voice. That’s why what’s needed now isn’t more presence. It’s more permission.

Trust Travels with Permission

What we’re seeing isn’t the rise of athlete content. It’s the rise of athlete identity as infrastructure. Athletes, and those who represent them, need new strategies:

• Register likeness and voice as intellectual property.

• Create guidelines for acceptable uses of AI in endorsements.

• Monitor emerging content and trends around their name.

• Push platforms for better takedown tools and transparency.

• Engage their communities with clarity, honesty, and intent.

The athletes who thrive in this new era won’t just have great content. They’ll know exactly who they are and what they won’t allow. The rise of the AI athlete isn’t a trend. It’s a transformation. And it won’t be led by the most visible. It’ll be led by the most congruent. Those who know you don’t just scale your image; they scale your intent. Because in the era of digital doubles, trust only grows when identity stays aligned with purpose.

📘 Get the Athlete Brand Book

Athlete branding isn’t just about likes; it’s about ownership. Want to grow your influence, income, and identity on your own terms? This 600-page playbook is your toolkit. Packed with frameworks, tactics, and real-world stories, it’s the most complete guide out there. 👉

[Grab your copy]

🌍 Know Someone We Should Meet?

We’re growing fast, and your intros mean a lot. If you know of a podcast, panel, accelerator, or platform that could benefit from this message, please send it our way. One intro can unlock game-changing opportunities for athletes around the world. 👉 [Let’s connect]

📣 Pass It On

If this edition got you thinking, share it. Send it to a teammate, coach, agent, or partner. The more we share, the stronger the athlete ecosystem becomes.

I was in Poland yesterday, speaking at the Sports Business Congress, and I loved it. Great energy, thoughtful people, and big questions about where athlete brands go next.

This means the edition is arriving a little later than usual. But that fits, because this one is about time, presence, and trust. Athletes now have digital twins who can reply to fans in Mandarin, sell merchandise, and like TikTok comments while they are still in the locker room. AI is giving athletes infinite presence. But it can’t fake trust.

In this edition, we explore what happens when authenticity becomes scalable, when avatars speak on your behalf, and why owning your voice might be the most important brand move of all.

Glad you’re here.

Kind regards,

Thomas

THE FUTURE OF ATHLETE BRANDS IS TRUST, NOT PRESENCE

AI gives athletes infinite presence, but it can’t fake trust.

Your athlete just replied to 500 fan messages in Mandarin, sold out a merch drop, and liked a thousand TikTok comments, all while sitting in the locker room before kickoff. Not through exhaustion, but through a digital twin that never sleeps. This is no longer science fiction. AI is already scaling parasocial ties, making athletes multilingual, endlessly attentive, and available at all hours. In one sense, this is the promise of technology: intimacy without limit, connection without fatigue.

From Presence to Perception

But scale has a shadow. Hans Westerbeek and colleagues, in their paper Augmented Authenticity, suggest that the meaning of authenticity has shifted. It is no longer about physical presence, about whether the athlete is the one typing the words. Instead, it rests on congruence, on whether the interaction feels consistent with the athlete’s identity. Authenticity becomes less a matter of fact and more a matter of perception.

“If AI can echo your voice, who owns the echo?”

In truth, the line has been blurry for years. Social media managers already ghost-write posts, agents comment on behalf of athletes, and support staff even sign autographs in their place. Authenticity has long been mediated to service constant demand. AI does not invent this substitution; it accelerates it.

As Westerbeek argues, augmented authenticity sits on a spectrum, ranging from human-led with AI support and algorithmic co-production to complete synthetic substitution. The question is not whether AI is present, but where the athlete sits on that spectrum, and how clearly fans are told.

The philosophers have been here before. Lionel Trilling once argued that sincerity was about being true to oneself, while authenticity meant being true to something larger, a moral ideal. Charles Taylor described authenticity as a demand for fidelity to one’s inner voice. What happens when that inner voice can be trained, replicated, and scaled by machines? If an athlete’s values are projected faithfully by an algorithm, is that authentic, or is it only a performance of authenticity? That is the hinge: whether authenticity lies in performance, perception, or truth.

Experiments in Synthetic Presence

This tension is no longer abstract. In 2022, Luka Dončić launched Luk.AI, a hyper-realistic digital twin built with Epic Games’ MetaHuman Creator. Fans on TikTok interact with Luk.AI, shaping its evolving personality. It is an early experiment in synthetic presence: the athlete as both self and avatar. Read against Westerbeek’s spectrum, Luk.AI leans toward co-production, while Fortnite’s playable avatars push toward substitution. Current creator tools, which help athletes translate or edit live content, are closer to human-led support.

Other signals point in the same direction. Fortnite’s ICON Series has turned LeBron James, Naomi Osaka, and Patrick Mahomes into playable characters, while licensing disputes reveal how fiercely athletes are now guarding their digital doubles. At the same time, creators on OnlyFans generated more than $7 billion last year, primarily by monetizing parasocial intimacy. People pay, often in large sums, not just for content but for the feeling of closeness. Many athletes already have fan bases much larger than most online creators, yet they cannot sustain that kind of intimacy while competing at the highest level. AI, paired with direct-to-fan infrastructure, will make this possible very soon.

The Contest Ahead

Still, there are risks. Online hate and harassment already corrode the mental health of athletes, and a synthetic presence multiplies exposure. The same tools that extend intimacy can amplify abuse. Scale creates not only connection but also vulnerability. This is where governance matters. Fans need clear authorship signals, athletes need the right to disclose when AI is speaking on their behalf, and there must be revocable licensing for synthetic likeness and voice.

So, what does this mean for the future of athlete brands? It implies that identity and trust, not presence, will become the rare currency. AI can reply, translate, and create, but only personality and trust can make these words meaningful. The danger lies in mistaking availability for authenticity. The opportunity lies in using AI as an amplifier and multiplier, rather than a substitute, to extend access without erasing the unvarnished, unfiltered, raw, individual voice of the athlete.

Ownership will matter too. If leagues or platforms control avatars and likenesses, athletes risk becoming brand characters in someone else’s empire, much like WWE performers who are cast as heroes or villains in scripted storylines. Westerbeek frames this as a fight for narrative sovereignty. When athletes control the rails, through no-code tools, fan-data cooperatives, and athlete-owned platforms, their synthetic presence becomes an asset rather than a liability.

The horizon stretches further still. As immersive technologies advance and computing power expands, an athlete’s avatar may become as ubiquitous as their Instagram handle. Millions who never attend a live game may encounter their favorite athlete in virtual worlds instead. The question will not be whether athletes exist online, but who curates and profits from their digital selves.

Toward a New Measure

In the end, authenticity in sport has never been straightforward. It has always been part performance, part perception, part truth. The stadium chant, the post-game interview, and the carefully staged brand campaign are all examples of mediated intimacy. AI will push this mix to a scale we’ve never seen before, which is why the rules of engagement must scale with it. The athletes who win will be the ones who own their digital selves, define their voice before someone else does, and guard the trust of their communities. The future of athlete brands won’t be about being everywhere. It’ll be about being believed. Sport is a test case for the wider platform society. How we handle authorship, disclosure, and rights here will shape expectations far beyond the arena.

📘 Grab The Athlete Brand Book

Building your brand isn’t about chasing clout; it’s about owning your story. If you’re serious about turning influence into income, this 600-page playbook gives you everything you need: frameworks, tools, and real athlete examples that work. [Get the book]

🌍 Know Someone We Should Talk To?

Podcasts. Keynotes. Workshops. Accelerators. If you know a platform or room where this message belongs, let’s link up. One intro can help more athletes build on their own terms. [Get in touch]

📣 Pass It On

If this edition made you think, share it with someone who needs it; a teammate, coach, agent, or partner. That’s how smarter ecosystems grow.

You can feel it before you can name it. Different athletes. Same brand. Polished bios filled with words like “resilient,” “authentic,” and “disciplined.” All technically true. None memorable.

That’s the problem. In a culture driven by identity, safe labels don’t stick. They smooth over the very edges that make an athlete unforgettable.

This edition is about breaking that pattern. It unpacks why athlete brands often feel so similar and what it takes to build one that actually stands out. Not by being louder. But by being truer.

The goal isn’t to find a better word. It’s to show the story behind it.

Let’s begin.

Thomas

BREAKING THE COOKIE-CUTTER ATHLETE BRAND

Every athlete already has a brand. The only question is: do they shape it, or let others shape it for them? Yet most athlete brands today fall into the same predictable molds: the top scorer, the fastest, the unbeatable. Or, just as often, the disciplined warrior, the resilient comeback story, the authentic role model. Familiar, safe, and forgettable. Too many athlete brands are stamped from the same cutter; shiny, smooth, and soulless.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: brand strategy in sport is stuck. Not because athletes lack depth, but because the systems around them reward simplicity. Agents prefer safe adjectives. Sponsors want clean storylines. Clubs push media training over meaning. The result? Most athletes sound alike, even when their lives, struggles, and personalities couldn’t be more different. And that’s a problem. Because in a culture shaped by identity, what wins isn’t visibility. It’s resonance.

What Resonance Looks Like

To see resonance, start with fans. Not followers. Not impressions. Real fans. Brands aren’t built in bios. They’re built in relationships. Fans aren’t passive consumers. They scream, cry, riot. They tattoo names, mimic celebrations, and wear your shirt like a second skin. What looks like obsession, toxicity, or sometimes even violence is the extreme end of emotional investment. Messy, sometimes destructive, but proof of depth.

That bond isn’t built in decks; it’s built in moments. A celebration that lands at the right time. A glimpse of vulnerability. A gesture that feels unfiltered. It’s never the word: “disciplined,” “resilient,” “authentic” that creates impact. It’s how those qualities are lived and witnessed. Most athlete brands fail here. They perform the adjective, but they don’t show the signal.

Parasocial Energy: Sport’s Real Currency

Fans don’t just watch athletes. They live through them. They ritualize them. They fold them into their own identities. A one-sided, emotionally charged relationship is formed where the athlete becomes a fixture in a fan’s internal world.

Think about it. A kid doesn’t just admire Haaland. He becomes Haaland for 90 minutes on a playground. Wembanyama isn’t just a player. He’s an aspiration stitched into the bodies of teenagers practicing step-backs. Across stadiums, kids in Mbappé shirts aren’t just showing support. They’re carrying pieces of identity. These aren’t marketing impressions. They’re emotional imprints. An athlete’s brand isn’t a broadcast; it’s a subscription. The product isn’t their performance. It’s their identity.

From Content Creation to Orchestration

The mistake many athletes make is thinking the answer is more content. More highlights, more behind-the-scenes, more posts. But you can’t outpost your fans. They will always generate more edits, memes, and commentary than you can. The shift isn’t from low content to high content. It’s from content creation to community orchestration.

A spontaneous celebration. A raw post-match quote. A flash of honesty. These are sparks. Fans run with them, remix them, turn them into folklore. The athlete who understands this doesn’t try to compete with the crowd. They ignite it.

Co-Owned Identity

That’s the hidden truth about modern athlete brands. They are co-owned. Taylor Swift doesn’t fully control her narrative. Her fans name the eras, decode lyrics, and decide what trends. She doesn’t resist it. She channels it. Athletes face the same reality. Fans amplify them, reshape them, sometimes distort them. The choice is stark. Fight for control or build with intention. Identity isn’t something you perform for fans. It’s something you construct together with them.

The Long Tail of Emotional Capital

Legacy doesn’t start at retirement. It starts now. The kids copying your moves today will carry those associations for life. Nostalgia forms in real time. Simone Biles isn’t just a gymnast. She’s a cultural milestone. Naomi Osaka isn’t just a tennis player. She’s a generational signal about mental health, identity, and courage.

And this truth isn’t reserved for global icons. Former local heroes are still respected and celebrated within their communities, where their legacy lives on through the people who grew up supporting them. Emotional capital compounds across generations, whether on a scale as large as the Olympics or as small as a neighborhood court.

This is what later becomes documentaries, retro jerseys, anniversary tours, and manifests as nostalgic, generational pride. But only if athletes own their connection to fans: directly. Without first-party data, such as email lists, memberships, or communities, capital leaks to platforms, clubs, and sponsors. Your generational legacy is being built now, not 25 years from today.When every athlete brand looks the same, being #1 doesn’t mean much.When every athlete brand looks the same, being #1 doesn’t mean much.

Beyond “I Just Play”

Athletes often fall back on the line, “I just play the game.” It’s a way to avoid politics, responsibility, or fan expectations. However, in reality, athletes are often supported by communities through ticket sales, sponsorships, broadcast deals, and, occasionally, even taxpayer funding. Community is never a one-way street. Fans expect acknowledgment, care, and sometimes advocacy. Silence feels like betrayal. Neutrality is itself a stance.

The 1,000 True Fans Principle

You don’t need millions of followers. You need the right thousand to feel something real. Kevin Kelly’s “1,000 True Fans” principle, long embraced by musicians, YouTubers, Twitch streamers, and podcasters, applies directly to athletes. A core of true fans will buy everything, share everything, defend you, and carry you forward. Scale is fragile. Depth is durable. This is what digital entrepreneurship in sport really means: less about chasing reach, more about cultivating intimacy, reciprocity, and trust.

So how do you break the mold?

Cookie-cutter brands are easy to build. And even easier to forget. They trade depth for digestibility. They create sameness at a time when sameness doesn’t stick. The athletes who break through aren’t the loudest or the most polished. They’re the ones who show up without a script. Who make fans feel something real. Who understand their brand isn’t a mirror. It’s a bond. That’s the shift: from message to meaning. Not the adjective, but the action. Not “authentic,” but why it matters. Not “resilient,” but what you overcame, and who it was for.

Most athlete brands fall into what I call the Adjective Trap. Branding stops at the word. These labels feel safe. But safety doesn’t scale. Meaning does. There’s a better way. One that shows the signal, not just the slogan. The athletes who build lasting brands aren’t performing adjectives. They’re living moments that land. If that’s what you’re aiming for, you don’t need a new personality. You need a sharper strategy. One that starts with who you already are and makes it impossible to forget.

LET’S KEEP THIS MOVING

📘 Building your brand? Start here.

Your brand isn’t just a vibe. It’s a system. If you’re serious about turning your identity into influence, The Athlete Brand Book is the playbook. 600 pages of frameworks, case studies, and tools you can actually use. Grab your copy

🌍 Know someone who needs this?

If you’re plugged into a podcast, event, or athlete space that would get value from this work, send it my way. Your intro could be the bridge someone else needs. Let’s connect

📣 Pass it on. If this edition resonates with you, please forward it to a teammate, agent, or partner. Smarter brands start with smarter conversations.

We celebrate performance. Records are broken, trophies are lifted, and athletes travel the world in pursuit of excellence. But behind the glory lies a growing contradiction. The same visibility that powers athlete influence also expands their carbon footprint. This issue asks a hard question: what if athletic greatness relies on systems that pollute the very future they aim to inspire?

For athlete brands and the people shaping them, this is not just a climate story. It is a brand architecture story. #Sustainability is no longer a sideline issue in athlete branding. It is moving to the center of what makes a brand future-proof. What once felt optional is increasingly seen as a signal of alignment, credibility, and long-term relevance. This isn’t about blame. It is an opportunity to lead with clarity, intention, and design.

Best regards,

Thomas

THE CARBON BURDEN OF THE CHAMP

Branding, Visibility, and the Athlete Sustainability Paradox

Athletes are being asked to shrink their carbon footprints, while the global sports machine expands around them. The contradiction isn’t just inconvenient. It’s structural. The same visibility that builds their influence also builds their footprint. And the more visible they become, the more invisible the systems behind them remain.

It begins in the air. A tennis player lands in Singapore after 15 hours in transit, her body clock scrambled, her training schedule reduced to stretches in a hotel room. An F1 driver boards a private jet not out of vanity, but because, without it, he would spend more time in airports than in simulators. A Paralympian calculates not just split times but layovers, because recovery is measured in minutes as much as in miles. For athletes, travel is not background noise. It is the terrain of their profession.

THE MISSING PIECE IN SPORT’S SUSTAINABILITY PUSH

Sustainability pledges have become the lingua franca of global sport. The IOC, leagues, federations, and sponsors now speak fluently about emissions audits, eco-partnerships, and offset programs. But the people actually crossing continents to compete, the ones reshaping schedules with their presence? They’re too often absent from the conversation.

The Athlete Sustainability Index (ASI), developed by a team led by Matthias Anderski at the University of Bayreuth, alongside colleagues Silke Bartsch, Prof. Dr. Georg Puchner, and Tim Ströbel, is one of the first tools to redirect the lens of sustainability toward athletes themselves. It does not measure stadiums, merchandise, or fan travel. It measures the athlete. Their choices, their brand alignments, their visibility. Not to judge them, but to understand the magnitude of their influence.

This isn’t a manifesto for personal guilt. It’s an invitation to alignment. Athletes aren’t the problem; they are the signal. The ASI maps how they move through systems, how their partnerships resonate, and how their visibility might shape what fans and sponsors believe sustainability should look like.

A footballer traveling for national duty should not be blamed for doing their job. And often, when that same footballer lends their face to a carbon-intensive brand, the private flight isn’t a choice, it’s the only viable path to activation. I’ve worked with athletes like Leo Messi for decades. If you want to shoot, launch, or promote with them, commercial travel is a nonstarter. The activation doesn’t happen otherwise. So, the point isn’t to suggest that private travel vanishes, it’s to question why the system only works if it depends on that mode. The signal isn’t to place blame; it’s a data point, one that tells us something about how influence and infrastructure are still out of sync.

WHEN VISIBILITY BECOMES DESIGN, NOT DENIAL

Some athletes have begun telling that story more consciously. Lewis Hamilton, whose career is rooted in one of the most emissions-heavy sports in the world, has sold his jet, adopted a plant-based diet, and begun advocating for electric mobility, starting with his own team. The point isn’t virtue. It’s visibility. It’s design, not denial.

Likewise, Protect Our Winters, a nonprofit led by outdoor athletes, has never demanded purity. Its power lies in its collective voice: athletes using their platforms not to preach, but to reveal the stakes of a world out of sync with the environments that built them.

Naomi Osaka offers another dimension. Her advocacy spans ocean conservation, sustainable fashion, and greener tournaments, linking environmental urgency to cultural influence. She funds youth climate education in Pacific Island communities, highlighting how climate change disproportionately affects the most vulnerable populations first. For Osaka, her platform is not just about performance or consumption but about weaving the athlete’s role into a wider fabric of planetary and social wellbeing.

Critics often point to the paradox. Private flights. Frequent miles. Global tours. But these aren’t indulgences. They are infrastructure. In Formula 1, tennis, and Paralympic sports, the ability to manage sleep, stress, logistics, and recovery is inseparable from the ability to compete. Travel is not a luxury. It is part of their performance architecture. For some athletes, the difference between an economy seat and a flat bed isn’t comfort. It’s the line between arriving ready to compete or arriving unable to stand. This includes everything from avoiding red-eye flights to managing time zone shifts, from cabin pressure to post-flight inflammation. Sometimes, an athlete’s flight path matters more than their training block. What looks like extravagance is often an investment in durability.

The same is true for equipment. High-altitude training camps, which might require long-distance travel, can make the physiological difference between podium and pack. Advanced protective gear, carbon helmets, layered padding, and engineered materials increase the footprint but reduce concussion risk and save lives. Even the most sustainable alternative is meaningless if it compromises performance or safety. In sport, some of the most polluting options are often the fastest, highest, and strongest.

And yet, the burden of sustainability, like so many systemic burdens, has been quietly individualized. The calendar expands, the reach widens, and the responsibility falls not on the architects of sport, but on its most visible actors.

But administrators are not villains either. Some argue for a future without major sports events: no Olympics, championships, or Games. Sure, that vision might lower emissions. But it would also strip the world of one of its last shared languages. Of visibility, of movement, of play. Sport is more than competition. It is a ritual, a means of identity, and a form of belonging. It is how strangers in opposite corners of the world feel connected. To abandon that would be to give up on what makes us human.

We do not need fewer events. We need smarter ones. Tighter calendars. Regional hubs. Strategic growth. Platforms that understand that sustainability isn’t a constraint on excellence; it’s a condition for it. The truth is, 100 of the world’s largest sports events and properties are likely responsible for over 80 percent of the industry’s emissions. But those same 100 are also the leverage points. The pressure valves. The places where athlete influence can tip the system, not just symbolically, but structurally.

FROM BRAND SIGNALS TO STRUCTURAL SHIFT

Knowing this paradox is only the first step. The deeper challenge is how athletes, and those who work with them, can transform visibility into lasting influence. Athletes are often young and future-facing, while administrators are more experienced and protective of continuity. This is not a conflict but a complement. Administrators preserve tradition. Athletes propel it forward. That balance places athletes at the front edge of change. They bring the credibility of lived performance, the attention and engagement of global audiences, and the urgency of careers unfolding in a climate-constrained world. When they speak, they do not simply add to the conversation on sustainability. They redirect it.

That influence is not abstract. Calendars clustered within regions would not only cut emissions but shield athletes from the exhaustion of constant long-haul travel. Partnerships chosen with discernment could tether athlete visibility to brands whose commitments run deeper than marketing slogans. Competitions could be reshaped through concrete practices, such as reusable hydration systems and transparent carbon reporting, if athletes demand them. Even equipment carries weight: when athletes demand gear that balances performance with footprint without compromising safety, they raise expectations for the entire industry.

ATHLETES AS ENGINES, NOT SYMBOLS

The greatest force emerges when competitors act together. Outdoor athletes speaking through Protect Our Winters, Olympians and Paralympians organizing through commissions and unions, show how collective voices can bend institutions more than individual gestures ever could. In those moments, they stop being symbols of sustainability and become its driving force.

Alongside the entrepreneurial clout and digital reach of the athlete era, athletes now hold leverage far beyond their competitions. They shape culture, build platforms, and speak with independence. Sustainability is another field where that agency is becoming central. They do not only reflect the systems they inhabit. They help set their rhythm.

These aren’t future hypotheticals. They’re leverage points hiding in plain sight. If you work with athletes, listen differently. They’re not just reacting to the system; they’re ready to reshape it. None of this asks athletes to travel less, compete less, or dream less. It requires clarity and the courage to act together, to shape the systems they move within rather than letting those systems set the course. Sustainability isn’t the limit of athlete influence; it’s where their next era begins.

📘 Build a Brand That Lasts

Athlete branding isn’t about algorithms. It’s about autonomy. If you’re ready to lead with intention and build a career on your own terms, The Athlete Brand Book is your playbook. It’s 600 pages of strategy, tools, and real athlete stories. 👉 [Get your copy here]

🌍 Expand the Conversation

Know a podcast, event, or accelerator that should be part of this movement? Introductions go a long way. One connection can unlock better support for the next generation of athlete entrepreneurs. 👉 [Make an intro]

📣 Pass It On

If this issue sparked anything in you, please share it with a teammate, agent, or coach. Let’s build a smarter, more resilient athlete ecosystem together. 👉 [Subscribe here]

This is a special edition. Usually, I’d wait for a Wednesday, but the timing felt right and the topic too important to hold back. Morgan Stanley’s new report on the $130 billion digital gap in sport made headlines this month.

But one thing stood out to me: athletes were almost entirely left out of the conversation. This piece builds on their work, not to challenge it, but to add a missing layer. One that explores what happens when athletes are not just part of the product, but part of the platform.

Thanks for reading,

Thomas

HOW ATHLETES TURN A $130B GAP INTO A $200B OPPORTUNITY

Morgan Stanley’s August 2025 report, “The Sports Industry’s $130 Billion Ticket,” outlines how global sports revenue could grow by up to $130 billion through accelerated digital adoption. Their analysis of media dynamics, fan engagement, and monetization gaps lays a strong institutional foundation. If you're interested in the complete publication, it is well worth reading. [Link]

The report identifies a clear and compelling shortfall: $130 billion in unrealized digital value, held back by slow adoption, legacy models, and structural inertia. It is a credible figure, grounded in rigorous modeling, macroeconomic trends, and sector-level data.

But what is just as striking is what the report leaves out. Despite its detailed focus on digital underperformance, it barely mentions the people who generate most of that digital attention: the athletes. That omission matters. While the report focuses on platforms and monetization models, it misses what may be the most powerful distribution engine in sports today. It also overlooks what could be the biggest unrealized value in the system.

I did not write this to compete with Morgan Stanley’s analysis. I couldn’t even if I tried. Their report is rigorous and deeply grounded in institutional research. What I’m offering is something different: a perspective that builds on their work by adding a layer they overlooked: the athlete layer. One that asks what changes when we take athletes seriously, not just as participants in the system, but as digital agents, creators, owners, and amplifiers.

This is not a forecast. It is a hypothesis. A direction. A question worth asking, even if someone else will need to study it properly. But I took it seriously. The numbers are built on transparent logic, using defensible assumptions and comparisons across adjacent industries. It is not about precision. It is about mapping a possibility. And once the athlete layer is included, the digital opportunity in sport begins to look much closer to $200 billion.

A Word on Methodology: Grounded, Transparent, Athlete-Centric

To stay aligned with Morgan Stanley’s framing, we focused on elite athletes: contracted professionals in the top tiers of recognized leagues, Olympic and Paralympic athletes, and national team players. We excluded amateurs, inactive profiles, and edge cases. In this model, athletes are treated not simply as recipients of salaries or sponsorships, but as digital participants with potential to generate and accelerate value, just as creators and influencers do in adjacent industries.

We drew from a composite of sources, including Morgan Stanley’s 2025 "Sports Digital Gap" report, creator economy market studies (Goldman Sachs, Influencer Marketing Hub, CB Insights), athlete branding research, and case examples from Twitch, YouTube, Shopify, and OnlyFans. All of this is interpreted through a realistic, athlete-first lens.

Modeling the Athlete Economy: Two Powerful Layers

We began by estimating the number of elite athletes worldwide. This includes contracted professionals across various sports, such as football, basketball, baseball, track and field, and combat sports, as well as Olympic and national team athletes. Adjusting for overlap, our conservative range landed between 300,000 and 500,000 elite athletes globally.

To reflect reach and relevance, we applied the Athlete Visibility Pyramid: icons, branded athletes, familiar faces, and background actors. Using known follower counts, influencer tiers, and audience duplication factors, we estimate this group drives more than 5 billion follower instances and maintains 800 million to 1.2 billion unique fan relationships. That makes elite athletes one of the most powerful and underleveraged distribution engines in global media today, especially in sports.

From here, we modeled two forms of value:

1. The Athlete-Owned Economy

This is what athletes can generate directly through digital and commercial participation: subscriptions, branded content, merchandise, licensing, appearances, digital assets, and community-led monetization. The creator economy is now valued at $250 to $300 billion annually. Athletes, though fewer in number, outperform traditional creators in trust, visibility, and conversion. If they captured even 5 to 10 percent of that value, they would already generate $12 to $25 billion. Layer in athlete-specific advantages like proprietary IP, products with a high average order value, such as training programs, exclusive merch, or signed collectibles, and entrepreneurial ventures, and the total scales to $65 to $70 billion annually.

2. The Athlete-Driven Industry Acceleration

Athletes don’t just create value. They amplify it. Sponsorships, broadcast deals, and merchandise sales all perform better when athletes are visible, authentic, and digitally empowered. Think of the F1 and the Drive to Survive effect. Think of Cristiano Ronaldo’s 927 million followers versus Al-Nassr’s 30 million. When athletes drive the story, the entire system performs better. Even modest modeling, where athletes help unlock 25 to 35 percent of Morgan Stanley’s $130 billion institutional digital gap, adds another $30 to $45 billion in captured value.

The Combined View: A $200B Opportunity in Plain Sight

Let’s stack the numbers:

· Athlete-owned economy: $65 to $70 billion

· Athlete-driven acceleration: $30 to $45 billion

· Total athlete-driven impact: $95 to $115 billion

· Add Morgan Stanley’s modeled digital gap: $130 billion

· Combined digital opportunity: around $200 billion annually

Clearly, this is nowhere near a reliable forecast. It certainly isn’t a map. Not every athlete will unlock this value. Not every organization will be ready to shift from control to collaboration. But the directional upside is real, and the gap between the modeled value and the realized value is visible and solvable. Athletes are not the opponents of the industry; they are its strongest and most underutilized business partners.

This isn’t about athletes taking over. It’s about building a new kind of system, one where value grows by being shared. Across the entire visibility pyramid, from global icons to local professionals, athletes are the ones driving attention, emotion, and connection. But that potential doesn’t unlock on its own. It needs structure, support, and a mindset shift from control to collaboration. The institutions that embrace this shift will not lose power. They will multiply it. Because when the people who are the product are finally part of the platform, the entire industry moves forward.

Why This Matters Now

The digital dynamics of sport are changing, and algorithms now reward content and engagement over aging audiences and legacy logos. AI is collapsing operational costs and removing gatekeepers. Fan loyalty is fragmenting. Trust is local, emotional, and peer-driven. In that environment, the institutions that win will be those that rethink, not just refine, their models. The individuals who win will be the ones who act like owners.

And the industry that grows will be the one that counts the full value of its most powerful assets, not just by salary or exposure, but by digital influence, distribution, and creative control. The $200 billion opportunity is no longer hypothetical. It’s just waiting to be built.

📘 Build Smarter If you're serious about turning attention into ownership, The Athlete Brand Book is your next step. With 600+ pages of strategy, tools, and case studies, it's the most complete guide for athletes ready to lead. 👉 [Get the Book]

🎤 Bring This Message to Your Audience If you run a podcast, panel, accelerator, or event where this thinking belongs, I’d love to collaborate. Introductions make a real difference—and one great one could help more athletes access what they deserve. 📩 [Let’s Connect]

📣 Share the Signal If this sparked something for you, pass it on. Please send it to a coach, agent, athlete, or decision-maker. That’s how we shift the system: together. ☺️

Sport is growing, but not in the way most institutions expected. Athletes are no longer just competing; they’re building. They’re becoming media channels, brand powerhouses, and entrepreneurial engines of influence. And yet, they’re doing it on digital terrain they don’t own, and within governance models that haven’t caught up.

This month’s edition explores the sharp edge of that paradox. Based on a peer-reviewed study I co-authored with Professor Hans Westerbeek, we map the structural power shift reshaping the industry, and why athletes might be your best bet for long-term relevance, growth, and cultural reach.

More importantly, we ask: what will rightsholders still own in this new landscape?

Let’s get into it.

Best,

Thomas

ATHLETES ARE DRIVING THE GROWTH OF SPORTS

What Will Rightsholders Still Own?

Athletes are no longer waiting for permission; they're accelerating the next era of growth in sport. They’re launching businesses, building global audiences, and driving cultural relevance in ways once unimaginable. Yet for all their momentum, most are still building on rented land.

This contradiction sat at the heart of a peer-reviewed study I recently published with Hans Westerbeek. We reviewed 47 academic papers spanning athlete branding, platform economics, generative AI, and sport governance. The evidence was clear: power is shifting hands, but the foundation remains unstable.

For generations, the sports industry has treated athletes as assets: visible, valuable, and ultimately owned. But today, athletes are becoming architects. Their audiences are no longer pass-throughs from the league; they are communities that live in the athlete’s world, not the other way around. Through Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, they control the narrative. They are the distribution.

Platforms empower - but also exploit

But there’s a catch. The platforms that enable this rise also extract value on a large scale. They flatten visibility into metrics, turn influence into currency, and rewrite the rules without warning. Ironically, the same platforms that profit from athlete-driven content also benefit from the outrage economy built around them, including the hate speech that harms athlete mental health. Athletes may own their voices, but someone else still controls the sound.

One of the athletes we studied had built a digital following of over a million, leveraged that into content deals and brand collaborations, and yet, a single algorithm change dropped his engagement by 60 percent overnight. The numbers were his, but the infrastructure was not.

The promise of autonomy is further complicated by new technologies. Generative AI enables athletes to create more content, faster, and at a lower cost. But the models they rely on are trained on data they didn’t authorize, and the outputs they generate often belong to the platforms themselves. Blockchain still holds theoretical potential, including decentralized ecosystems, fan-owned tokens, and athlete-as-platform models. But uptake is limited, and brand strategy limitations and digital complexity remain significant barriers.

Meanwhile, the institutions built to protect athletes haven’t caught up. Sport governance remains top-down, legacy-bound. Many federations continue to treat athletes as brand extensions rather than business partners. And most athlete-interest groups still face challenges related to mandates, growth, and scale. That misalignment isn’t just outdated, it’s dangerous. It erodes trust, limits innovation, and leaves athletes to navigate a high-risk system without the support they need to compete for their share of the multi-billion-dollar sports industry.

From threat to growth engine

And so, the most urgent question facing sport isn't just what athletes can do next, but what the rest of us will enable.

Because what athletes build isn’t always theirs. And if their brand, voice, fan relationships, and income all live on someone else’s servers, their autonomy is both vulnerable and conditional.

But this is also where opportunity lies. Real leverage will come not from athletes going it alone, but from stakeholders who invest in infrastructure, who see athlete-led growth not as competition, but as a catalyst. AI, if used wisely, isn’t just a tool for more content; it’s a chance to reimagine the system entirely. To build new value chains. To design new brand architectures. To enable a future where athlete-owned media doesn’t threaten the industry, it becomes the industry’s next engine of relevance.

The next era of sport will belong to those who understand that empowering athletes isn’t just good optics; it’s a business imperative. Because athletes aren’t the alternative to traditional rights; they’re the key to their evolution. The most innovative brands, federations, and rightsholders won’t compete with that power. They’ll invest in it and accelerate it.

Sport isn’t being replaced. It's being redefined. Backing the brand and business journey of athletes isn’t about virtue; it’s about velocity. In an attention economy where sport is losing cultural ground, athletes remain the most direct route to relevance, reach, and renewal. The future of sport won’t be built around institutions. It will be built around those who help athletes build.

Here's a link to The Full Academic Study, co-authored with Professor Hans Westerbeek. This peer-reviewed systematic review was published on September 15, 2025, in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. It examines 47 academic sources covering athlete branding, digital platforms, AI, and sport governance.

While academically rigorous in tone, the article offers a clear picture of how power is shifting in sport, from legacy control to athlete-led value creation. Though designed for an academic audience, its findings underpin much of this edition of Influence Insider. For practitioners seeking strategic clarity on where sport is heading, it’s well worth your time.

Build. Share. Elevate.

📘 Grab The Athlete Brand Book.

Athlete branding isn’t just about building an audience; it’s about owning your future. Our 600-page playbook is packed with frameworks, tools, and real-world case studies designed for serious athletes and the teams behind them. If you're building a legacy, this is where it starts. 👉 [Get the book]

🌍 Help Us Spread the Signal

Know a podcast, accelerator, agency, or event that should hear this message? A single introduction can unlock new support systems for athletes worldwide. Your referrals fuel the movement. 👉 [Make a connection]

📣 Share This Edition

If this sparked something, don’t keep it to yourself. Please send it to a teammate, coach, brand lead, or federation partner. Let’s build a more innovative sport ecosystem, together.

Athlete branding is shifting. If you work with athletes in any serious way, this moment matters. A quieter, smarter system is beginning to replace the old influencer model. It is not driven by visibility. It is built on clarity. It is not about pressure. It is rooted in purpose.

This edition introduces Brandy, a private AI strategist designed to help athletes build brands that last. If you support them as a sponsor, program lead, or federation partner, now is the time to explore what is possible.

Best,

Thomas

If you are building programs that support athletes beyond the spotlight, let’s connect. One aligned tool can change how their story gets told.

📨 thomas@theathletebrand.com

ATHLETE BRANDING WILL NEVER BE THE SAME

How AI is shifting brand power back to athletes

Not long ago, “build your brand” felt like a rallying cry. Today, for many athletes, it feels like pressure. That’s because brand-building still gets confused with acting like an influencer instead of competing like an athlete or growing as a person. Too many leaders push athletes to post more, speak more, and show more, without offering the clarity, privacy, or purpose to understand what they are actually building.

That model is broken. And something better is already replacing it. Great branding was never built on filters or façades. A new model is taking shape. It is quieter. Smarter. More durable. It does not begin with visibility. It starts with reflection.

What story do you want to tell, and why does it matter beyond sport?

A New Pattern, Already Underway

Across elite and emerging sports systems, this shift is already visible. Worldwide, it’s helping beach volleyball players define their identity beyond results. In the Netherlands, a major sports federation is preparing youth athletes for dual careers. In global entrepreneur circles, it’s guiding athlete-founders through brand pivots. And in dorm rooms, student-athletes are shaping their stories with no audience but themselves. Behind it all is Brandy, a private AI strategist built exclusively for athletes. Not a chatbot. Not a content machine. A thinking partner that meets each athlete where they are.

Technology That Knows When to Listen

Brandy’s role isn’t to churn content. It’s to ask better questions—the kind that shape voice, values, and long-term visibility without overexposing the athlete. Built around a flexible framework called the Athlete Brand Booster, the system adapts to the pace of each athlete. Some complete it in eight days, others in 20. The goal isn’t speed. The goal is clarity. By the end, athletes leave with a tailored brand strategy and a 30-day plan they can actually use. No public posting required. No third-party oversight. Just structured brand work, completed on their terms.

The Power in Privacy

In a landscape where most brand development is social-first and strategy-second, this model does something rare: it gives athletes space to be unfinished. The results prove it. More than 70% of athletes who begin the program complete the full journey, a completion rate almost unheard of in athlete development. Many say it is the first time they have felt in control of their narrative. Not performing. Not posing. Building. Because Brandy doesn’t just mirror what already exists. Brandy reflects what could be, aligned with personal goals and shaped with enough structure and discipline to make it real.

When Support Doesn’t Require Spotlight

For federations, sponsors, and teams, this is not just another AI tool. It is a strategy. The Booster can be white labeled for programs, partnerships, and pipelines. Logos, values, and campaign touchpoints can be integrated without ever compromising the athlete’s voice.

It’s alignment, redefined. Not another media day. Not another campaign. A tool of lasting value placed in the athlete’s hands, giving them the power to lead.

· For rights holders, it means scalable athlete empowerment without staffing burdens.

· For sponsors, it’s brand association that lasts longer than a single post.

· For athletes, it’s a private permission slip to own their story.

The Bigger Idea

This isn’t about making athletes louder. It’s about helping them speak when they’re ready—and knowing what to say when they do. Let athletes lead. Give them tools, not templates. Protect their process. And trust that the more their brand reflects them, the more value it holds for everyone. The future of athlete branding is not performative. It is powerful. It is personal. And it is already here. If you support athletes, whether as a federation, a sponsor, or a program architect, we’d love to explore what this could look like in your world. We’re already building it.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

The Booster isn't about content hacks or viral formulas. It's about clarity. And that changes everything. For the first time, athletes can shape their story without a single public post. They can explore what matters, then build from there. That’s not just branding. That’s self-definition. And in sport, that’s rare.

How the Booster System Works

Brandy isn't another AI content tool. It's a private system designed to give athletes the structure, clarity, and momentum most brand programs miss.

Intelligent Intake: Structured prompts guide athletes from surface-level visibility to deeper identity. No performative fluff.

Built-In Strategy: Each response shapes a complete brand foundation. Messaging, positioning, and story structure are built in.

Daily Precision Emails: Athletes get one clear action per day. No dashboards. No overwhelm. No guesswork.

Auto-Built Brand Systems: Every answer contributes to real brand outputs—frameworks, profiles, and a 30-day brand plan.

Always-On Evolution: Brandy grows with the athlete. No resets. No starting over.

The result is strategic clarity that lasts. Brands athletes can believe in. No content churn. No outside consultants. No follower-first thinking.

📖 Get The Athlete Brand Book

Brand-building isn’t about chasing followers. It’s about building freedom. If you’re serious about long-term strategy, this is your playbook. Our 600-page guide is packed with frameworks, tools, and real-world case studies from athletes who’ve done it their way. It’s the most complete resource in the game.

Grab your copy

🌍 Help Us Expand the Ecosystem

Know a podcast, accelerator, panel, or program where this message belongs? We’re growing, and your intros help us reach the right rooms. Just one connection can help more athletes build with clarity and control.

Make an introduction: thomas@theathletebrand.com

📣 Share This Edition

If this sparked something for you, send it to someone who helps shape athlete futures. A teammate. A coach. A sponsor. A federation lead. Let’s build a smarter system - together.

🎤 Where You Can Catch Us

We’ll be at Pow Wow Sports Festival in Düsseldorf on September 18, and speaking at Sport Forum Hungary 25 in Budapest on November 19–20. If you're attending either, let’s connect. These conversations are just getting started.