By Edward H. Schauder
As both a sports lawyer and an avid collector, I still remember the first time I came across a game-used jersey that I had to have. It was a David Wright road gray jersey, visibly worn, with dirt embedded in the fabric from a headfirst slide. It had been authenticated, tied to a specific game, and carried a story that made it far more valuable than any retail replica. Like many collectors, I was drawn not just to the item itself, but to the player and the moment it represented.
That experience highlights what makes game-used memorabilia so compelling, and also raises an important legal question: when teams sell these items at a premium because of the player who used them, are they commercially benefiting from the player’s identity in a way that implicates that player’s rights?
The market for game-used memorabilia has grown into a significant segment of the broader sports industry. Teams and leagues have developed sophisticated authentication and sales programs, often using tamper-proof holograms and centralized databases to verify authenticity and trace items back to specific games, innings, and even individual plays. The more meaningful the performance or the more recognizable the player, the higher the value. A jersey worn by a star player during a standout game can command thousands of dollars, while a comparable item worn by a lesser-known player may have only nominal value.
This disparity underscores a central point: the value of game-used memorabilia is not driven solely by the physical item, but by the identity and performance of the athlete associated with it.
From a legal standpoint, teams typically own certain categories of equipment, including game-issued and game-worn uniforms. However, ownership of the physical item does not necessarily resolve the question of whether the commercial sale of that item involves the use of a player’s name, image, or likeness.
Right of publicity laws, which exist in many states, generally prohibit the commercial use of an individual’s identity without consent. Courts have recognized that athletes retain these rights even in the context of team-based achievements. In Shamsky v. Garan Inc., members of the 1969 Mets successfully challenged the unauthorized commercial use of their identities, reinforcing that individual rights persist even when associated with a collective team moment.
When applied to game-used memorabilia programs, this framework creates a nuanced issue. While a team may own the jersey itself, the commercial value of that jersey is often tied directly to the player who wore it. In many cases, however, players do not share in the revenue generated from the sale of those items, even though their identity is the primary driver of value.
In practice, this issue has largely gone unchallenged. For many players and agents, the incremental revenue associated with individual memorabilia items may not justify raising the issue, particularly in the context of broader contractual relationships with teams. Others may view the exposure and fan engagement as an indirect benefit. Teams have also, in some instances, incorporated players into the process through autograph sessions, inscriptions, or charitable initiatives tied to memorabilia sales.
Even so, the underlying legal and commercial considerations remain relevant, particularly as the memorabilia market continues to expand and evolve. The rise of digital platforms, enhanced fan experiences, and new forms of collectibles has only increased the visibility and value of these programs.
Rather than viewing this as a point of conflict, there is an opportunity for alignment. Teams, players, and leagues can work together to develop more structured approaches that recognize the role of the athlete in creating value. This may include revenue-sharing mechanisms for high-value items, expanded player participation in memorabilia programs, or coordinated efforts that integrate licensing, appearances, and fan engagement.
For teams and leagues, this is also an opportunity to ensure that contractual frameworks clearly address the commercial use of player identity in connection with memorabilia programs. For players and their representatives, it highlights the importance of understanding how their name and likeness are being used beyond traditional endorsement and licensing arrangements.
Game-used memorabilia remains one of the most powerful ways for fans to connect with the athletes and moments they care about most. With thoughtful structuring and collaboration, these programs can continue to grow while addressing the legal and economic interests of all parties involved.
Edward H. Schauder is Special Counsel at Nason Yeager. With more than 35 years of experience in corporate transactions and the sports and entertainment industries, he advises athletes, brands, and businesses on licensing, intellectual property, sponsorship, and complex commercial matters. Mr. Schauder is admitted in New York and counsels clients on matters involving New York and federal law.
