Full Breakdown
Sunderland AFC Faces Copyright Lawsuit Over 2025-26 Away Kit
4/25/2026, 2:44:47 PM
The Lawsuit and Core Claim
Liverpool-based artist Andrew Small is suing Sunderland AFC for alleged copyright infringement after the club’s 2025-26 away shirt, produced by sportswear firm Hummel, displayed a pattern he says reproduces his 2008 sculpture “C.” Small’s legal team, led by barrister Francis McEntegart, has issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding compensation or a share of the kit’s commercial sales.
Background of the “C” Sculpture
In 2008 Sunderland City Council commissioned Small to create a public artwork marking the terminus of the Sea to Sea cycle route. The piece, titled “C,” consists of a six-and-a-half-tonne slab of black granite cut to form a curved aperture that frames a view of the Roker Lighthouse. A large plaque beside the work identifies Small as the creator and explains the sculpture’s concept. The council agreement allowed Small to retain copyright, requiring a separate licence for any commercial reproduction.
Key Parties
- Andrew Small – artist, copyright holder of “C.”
- Sunderland AFC – Premier League club that released the contested away kit.
- Hummel – manufacturer of the 2025-26 change strip.
- Francis McEntegart – barrister representing Small.
- Sunderland City Council – original commissioner of the sculpture.
Kit Design and Alleged Reproduction
The away shirt features a repeating geometric motif that shows the lighthouse through a circular shape. Small argues the design mirrors the exact curves, proportions and rectangular-ish aperture of his granite work, rather than being a generic idea. The club described the kit as a homage to the 1989-91 away shirts worn at the former Roker Park ground, which also referenced the lighthouse.
Official Statements & Club Position
Sunderland AFC has denied any breach of copyright, stating that the kit was “inspired by the 1989-91 away kit” and that “there is no copyright in ideas and concepts.” The club declined to comment further to the BBC and has not responded to requests for additional clarification.
Artist’s Opposition and Criticism
Small contends the club used his specific design without permission, noting the plaque that bears his name makes the authorship “obvious.” He has called the club’s stance “ridiculous” and seeks either damages or a percentage of the kit’s sales.
Conflicting Views & Remaining Gaps
The dispute hinges on whether the sculpture’s distinctive form is protected under copyright law. Sunderland argues only abstract ideas are unprotected, while Small asserts the concrete visual elements are copyrighted. No court ruling exists, and the club has not provided a detailed legal justification, leaving the legal merits unresolved.
Verbatim Quotes
- “[The sculpture is] highly mirrored, polished granite, and it reflects the environments and the light,” — Andrew Small, artist
- “It looks like a bit of 3D generated artwork in the landscape sometimes, depending on how the light hits it.” — Andrew Small
- “And I said no, and he just pulled his phone out and showed me, and instantly it was absolutely evident that it’s my work.” — Andrew Small
- “ He added: “I started thinking actually maybe they should have asked my permission before they did this.” — Andrew Small
- “They've actually put the curves of the aperture on it and the proportions of it. It's not pure square, it's slightly rectangle,” — Andrew Small
What’s Next
Small’s cease-and-desist letter has been served; the case is moving toward litigation. Sunderland AFC must decide whether to negotiate a licence, contest the claim in court, or pursue an alternative resolution. The outcome could set a precedent for how football clubs use public artworks in commercial merchandise.
