The Fine Line Between Inspiration and Infringement: Sunderland AFC’s Kit Controversy
When I first heard about Sunderland AFC’s legal battle with Liverpool artist Andrew Small, I couldn’t help but think: Here we go again—another clash between creativity and commerce. But what makes this particularly fascinating is the way it blurs the lines between artistic homage, commercial exploitation, and legal gray areas. Personally, I think this case isn’t just about a football kit; it’s a microcosm of how modern culture grapples with ownership in an age where ideas are constantly borrowed, repurposed, and monetized.
The Art at the Heart of the Dispute
Andrew Small’s sculpture, ‘C’, is more than just a piece of public art. Commissioned in 2008 to mark the end of the Sea to Sea cycle path, it’s a six-and-a-half-tonne slab of black granite that frames the Roker Lighthouse through a meticulously carved aperture. What many people don’t realize is that the sculpture’s design isn’t just functional—it’s deeply conceptual. The polished granite reflects its environment, creating a dynamic interplay of light and landscape. Small retained the copyright, and rightfully so. It’s not just a square with a hole; it’s a carefully crafted, distinctive form.
Now, Sunderland’s 2025/26 away kit features a repeating geometric pattern that includes a lighthouse viewed through a circular aperture. If you take a step back and think about it, the resemblance to ‘C’ isn’t subtle. The curves, the proportions, even the way the light is implied—it’s all there. Small’s reaction, upon seeing the kit, was immediate: ‘It’s my work.’ And honestly, I can’t blame him. The parallels are striking.
The Club’s Defense: A Weak Argument?
Sunderland’s response? They claim there’s ‘no copyright in ideas and concepts.’ While technically true, this raises a deeper question: Where do we draw the line between an idea and its execution? The club isn’t just using the concept of a lighthouse or a circular frame—they’re replicating the specific design elements that make ‘C’ unique. In my opinion, this isn’t inspiration; it’s appropriation.
What this really suggests is that Sunderland either didn’t do their homework or didn’t care. The sculpture has a plaque with Small’s name on it, and it’s a local landmark. If you’re going to use something so recognizable, shouldn’t you at least seek permission? Or is this just another example of big institutions assuming they can take what they want without consequences?
The Broader Implications: Art, Commerce, and Ethics
This case isn’t isolated. We’ve seen similar disputes in fashion, music, and even architecture. Artists often find their work co-opted by corporations, who then profit from their creativity without compensation. What makes this particularly troubling is the power imbalance. Small is a single artist going up against a Premier League football club. It’s David versus Goliath, and Goliath usually wins.
But here’s the thing: If Small loses, it sets a dangerous precedent. It implies that as long as you tweak an idea enough, you can avoid legal repercussions. This undermines the very concept of intellectual property and devalues artistic labor. From my perspective, this isn’t just about one sculpture or one kit—it’s about respecting the people who create the culture we all consume.
What’s Next? A Cultural Shift or Business as Usual?
Small’s legal team is demanding a percentage of the kit’s sales or damages. Personally, I think he deserves both. But even if he wins, the damage is already done. The kit is out there, and the club has already profited from his work. This raises a deeper question: How do we ensure artists are fairly compensated in an era where their work is so easily replicated?
One thing that immediately stands out is the need for better awareness and accountability. Brands and institutions need to recognize that inspiration isn’t a free pass to steal. And consumers? We need to demand better. If we care about art and culture, we should care about the people who create it.
Final Thoughts: A Lesson in Respect
As I reflect on this controversy, I’m reminded of how often artists are overlooked in the grand scheme of things. Andrew Small’s sculpture is a testament to his skill and vision, yet it’s being treated as a disposable asset. In my opinion, this case isn’t just about copyright law—it’s about respect. Respect for creativity, for originality, and for the people who make our world a little more beautiful.
If Sunderland AFC wants to honor its local heritage, it should start by honoring the artists who contribute to it. Anything less is just exploitation disguised as tribute. And that’s a game no one should be playing.
