For athletes and entertainers, fame is not just about performance. It is also a commercial asset. A footballer’s image may feature on global sponsorship campaigns, a musician’s likeness may be licensed across merchandise, and an actor’s name can drive millions in ticket sales. Managing this brand power requires more than just an agent or a marketing deal—it often requires a corporate structure.

This is where image rights companies come in. They allow athletes and entertainers to route commercial income through a formal entity rather than taking it directly as personal salary. The benefits range from tax efficiency to clearer contracting. But when it comes to buying property in the UK, these companies add complexity. Lenders, lawyers, and regulators all want to understand exactly how the structure works, who ultimately benefits, and whether the income is stable enough to support long-term borrowing.

Handled properly, buying through an image rights company can open doors. Handled poorly, it can slow a transaction to a crawl—or close it off entirely. In this blog, we look at how these companies are used, why they matter for property finance, and what lenders really want to see in 2025.

Why athletes and entertainers set up image rights companies

An image rights company is typically a limited company created to receive payments for commercial use of an individual’s likeness, name, or brand. Rather than a sportswear contract paying directly into a footballer’s bank account, for example, the sponsor pays the company. The same applies to musicians who license their catalogue for advertising, or actors who endorse global campaigns.

The rationale is clear. From a tax perspective, it may allow income to be treated differently than salary. From a commercial perspective, it gives counterparties a formal entity to contract with, making negotiations and disputes easier to manage. From a liability perspective, it provides separation between personal assets and commercial obligations. And for those planning beyond their playing or performing years, it offers continuity—because a company can survive long after the career has ended.

For many top-tier athletes, especially in football, having an image rights company is standard practice. Increasingly, musicians, actors, and digital creators are following the same path. But when these structures enter the mortgage world, things become less straightforward.

Where the complexity begins

Property finance is built on clarity. Lenders want to see who is borrowing, how they earn, and whether that income can support the loan. Salary slips, tax returns, and straightforward bank statements make this process simple for most borrowers.

Image rights companies, however, blur the lines. Is the borrower the individual, the company, or both? Is the income personal salary, dividends, or retained profit? Can sponsorship contracts really be relied upon over a 25-year mortgage term, or are they too short-lived?

When the company itself is used as the purchasing vehicle, the complexity increases again. Corporate ownership introduces additional due diligence, from confirming beneficial ownership to meeting the UK’s transparency rules. High street banks, which rely on standardised processes, often find this too complex to navigate. The result is either restrictive terms or outright rejection.

How private banks view image rights companies

Private banks take a very different approach. Rather than relying on rigid affordability models, they look holistically at wealth and income. For them, the existence of an image rights company is not a barrier—it is part of the client’s broader financial picture.

Instead of dismissing sponsorship income, a private bank will ask for audited accounts that prove how much is earned and distributed. Rather than rejecting royalties routed through the company, they will seek confirmation from the client’s accountants that these revenues are sustainable. If the property is to be bought in the company’s name, they will review governance, director structure, and legal contracts to ensure the arrangement is legitimate and transparent.

In many cases, private banks are willing to lend either to the individual—using dividends or director’s drawings as income evidence—or directly to the company itself, with the individual acting as guarantor. What matters is clarity and credibility, not the rigidity of the income stream.

Transparency and the UK regulatory environment

A further factor is the UK’s emphasis on transparency. The Persons of Significant Control (PSC) register requires disclosure of who ultimately benefits from any company. The Register of Overseas Entities (ROE) extends this requirement to non-UK structures buying property. For high-profile clients hoping for anonymity, this can be uncomfortable.

It is important to be realistic. Buying property through an image rights company will not guarantee complete privacy. Names of ultimate owners may still appear on public registers. Lenders, solicitors, and regulators will all require detailed disclosure before approving the transaction. As we discussed in Managing Reputation, Privacy & Discretion in Mortgage Applications, corporate ownership may add a layer of separation, but it does not erase the paper trail.

That does not make the structure redundant. It simply means borrowers need to plan for disclosure, understand where privacy ends, and ensure their advisers manage the process with precision.

A practical example

Take the case of a footballer earning £3 million annually in salary and a further £1.5 million through sponsorship contracts managed by his image rights company. He wishes to purchase a London townhouse worth £6 million.

A high street lender might only consider his salary, applying conservative discounts to bonuses and ignoring the sponsorship income. Worse, if he wanted the company to buy the property directly, most high street banks would decline altogether.

By contrast, a private bank takes a more pragmatic view. They review the company’s audited accounts, ask the accountant to confirm available reserves, and examine the sponsorship contracts themselves to test longevity. With that evidence, the bank is satisfied that the income is reliable. They approve a 70% loan-to-value mortgage—either structured through the company with the individual as guarantor, or personally with dividends recognised as income.

The difference lies not in the money itself, but in how it is presented.

Why protection strengthens the case

Lenders are aware that sponsorship deals and brand partnerships can be fragile. A single injury, controversy, or change in public opinion can impact contracts. That is why protection planning is essential.

Income protection, life insurance, and critical illness cover all serve to reassure lenders that mortgage payments will continue even if contracts end unexpectedly. As we explained in Protection for Athletes & Entertainers: Safeguarding Mortgages in 2025, these policies don’t just secure peace of mind—they actively improve the chances of mortgage approval. When combined with the structure of an image rights company, they show lenders that risks are managed, not ignored.

The pitfalls of poor planning

Using an image rights company in property finance can be powerful, but it carries risks if not handled carefully. We often see transactions delayed because clients assume that company ownership guarantees privacy, only to discover their details will appear on public registers. Others run into trouble because their company accounts are incomplete or unaudited, leaving lenders with unanswered questions.

Another common mistake is leaving structuring decisions too late. Trying to introduce an image rights company into the purchase process just before exchange almost always causes delays. The correct approach is to plan well in advance, ensuring accounts are in order, contracts are clear, and advisers are aligned.

How Willow helps clients succeed

At Willow, our role is to bridge the gap between complex structures and lender expectations. We work closely with accountants and legal teams to package image rights company income in a way that lenders understand. We anticipate compliance questions before they arise, so clients are not caught off guard. And we know which private banks are comfortable with these structures, which prefer personal applications, and which require additional guarantees.

By presenting a coherent narrative, supported by complete documentation, we turn what might look like a barrier into a credible pathway to approval. For clients whose careers depend on their brand, that can make the difference between securing the property they want and facing rejection.

Conclusion

Image rights companies reflect the reality of modern sport and entertainment. They are a legitimate, often necessary part of managing wealth in a world where personal brand is as valuable as performance. But when it comes to property finance, they add complexity that cannot be ignored.

In 2025, lenders expect transparency, clarity, and protection. High street banks may struggle to accommodate these structures, but private banks and specialist lenders can. With the right preparation, athletes and entertainers can use their image rights companies not as obstacles, but as enablers of property ownership.

At Willow, we specialise in making complex income structures lender-ready. We ensure that brand power translates into borrowing power—without unnecessary delays or surprises.

📞 Considering buying through an image rights company?

Talk to Willow before approaching a lender. We’ll anticipate the challenges, structure the application, and secure the right approval.