Image rights — income that will not turn into a case.

• A notable part of your income is sponsors, advertising and licences on your name and image, not only your club contract.
• Payments for image run through a company, but the structure was put together in haste and is not backed by real rights and substance.
• You understand that on reclassification as disguised salary the matter is not a dispute over figures, but liability.

What the House does

The right to one’s image is a licensable asset. For the income from it to be taxed as income from rights rather than as masked salary, the structure must be one in which the rights genuinely belong to the holder, the licence is real, and the payments answer market logic. The House builds it for scrutiny, not against it.

• A separation of income: the athlete’s labour and the exploitation of image — as two distinct, properly documented streams.
• A structure of ownership over the name and image rights, with provable substance.
• Licence agreements with a market logic of payment that withstand the question “why so much.”
• Alignment with residence and the playing calendar, so the streams do not contradict one another.
• Documentation ready for the tax authority’s request in advance, not assembled to meet one.

What you get: a structure of ownership over the name and image rights · licence agreements with a market logic of payment · a separation of 2 income streams (labour and image) · a substance dossier ready for the tax authority’s request

Why this way and not another

• An agent will paper the sponsorship contracts, but will not build the tax structure or close the reclassification risk.
• The “crude scheme” — payments to a company without real rights or substance — is the first thing the tax authority opens up.
• A general accountant does not see that an athlete has a short career window, and that any case hits harder than it would an ordinary taxpayer.

What worries you — and the House’s answer

• “The image payments will be reclassified as salary.” — The structure is built precisely against this: real rights, market payments, provable substance.
• “It will come to a criminal case.” — The House does not build crudely; what is not defensible under scrutiny, it names plainly and does not do.
• “The tax authority will ask why so much for a name.” — The licensing logic of payment is designed so that a ready answer to that question exists.

Where this leads

Income from name and image runs through a structure that holds under scrutiny: the rights belong, the licence is real, the payments are justified. Reclassification as disguised salary — and the criminal risk that comes with it — is removed at the level of design. The most valuable intangible asset of a short career works for you, not against you.