The AI Clone: Footballers Begin Licensing and Selling Their Digital Identities

Australia national team player Cristian Volpato has become the latest professional athlete to license his own AI clone. In a social media video, four digital copies of the 22-year-old footballer appear to branch off from him as he walks — entirely AI-generated, but with the athlete's own consent. What's at stake here is less a tabloid curiosity than the transformation of a person's face and identity into a licensable, monetizable asset class.

What happened?

Volpato gave permission for his likeness to be recreated using AI, and this "synthetic twin" is now one of his branding tools. Advertisements, social content and sponsorship videos can be produced without the athlete needing to be physically present on set. Similar deals have been spreading rapidly of late among athletes, actors and musicians.

Why does it matter so much?

AI-generated imitation imagery has long been discussed only as a "threat": unauthorized deepfakes, fake endorsement videos, non-consensual content. The Volpato case shows the other side of the debate. The same technology is now being turned into a legitimate revenue stream through a "consent + license" model. In other words, the problem isn't the technology itself; it's who controls it and who grants permission.

This marks a new stage in the evolution of image rights. Previously, an athlete's photo, jersey number or signature would be licensed; the use was singular and limited. Now what's being licensed is a model capable of generating endless new content. The difference isn't quantitative but qualitative: once permitted, the clone can shoot new ads even while the athlete sleeps. That increases the value but also magnifies the risk, because the line between "real" and "approved synthetic" is being erased.

This is where the real legal knot lies. If a person can sell their own clone, how will the boundary be drawn between an unauthorized deepfake and a legitimate license? Platforms will be forced to technically verify the question "is this content approved?" That's why consent records, digital signatures and content provenance labels are becoming increasingly critical.

Who will manage these rights?

The second big question is ownership. Who controls a footballer's digital twin — the player himself, his club, or his management agency? In traditional contracts, image rights are often divided between the club and the player. The AI clone complicates this balance: the clone can keep producing content even after an athlete's career ends, or even after they pass away. That calls for entirely new contract clauses covering inheritance, duration and transfer of authority.

The inequality dimension is often overlooked. A well-known athlete like Volpato has bargaining power, a lawyer and an agency; he can price his clone in his own favor. An ordinary user has no such leverage. For the ordinary person, the same technology is mostly a defensive line that needs protecting, while for a celebrity it's a gateway to income. Identity rights thus risk deepening the power imbalances that already exist.

What's next?

There are a few developments to watch. First, sports clubs and leagues adding "AI clone" clauses to standard contracts — likely through individual deals at first, then standard provisions. Second, an obligation on platforms to label approved synthetic content; regulators appear to be pushing in this direction. Third, placing identity protection for ordinary users on a legal footing — whether the same tools available to celebrities will be opened up to everyone.

Volpato's synthetic twin is, on its own, a minor story. But the direction it points to is clear: the face and identity are becoming a licensable asset class. Managed correctly, this gives athletes new income and control; managed badly, it blurs the concept of consent and legitimizes identity exploitation. The technology itself is neutral; what will be decisive is how transparently and accountably that consent is structured.