The crackdown on unauthorized use of Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) game videos on social media — ongoing since last year — has raised an important question: At what point does protecting intellectual property begin to hurt the very product it is supposed to protect and promote?

There is no debate that TV5, the league’s official television coveror and its affiliate media companies own the broadcast rights to PBA games. Producing a professional sports telecast requires significant investment and those rights deserve legal protection. Vloggers and content creators who simply repost highlights to generate views and revenue without permission or proper attribution should certainly be held accountable.

But the issue becomes more complicated when the same strict policies appear to affect legitimate media organizations and even the players and other non-MVP teams’ social media peeps themselves.

Players are the lifeblood of the league. They are the product. Fans buy tickets, watch the games on cable TV and online, and follow social media because of the athletes.

While teams and sponsors provide the business foundation, the players remain the main attraction. It seems reasonable that they should have some flexibility in sharing highlights of their own performances on personal platforms without fear of takedowns or restrictive attribution requirements.

The same can be said for accredited media members. For decades, sportswriters, photographers and recently also legit online reporters have served as partners in promoting the PBA.

Perhaps we can say the same for fans who just want to share their experiences in the venue and are not really monetizing their social media posts. Their stories, videos, interviews and social media posts help keep the league relevant in an increasingly crowded sports entertainment landscape.

The PBA Press Corps is also not an enemy of the official television coveror. Both parties ultimately share the same objective: generating interest for the PBA games, teams and players.

Some observers have even questioned whether players from teams under the MVP umbrella are being subjected to the same standards.

This discussion becomes even more interesting when viewed through the lens of developments in the United States.

In recent years, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) adopted Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) rules, allowing student-athletes to profit from their personal brands. While NIL primarily focuses on endorsements and commercial opportunities, its underlying principle is simple: athletes possess value beyond the institutions they represent. National Basketball Association (NBA) players’ similar rights are protected by the NBA Players Association.

Philippine sports may not be ready for a direct NIL equivalent, but the concept deserves discussion.

Should players have greater rights over the use of highlights featuring their own performances? Should leagues and broadcast partners create more athlete-friendly content policies that encourage sharing rather than restricting it?

In today’s digital age, visibility is currency. Every highlight shared by a player, journalist or fan expands the reach of the sport. Every viral clip can potentially introduce new fans and thus create more interest to the league.

While the recent PBA50 Commissioner’s Cup playoffs was a smash hit in terms of media ratings, both online and otherwise, the league will continue to face challenges in attracting more fans, particularly during the eliminations where less popular teams often struggle to draw crowds — or maybe when the NBA resumes.

In such environments, maximizing exposure should always be a priority.

Protecting broadcast rights and encouraging promotion do not have to be mutually exclusive goals. There is room for balance. There is room for common sense.

After all, nobody benefits when those helping promote the game legitimately are treated like pirates.

Sometimes, the best way to protect a product is not to lock it away, but to let more people see it.