Image rights schemes - third party ownership for example - are largely about avoiding tax and can be used in a limited way. Much like EBTs before them, over the past few years HMRC took a tougher stance and issued warnings and started investigations. I suspect people will start getting in trouble soon or have to treat their third party image rights income under personal income tax.
The taxation of image rights has and continues to be a thorny topic for sportspersons and their employers.
www.nortonrosefulbright.com
Tax-News.com delivers news headlines and features on international tax, law, politics, economics and trade.
www.tax-news.com
Edit: sorry, I didn't mean all Image rights schemes were not allowed, but Dybala's certainly is. I see your example was just an issue of his image being used without permission. Obviously image rights schemes are about "image rights" however that is defined by HMRC. It has largely been used to avoid tax as clubs pay a fee to a third party along side a player's wages. This fee is taxed at a much lower rate, allowing players to pay to avoid higher taxes on "image rights" income. I am sure HMRC would have had a few questions for Dybala...