Robert Wyland’s $25M FIFA Lawsuit: Dallas Mural and VARA Claim

Marine life artist Robert Wyland filed a $25 million federal lawsuit against FIFA and four co-defendants on June 1, 2026, after his 17,000-square-foot whale mural in downtown Dallas was painted over to clear space for a 2026 FIFA World Cup promotional artwork. The Wyland FIFA lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, claims the mural was destroyed without any notice to the artist, in violation of the federal Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990.¹

The Mural That Was Painted Over

The work, titled “Ocean Life” and also known as “Whaling Wall 82,” covered two walls of the Texas Utilities Building at 505 N. Akard Street with life-sized humpback whales and dolphins. Wyland began painting it on April 7, 1999, and it stood as a downtown Dallas landmark for 27 years. It was the 82nd installment in his global Whaling Walls series, a set of more than 100 large-scale ocean murals meant to promote marine conservation, and in a landlocked city its point was to connect the metropolitan area to downstream ecosystems.²³

Work crews began covering the mural in blue paint on May 15, 2026. By May 18, most of it was gone.⁴ The paint-over was meant to create a blank canvas for a World Cup-themed mural ahead of matches at AT&T Stadium in nearby Arlington.⁵ Wyland says nobody contacted him. He called any suggestion otherwise “a lie with a capital L.”³

How the Paint-Over Happened

In March 2026, the North Texas FIFA World Cup Organizing Committee and Downtown Dallas Inc., a local economic development agency, approached Slate Asset Management, which manages 505 N. Akard Street, and asked the company to donate the wall for a new public art installation promoting the tournament. Slate agreed and says it received no compensation. According to a Slate spokesperson, the company was “told by the local groups that Mr. Wyland had been notified.”¹⁶

Internal emails obtained by the Dallas Morning News describe more direct involvement. A Downtown Dallas Inc. employee identified Wyland’s mural as the target site, writing that “the current mural there is over 30 years old and past its useful life.”⁷ DDI later stated it “did not commission, fund, or manage this project.”⁸ The organizing committee acknowledged “shortcomings in communication” but has not taken direct responsibility.

The replacement mural, described in planning documents as meant to capture “the energy, unity and global spirit surrounding the World Cup 2026,” was never completed. Work has stopped, and it is unclear whether anything will go up on the wall.⁹

What the Complaint Says

The case number is 3:26-cv-01794. Wyland’s legal team sent a cease-and-desist letter “almost immediately” after learning the mural had been erased, and filed suit weeks later.¹⁰⁷ The complaint names five defendants:

Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
FIFA (Americas) Inc.
FWC2026 US, Inc.
3PZ Property Company, LLC
Slate Asset Management

The complaint alleges the defendants “hastily and irrevocably destroyed a civic landmark” by painting over the mural without Wyland’s consent or notification, in violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act. Wyland is seeking no less than $25 million in actual damages plus attorneys’ fees.¹¹

What the Defendants Have Said

A FIFA spokesperson said on June 2, 2026, that the federation “has no involvement in this whatsoever” and directed inquiries to the local organizing committee.¹ The North Texas organizing committee has declined to comment on the lawsuit. Slate, which previously said it was told Wyland had been notified, has not responded publicly to the specific allegations.¹²

What the Visual Artists Rights Act Requires

The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 grants visual artists “moral rights” over their work even after they no longer own the physical object. Under VARA, artwork of “recognized stature” cannot be intentionally destroyed or modified without the artist’s consent. Those protections last for the artist’s lifetime and cannot be transferred.¹³

The statute treats building-mounted art in two ways. When the work cannot be removed without destroying it, the property owner must obtain a written waiver from the artist before altering it. When the work can be taken down intact, the owner must make a “diligent, good faith” effort to notify the artist, who then has 90 days to remove it at their own expense. If the artist does not act in that window, the owner is free to proceed. Wyland’s complaint alleges neither a waiver nor a notification was ever provided.¹⁴

To win, Wyland will have to show that Whaling Wall 82 qualifies as a work of “recognized stature,” a term VARA does not precisely define. Courts have looked at scholarly attention, expert testimony, and the artist’s reputation. The mural stood as a Dallas landmark for nearly three decades, and Wyland’s Whaling Walls series is internationally known, with artwork held in museums and private collections in more than 100 countries.¹⁵

How Similar VARA Cases Have Ended

The closest precedent is the 5Pointz case in New York. In 2013, developer Gerald Wolkoff whitewashed dozens of graffiti murals at the 5Pointz complex in Long Island City despite knowing the artists had filed a VARA suit to stop him. A federal judge awarded the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 for each of 45 works found to have recognized stature, totaling $6.75 million. The Second Circuit upheld the award in February 2020, holding that even temporary artwork can achieve recognized stature under VARA and that Wolkoff’s destruction was willful.¹⁶

Wyland’s case has key features in common with 5Pointz: artwork placed on a building with the owner’s permission, destroyed without notice, alleged to have recognized stature. The differences matter for damages. 5Pointz involved 45 separate works, each with its own $150,000 award. Wyland’s suit involves a single mural, and his $25 million demand far exceeds VARA’s $150,000 statutory maximum for willful infringement of one work. That suggests his team is pursuing actual damages tied to the mural’s monetary and cultural value rather than relying on statutory caps.¹¹

A second reference point is the Kent Twitchell case. In 2006, Twitchell’s six-story mural of artist Ed Ruscha, painted on a federal building in downtown Los Angeles over nearly a decade, was painted over during building repairs. Twitchell sued under VARA and the California Art Preservation Act and settled in 2008 for $1.1 million, believed at the time to be the largest recovery under those statutes.¹⁷ The Twitchell facts track Wyland’s closely: a large mural on a building, painted over without the artist’s knowledge, with the property owner and intermediaries each disclaiming responsibility.

As of early June 2026, the Wyland case remains in its earliest stages, with no court dates or substantive responses from the defendants yet on the public docket.¹²

1
NBC News. Wyland Lawsuit FIFA Dallas Whale Mural World Cup
2
D Magazine. Everything We Know About the Downtown Dallas Whale Mural
3
Fox 4 News. Dallas Whale Wall Mural Wyland World Cup
4
ESPN. Artist Sues FIFA $25M Dallas Whale Mural Painted World Cup
5
KERA News. World Cup and Whale Mural Controversy Explained
6
Alaska’s News Source. Artist Famous for Marine Murals Sues FIFA Over Dallas Destruction
7
The Guardian. Dallas FIFA Mural Lawsuit Robert Wyland
8
CBS News. Artist Sues $25 Million Dallas Whale Mural Painted Over World Cup
9
Dallas Morning News. What to Know Two Dallas FIFA World Cup Murals
10
PACER Monitor. Wyland v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) et al.
11
NBC DFW. Wyland $25 Million Lawsuit Dallas Whale Mural
12
Glasstire. Robert Wyland Files $25 Million Lawsuit for Destruction of His Dallas Whaling Wall
13
Al Jazeera. US Artist Sues FIFA Over Destruction of Dallas Whale Mural for World Cup
14
New York Times. Dallas Whale Mural Wyland Lawsuit FIFA World Cup Texas
15
Wyland Foundation. Wyland Whaling Walls
16
Justia. Castillo v. G&M Realty L.P., No. 18-498
17
Los Angeles Times. Kent Twitchell VARA Settlement