Wyland Sues FIFA Over Dallas Whale Mural: $25M VARA Claim

Marine artist Robert Wyland filed a $25 million federal lawsuit against FIFA and four other defendants on June 1, 2026, after his eight-story whale mural in downtown Dallas was painted over to clear wall space for World Cup artwork. The Wyland v. FIFA lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleges the destruction violated the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, a federal statute that bars the intentional destruction of publicly displayed art of “recognized stature” without the artist’s consent.¹²

What Was Painted Over

The mural, titled “Ocean Life” and cataloged as “Whaling Wall 82” in Wyland’s series, covered two faces of the Texas Utilities Building at 505 N. Akard Street. The larger side stretched 164 feet wide and 82 feet tall; the smaller was 50 by 78 feet. Wyland began painting on April 7, 1999, and the finished work depicted six life-size humpback whales. It was dedicated nine days later by NFL player Herschel Walker and the CEO of JC Penney. Wyland described it at the time as a gift to the city.³⁴

The whales had been part of Dallas’s skyline for 27 years, though they were hidden behind advertising banners for roughly eight of them before being uncovered again around 2020.⁵

How the Mural Was Destroyed

Work crews began rolling bright blue paint over the mural during the week of May 14, 2026. By May 18, the complaint states, most of the 17,000-square-foot work had been covered.⁶ The project was billed as a partnership between the North Texas FWC Organizing Committee, which coordinates Dallas’s role as a host city, and Slate Asset Management, the Toronto-based owner of 505 N. Akard. The plan was to replace the whales with new artwork celebrating the 2026 World Cup.⁷

Wyland says he was never contacted. On May 15 he posted on Instagram that FIFA had destroyed one of his “most beautiful iconic murals,” and his attorney sent a cease-and-desist letter. By late May, the replacement base coat sat unfinished and work had stopped.⁸ Photos of the painting-over went viral. Country singer Kacey Musgraves posted, “This makes me really sad. We suck the soul out of everything.” A student petition gathered more than 2,600 signatures demanding FIFA fund a new mural site.⁶

Who Wyland Is Suing

The case, docketed as 3:26-cv-01794, names five defendants: FIFA, FIFA (Americas) Inc., FWC2026 US Inc., 3PZ Property Company, and Slate Asset Management.⁹¹⁰ FWC2026 US Inc. is a Delaware-incorporated nonprofit registered in Florida with FIFA president Giovanni Infantino listed as its president and assets exceeding $177 million as of 2024, the operational entity for the U.S. side of the tournament.¹¹

Wyland’s legal team has said it intends to use discovery to “follow the money” and identify exactly who authorized and paid for the destruction.⁵

The VARA Claim

The complaint alleges the defendants “hastily and irrevocably” whitewashed the mural without Wyland’s consent, violating his rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act. Specifically, Wyland says the destruction violated his “right of integrity” in a work of recognized stature, and that no one obtained the written waiver VARA requires before destroying artwork incorporated into a building.²

VARA works this way. To win, an artist generally must prove the work was of high quality and that the quality was acknowledged by art experts, the artistic community, or a broad cross-section of the public. Expert testimony is typical, though media coverage and public reaction can support the showing. When a mural is physically part of a building, the statute adds a second layer: if the work cannot be removed without being destroyed, the owner generally cannot destroy it without the artist’s consent; if it can be removed safely, the owner must give the artist written notice and a 90-day window to remove it at the artist’s expense. No written waiver, no notice, no compliance.¹²

Wyland’s team will need to establish that “Ocean Life” had recognized stature. The mural’s 27-year presence on the skyline, Wyland’s international reputation, and the scale of the public reaction to its destruction all point that way. The defendants may argue the work was created as a promotional gift or falls under a work-for-hire exception, either of which could limit VARA’s protections. No written waiver from Wyland appears to exist, and no party has produced evidence that he received the statutory 90-day notice.²

How the 5Pointz Case Shapes the Odds

The controlling precedent is Castillo v. G&M Realty L.P., the “5Pointz” case decided by the Second Circuit. A New York developer, Gerald Wolkoff, whitewashed dozens of graffiti murals at the 5Pointz complex in Long Island City. The Second Circuit upheld a $6.75 million damages award after finding that 45 of the destroyed works had recognized stature and that Wolkoff’s destruction was willful, describing it as an “act of pure pique and revenge” against artists who had sued to stop him. The court awarded the maximum statutory penalty of $150,000 per work. It also held that temporary artwork is not excluded from VARA and that even street art can achieve recognized stature.¹³

How the Defendants Are Responding

Every named or adjacent party has pointed elsewhere. FIFA told ESPN it “has no involvement in this whatsoever” and refers all inquiries to the host city committee.⁶ The North Texas FWC Organizing Committee said the replacement was meant to reflect “the energy, unity, and global spirit surrounding the World Cup 2026” and that a portion of the original mural would “remain preserved as a tribute,” then declined further interviews.⁷ Slate Asset Management said it had been approached in March 2026 with a request to donate the wall space, was not compensated, and “was told by the local groups that Mr. Wyland had been notified.”¹⁴ Downtown Dallas Inc., not itself a defendant, confirmed it introduced the organizing committee to Slate but said it did not “commission, fund, or manage” the project. The City of Dallas said it issued only a sidewalk-closure permit.¹⁵

Where the Case Stands

As of early June 2026, the case was in its initial stages with no hearings scheduled and no reported settlement talks.¹⁶ Work on the replacement World Cup mural remained halted, and the wall at 505 N. Akard Street sat blank blue: neither the whales Wyland painted in 1999 nor the celebration meant to replace them.⁵

1
VnExpress. Artist Sues FIFA for $25M After Dallas Ocean Mural Painted Over
2
ARTnews. Muralist Wyland VARA Lawsuit Dallas Whale Mural FIFA
3
Wyland Foundation. Dallas, Texas – Wyland Whaling Wall #82 “Ocean Life”
4
Dallas Morning News. Wyland Mural World Cup Whales Dallas
5
The Guardian. Dallas FIFA Mural Lawsuit Robert Wyland
6
ESPN. Artist Sues FIFA $25M Dallas Whale Mural Painted World Cup
7
NBC DFW. Iconic Whale Wall Mural Painted Over
8
KERA News. World Cup and Whale Mural Controversy Explained
9
Quartz. Wyland Sues FIFA $25 Million Dallas Whale Mural World Cup
10
Texas Lawbook. Dallas Mural Artist Sues FIFA for $25M
11
ProPublica. FWC2026 US, Inc.
12
Yahoo Finance. Whale Mural Painted Over World
13
Justia. Castillo v. G&M Realty L.P., 18-498
14
Al Jazeera. US Artist Sues FIFA Over Destruction of Dallas Whale Mural for World Cup
15
D Magazine. Everything We Know About the Downtown Dallas Whale Mural
16
ABC News. Artist Suing FIFA Destruction Dallas Whale Mural World