|
The
last days of listed events?
As
the England team face Pakistan “live on Sky sports”
the controversy over the ECB’s decision to sell exclusive
rights to England Test Matches (including home tests) from
2006 to 2009 to Sky still rolls on. The media frenzy following
England’s Ashes success provoked Culture Secretary Tessa
Jowell to publicly comment that Test Match cricket in England
could once again, after the end of Sky’s contract, be
designated a Category A “listed event” that must
be shown live on free-to-air television.
Category
A listed events, protected under the Communications Act 2003,
include the Olympics, FIFA World Cup, FA Cup Final, Scottish FA Cup
Final (in Scotland), Grand National and Derby, Wimbledon Final, UEFA
European Football Championship, Rugby League Challenge Cup Final and
Rugby World Cup Final. Rupert Murdoch et al frequently deride the
listed events legislation as anachronistic and out of step with the
free market available in the majority of territories. Yet even Mr
Murdoch can’t deny the impact that Channel 4’s coverage had
on the nation and, in particular, the thousands of kids swapping
their Beckham shirt for Freddie’s.
However,
the other key argument in favour of listed events i.e. that
terrestrial coverage ensures higher sponsorship revenues, has been
dealt a heavy blow. Vodafone, by far the biggest investor in English
cricket, have just renewed their sponsorship with the ECB and are
actually paying more than they were before, £4M a year as
opposed to £3.5M. Their view is that the increased rights on
offer (including live 3G mobile rights) together with the fantastic
profile of English cricket at the moment more than outweigh the loss
of live terrestrial coverage.
If the
sponsors no longer beat the drum for listed events, it seems unlikely
that the armchair fan will be able to stand in the way of gradual but
steady encroachment by the satellite broadcasters.
The
real reason why sponsors dumped (or didn’t dump) Kate Moss?
Whilst
Kate Moss is back in the news for the right reasons, the furore
over the Mirror’s publication of photographs of Kate
Moss allegedly taking cocaine led to intense scrutiny of her
endorsement and campaign agreements. This in turn led to pressure
on companies to “drop” her. Some like H&M have
cancelled up and coming campaigns whilst others stuck by her.
The
provisions of the contract between them will of course dictate what
the company is entitled to do. Traditionally endorsement contracts
were simple documents with limited termination rights often only
covering situations where a celebrity materially breached the
agreement or was convicted of a criminal offence. If Miss Moss were
subject to such an agreement, despite Sir Ian Blair’s initial
interest in the case, at this stage there is no such conviction
entitling sponsors to terminate.
As the
sponsorship industry has developed, so contracts have become more
sophisticated. Companies have required clauses allowing termination
if the celebrity/ambassador “acts in such a way as to result in
their being held in public ridicule, scorn or contempt” or
“behaves in a manner inconsistent with the values of the company”.
Given
the high cost of extricating themselves from a campaign or
endorsement contract where Miss Moss is not in breach, is it
mischievous to suggest that well drafted endorsement contracts rather
than “outraged morals” were the real reasons behind
companies' decisions over their ongoing relationship with Kate Moss?
Why
we need the Olympics Bill
Within
days of the linen suited bid teams’ triumphant return from
Singapore, the London Olympics Bill had had its second reading in the
House of Commons. Various London businesses and advertising
executives complained at the speed and scope of it, and indeed
thought needs to be given to the consequences of some of its wider
provisions. In particular prohibitions on the use of “Olympic
Words” (which include summer, gold and games) need careful consideration.
Nevertheless,
the principle of protecting the value and integrity of the London
Olympics and those who invest in it is laudable. The memories of the
commercial free for all at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 are not
easily forgotten, certainly not by the custodians of the Olympics in
Lausanne. Sadly the Atlanta experience did tarnish the image of the
one brand, the Olympics, that most experts thought virtually
impossible to devalue.
Sydney
did much to restore faith in the Olympic ideal from IOC members and
top tier sponsors to broadcasters, athletes and the public at large.
The London Olympics Bill should, once it's finalised, help ensure
London delivers the type of Games that will be in tune with
Sydney’s rather than Atlanta’s legacy.
Rugby
Union: Club or Country?
Club
rugby has never had it so good............in France. 80,000 tickets
were sold for the recent clash between Stade Francais and Toulouse,
significantly more than the best attended Barclays Premiership
football match this season and free from the shackles of salary caps,
French Clubs are odds on to dominate the Heineken Cup.
Sadly,
the club game this side of the Channel is not having it so good.
Premier Rugby, which represents the 12 Guinness Premiership clubs,
has issued proceedings to recover more than £120,000 withheld by
the RFU following three clubs' decision to field Lions players before
the end of a much disputed 11 week rest period. At the same time
disputes over the timing and number of training days clubs will
release their players for have been overshadowed by the bitter
dispute over central contracts.
Currently,
players in England contract with their clubs who in turn agree to
release the players for England duties. The model used by most
southern hemisphere nations and the England cricket team provides for
designated elite players to contract directly with the national team.
The RFU insist that to compete on a level playing field with the
southern hemisphere they must control the elite players. The clubs
insist that after years of investment in the professional game they
are not going to simply hand over their key assets.
To
date neither party has shown any sign of softening their position and
a public spat in the courts looms likely.
Falling
out of love with footy?
With
the European Commission leaning on the Competition Commissioner to
force the Premier League to televise even more live games, the league
turning into an annual three horse race and Ashley Cole due to argue
in Lausanne’s Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”)
that the current transfer rules restrict his ability to earn his
livelihood, the cream of English football is playing keepy-uppy with
a host of legal issues. These issues are contributing to a feeling
that we’re falling out of love with English football’s top tier.
For
the first time in years, we’re seeing empty seats at Champions
League and Premiership matches. Not only do empty seats have a direct
effect on ticket income they also affect the TV spectacle, which
could prejudice rights deals/fees in the future.
The
fan has become estranged from the player, and this won’t be
helped by Ashley Cole’s appeal to CAS. Within the game, a
victory for Cole may have some worrying ramifications for the less
sought after players, such as shorter less secure contracts. However,
some good may result - the collective bargaining rules, which are
intended to protect the game, in practice often harm players who are
at the end of their contracts, as they cannot negotiate new deals
with other clubs before the third Saturday of May. As a compromise,
these rules may be amended to reflect FIFA international transfer
regulations and give more freedom to players with less than 6 months
to run on their current deals.
Irrespective
of TV schedules, lack of competition and player attitudes, one
theory is that the popularity of the Premier League grew at such a
speed that it is only natural that the growth had to stop and that
rule changes/ meddling won’t change this. Forget wages and
ticket price caps, does the “floating fan” simply need a
new fad? Attendances suggest that the “no frills lots of
spills” lower leagues are beginning to benefit.
Tools
of the trade or lucrative endorsements?
Jurgen
Klinsmann’s announcement that players selected to play for
Germany must wear adidas boots sent shockwaves that could be felt on
tees, greens, courts, and pitches throughout Europe. Boots have
traditionally been viewed as tools of the footballer’s trade,
and just as the Ryder Cup has yet to demand that a team member uses a
certain set of clubs, the footballer has always been free to wear the
boots of his choice.
The
potential conflict between an individual sponsor and a team sponsor
has been reported on at length. It could lead to an involuntary
breach of a player’s individual endorsement, and an inducement
of such breach by the Federation. If a player is not prepared to
breach his individual agreement and does not play, this could lead to
“damages issues” due to a reduction of the value of his
individual deal through lack of exposure as well as loss of
opportunity to play international football.
The
issue facing the German players has been played out before in the
Dutch Courts, when on similar facts it was held that the Dutch FA
could not impose such rules on its players as there had been no prior
consultation with regard to the change in procedure and because the
financial benefit was only enjoyed by the Dutch FA. Who is to say any
sensible court would not find the same decision if the matter arose
elsewhere, provided that its national laws allowed?
Contract
law is at the heart of this issue in the UK and these issues will
have to be considered in any central contracts introduced in rugby
union. Whilst it is standard to carve out the Ryder Cup in
golfer’s clothing/corporate deals, very few golf club
agreements, which are often non (or nearly non) negotiable standard
manufacturer terms, deal with this issue. Likewise although tennis
endorsements consider the Davis Cup regarding clothing and patches,
it is unusual to see rackets dealt with. All team sports will have to
think seriously about these issues going forward. |
|
 |
|
|
onside
law launched in February of this year to acclaim in both the
sport and legal press. The launch was covered in The Times, Sport
Business, The Lawyer, Legal Week and the Gazette.
Since
then, onside law has gone from strength to strength and after
just over 6 months in business, the legal industry bible, the Legal
500, recommended onside law as experts in the field of sports law.
Highlights
over the last 6 months have included:
onside
on court
onside
law is advising the French Tennis Federation
on various strategic matters, Quintus Group
on their joint venture with Superset to develop
the innovative Superset series throughout Europe
and Dinamica on its representation of Babolat
in the UK.
onside
on track
In the
last 6 months onside law has advised all manner of motorsport
clients including the world governing body of motorsport, the FIA, TV
presenters Suzi Perry and Jonathan Green, XS Racing, JCB’s
sponsorship of Formula One driver Narain Karthikeyan, SRO, Superbike
racer Warwick Nowland, the organisers of a new single seater
motorsport series and the home of European Drag Racing (Santapod
Raceway) on all legal aspects of its business.
onside
in vogue
As
London Fashion Week approached onside law advised designers
Basso & Brooke on their sponsorship with L’Oreal as well as
model agencies Models 1 and IMM on various commercial matters.
onside
on the Tee
onside
law advises clients throughout golf world. We continue to advise
Nick Faldo, as well as Faldo Management, Faldo Design and the Faldo
Series, on all non-contentious matters. We have advised established
global names such as Srixon on its European distribution arrangements
as well as up and coming businesses such as an inventor of
revolutionary putters and a developing golf academy.
onside
on the Ball
onside
law has advised numerous high profile individuals
in football including Steve McLaren on his arrangements
with Middlesbrough, John Robertson's arrangements
with Hearts and Ross County, JAJ Communications
and its talent management clients including
Patrick Vieira and ITS Management on its sponsorship
deal with Aston Villa.
onside
everyday
onside
law has been appointed to advise on private funding for the
government and Sport England’s national campaign to get the
country doing some form of basic exercise, everyday sport.
onside
in bloom
onside
law advised Malaysia Airlines on their sponsorship
of the award winning Raymond Blanc/Le Manoir
Garden at the Chelsea Flower Show.
onside
scrums down
onside
law has advised Rugby Travel and Hospitality Limited 07 (a joint
venture between Sodexho and the Mike Burton Group) in connection with
the provision of ticketing and hospitality to the Rugby World Cup
2007, World in Motion on behalf of its client Brian O'Driscoll and
Mark Denney on his move from Castres to Bristol.
onside
in-house
onside
law act as a quasi in-house commercial advisor
to clients such as National Express Group plc
on matters ranging from the Ozzy Osborne Express
to general franchise operator agreements, as
well as Danka UK plc and Xprint on a variety
of supplier, distribution and other standard
commercial agreements.
onside
on ice
onside
law advised Cable & Wireless on their
sponsorship of Turin medal hopeful, speed skater
Jon Eley and we advise polar explorer Tom Avery
on all legal aspects of his commercial activities.
onside
in bat
onside
law has acted for Red Snappers on various arrangements with
clients such as Vodafone for photo marketing at the Ashes Test series
and Paragon Sports Management on various commercial issues including
advising their client Phil Tufnell.
onside
on song
onside
law has advised Michael Storrs Music on various agreements for
clients such as Jose Carreras, Elaine Paige, Bryn Terfel and Rolando
Villazon and at the other end of the spectrum we have advised Heavy
Metal record label Detonator. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Oliver
Hunt has been published on a number of occasions including
sports law articles in Sport Business and the International Sports
Law Journal and is quoted as a sports law expert in the Daily
Telegraph. Oliver and Simon also co wrote editorial on sports event
licensing and merchandising in the Brand and Sport Licensing Source
Book 2005.
Jamie
Singer spoke on “Maximising the value of sponsorship
contracts” at the Media, Entertainment and IP Law conference at
the Westbury Hotel, Mayfair on 27 October and will be speaking on
“How To Secure The Best Deal For Your Client: Athletes’
Rights, Contracts and Salary Structures” at the Sports Law and
Business conference at the Millennium Hotel Knightsbridge on 30
January 2006. Discounts are available for onside clients and
contacts. Jamie was also recently quoted as a fashion law expert in
the Law Society Gazette.
Simon
Thorp will be speaking on the significance of central contracts
in sport at Management Forum’s Regulation and Governance in
sport conference in January 2006. Again discounts are available for
onside clients and contacts. Simon has also helped to launch a new
sports networking initiative known as Club House for entrepreneurs in
the sports industry.
Hunt’s
Harriers Watch – Kidderminster Harriers
are currently 14th in the Nationwide Conference.
Must do better. |
|
|
|
For
further information on onside law please visit our
website at www.onsidelaw.co.uk
or contact any of the partners at
oliver.hunt@onsidelaw.co.uk;
jamie.singer@onsidelaw.co.uk
or
simon.thorp@onsidelaw.co.uk. |
