Foreign Owners and Transfer Windows – Saddle up…it aint Football

Equestrian sport’s version of the transfer window shut at the end of December, but the results are only fully apparent now.

Many people are not aware that few top riders own the horses they compete on. Instead they ride and train with a horse that is owned by someone else who is free to sell the horse to anyone they choose.

In the run-up to any Olympic Games, there is a deadline of 31 December the year before to complete sales, and late-qualifying countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been scrambling to find world-class horses for their riders. Thus, rather like professional footballers, there’s also a transfer window for horses.

The British Olympic team lost three top show jumping horses to foreign rivals before the window closed, and Sweden nearly poached a British dressage horse considered a leading contender for Olympic gold. However, there is still strength in depth in the GB show jumping squad and in this Olympic year, 2012 promises to be just as exciting as 2011 thanks to a host of loyal owners.

Millions of pounds have changed hands, much of the cash coming from the Middle East.

Why has the British team allowed this to happen, and how much damage will the loss of three leading horses do to British hopes at London 2012?

The answer is that the fate of those horses was never fully in the British team’s hands.

If the owner is presented with an offer for the horse that they consider too good to turn down, there is nothing to stop them selling – regardless of the consequences for the rider or a nation’s Olympic hopes.

There is always a deadline, on 31 December the year before an Olympics, where horses have to be registered for the nation they’re going to compete for.

For some of the nations that qualified for the Olympics fairly late, it became a scramble to try to find Olympic-standard horses. That has happened in the past before Olympic year, but what’s different this year is that the Middle Eastern countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and so on – are now actively involved in the top end of show jumping.

Consequently the Middle Eastern countries have moved the whole sport and business to a new level. As in the case of football where certain clubs (such as Manchester City and Chelsea) have large transfer budgets, so it has become with show jumping where horses at international and Olympic level are expensive, probably between £500,000 and £2.5m each.

The transfer window before an Olympic year is therefore always a worrying time for riders keen to hang on to good horses.

But unlike a football team, which can at least normally choose whether or not to sell a star player during a transfer window, riders are usually powerless to affect the outcome if an owner receives a hefty bid.

Though the circumstances were not identical, British trio Guy Williams, Bruce Menzies and Robert Smith all lost horses in December as the all-important Olympic window closed.

Horses and riders affected as Olympic transfer window closed:

• Talan – competed for GB with Robert Smith, sold to Saudi Arabia
• Titus – competed for GB with Guy Williams at 2011 European Championships, sold by Williams to Australia he said: “I have to run a business”
• Sultan V – competed for GB with Bruce Menzies is owned by a Saudi prince. When Saudi Arabia qualified for the Olympics, the pressure on the prince to support his own nation became very great. His decision was he’d like the horse to participate for Saudi Arabia.
• Uthopia – ridden to European dressage gold and silver by Carl Hester, who narrowly saw off late bid from Sweden. Hester, who owns a minority stake in the horse, frantically set about trying to raise sufficient cash to head off the Swedish bid. While most people were enjoying their Christmas break, the world number two faced a question mark over his Olympic future before the Swedish finally gave up the chase on New Year’s Eve.
• Sanctos Van Het Gravenhof – bought for GB’s Scott Brash, who is now riding the horse for the first time in the United States, for a reported £2m. The horse had been due to compete for Ukraine

The news has not been all bad for the GB show jumping squad. Several other owners turned down large bids for horses expected to star in British colours at London 2012, while show jumper Scott Brash picked up a horse that had been due to compete for Ukraine, the owners paying a reported £2m.

Other loyal owners turned down offers for their horses and said, ‘No, we want to go to the Olympics and try to get into the team’.

But for a lot of people – riders and owners – it’s a business, and the only way to keep going is to sell every now and again. An additional difficulty is that show jumping does not attract a huge amount of commercial sponsors that can take the pressure off the riders. The sport is not like Football or Formula 1 where you have international global brands offering to put in several million pounds.

As with any team in any sport it is important to have strength in depth and the problem with show jumping is losing three Olympic standard horses means losing some of that depth. If you have an injury to one of the other horses now in contention, you have fewer to choose from.

So as in football, the rich teams, namely those with foreign owners or investors, are the only ones who can afford to match the “biggest stars” inflated transfer fees (and in the case of football, also salaries).

As a result, those owners, teams and nations who have access to significant wealth can buy success whatever the cost and at the same time squeeze the smaller owners by making offers “they cannot refuse”, not just to buy the best as well as success but to weaken the opposition and so at the same time those owners, teams and nations getting stronger themselves!

Whilst due to the nature of the sport, top riders are unlikely to become the focus of some form of transfer fee, the time could arrive that the “offering” which wealthy foreign owners can put on the table in terms of individual investment, facilities and quality of equine, our best riders become exclusively “tied” and move abroad to ply their trade where there are also greater tax benefits – like footballers…only time will tell?

Stephen J Lownsbrough
Associate & Head of Sport
Blacks Solicitors LLP
Tel: +44 (0) 113 207 0000
Email: SLownsbrough@LawBlacks.com

Ambush Marketing – An Olympic Guide

To the everyday sports fan the term “ambush marketing” is more than likely an alien concept. However, to an internationally recognised brand who has just spent millions of pounds tying down an official sponsorship deal for this summer’s Olympic Games it is a dreaded thought, and all too real a threat.

To put it briefly, ambush marketing is a hugely cut price method of advertising, whereby a company attempts to profit from the goodwill, reputation and popularity of an event, such as the Olympics, by creating association with it, despite a lack of authorization or consent. This is normally actioned by the tactical placement of a company’s logo in an environment recognised as being official.

Corporate sponsors of London 2012 have every right to be concerned by ambush marketing – the Olympics historically are its favoured stomping ground. In 1996, at the Atlanta games, British sprinter Linford Christie conducted the press conference preceding the Mens 100m final wearing contact lenses embossed with the logo of his own personal sponsor, Puma, despite the games officially being sponsored by competitor Reebok. More recently the final torch bearer for the Beijing games in 2008, former Chinese Olympian Li Ning left $50m official sponsors of the games Adidas in a state of shock when he arrived wearing clothes manufactured by competing sportswear brand “Li Ning”, of whom he was the owner.

The effect of these underhanded tactics? Millions and millions of pounds are wasted by corporations whose official affiliation goes unnoticed. Did people pay attention to the advertised boards bearing the Adidas and Reebok logos? No, they were too busy paying attention to Christie’s contact lenses.

It’s not only the Adidas’ of this world who live in fear of being “ambushed”. The implementation of the Olympic Symbol Etc (Protection) Act 1995 and the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 shows how seriously the host organisers of the games are taking unauthorized affiliation and profit by corporate ambushers. The legislations consequences are that the use of any Olympic symbol or slogan, or attempt to draw association with London 2012 is strictly prohibited, constituting an infringement of the various intellectual property rights currently afforded to  both  the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) as a separate entity.

How far the Olympic legal team will be willing to go to enforce these acts remains to be seen.

Would, for example, an action be brought against a sportswear company that produced football shirts bearing the British Olympic team’s badge? Unless that company was the official provider, namely Adidas, it is more than likely.

However, would the same course of action be taken against a small village primary school advertising its annual sports day as a mini-Olympics? Whilst it would be legally justified, one would like to think not…

Chris Allen 0113 2279228 CAllen@LawBlacks.com

Nothing LINsane about registering your Brand as a Trade Mark

The NBA has found itself a new fairytale in the form of Jeremy Lin, a 6ft 3in point guard who is a decedent of the lesser known basketballing nation of Taiwan.  In a matter of weeks Lin went from a basketball player twice cut by other NBA teams, sleeping on his brother’s sofa, to achieving the prestigious accolade of NBA player of the week. The hype that has ensued has coined the tagline “LINsanity” as an estimated 3 million viewers are tuning in to watch each of his games back home in his native Taiwan.

The first player of Taiwanese descent to play basketball in the NBA has sought to trademark the term “LINsanity”, used to characterise his meteoric rise to NBA fame. There are four other known applicants fighting for the rights to the catchphrase, two of which filed their application before Lin.

Lin’s legal team are currently seeking to enforce his intellectual property rights ensuring they maximise as much financial remuneration from the explosion of merchandise bearing the “LINsanity” catchphrase.

The ‘Godfather’ of registering their name as a Trademark is our very own resident American, David Beckham, who has done so in almost every territory across the globe. Perhaps the greatest catalyst for his move from European giants Real Madrid to LA Galaxy centred around the former club’s policy of dividing their ‘Galacticos’ endorsements relating to image rights 50:50 between the  club and the player. Negotiations broke down between Real Madrid and Beckham as he sought to gain complete control of his commercial income.  Real Madrid’s fan base at that time was estimated to be in the region of 0.5Billion worldwide, with Beckham 23 replica shirts the must have item. Beckham instead took his brand to America where his guaranteed salary of $32.5M over 5 years was eclipsed by the $217.5M which was amassed through his intellectual property earnings in a total deal reported to be worth $250M.

The current practice among the Premiership footballers is that they have two contracts between themselves and their respective club. One contract is for their basic salary and the other is for their image rights (earnings from replica shirts and other merchandise).  Players are taking advantage of a tax loophole by having their royalties for image rights paid into a company such as Beckham Brand Ltd where they are only liable for 28per cent corporation tax rather than the 50 per cent income tax which they are subject to in their contract which corresponds to their basic salary. Wayne Rooney has put himself on HMRC’s radar by taking out £1.6M in loans from his company and paying a meager 2per cent tax which is regarded as a benefit in kind. Following a report compiled in November for the UK treasury, Finance Minister George Osborne is expected to propose a general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) in an effort to deter such ‘abusive’ tax avoidance.

It is clear to see that correctly registering a trade mark for a sport’s star is the only way to ensure the owner enjoys the exclusive financial benefits from marketing their own image rights. If you wish to find out more about registering trademarks and licensing the use of such trademarks then why not contact our Sports Law department.

Andy Boyde
Sports Law Department
Blacks Solicitors LLP
Tel: +44 (0) 113 207 0000
Email: ABoyde@LawBlacks.com

What Now for Rangers F.C?

Whilst the recent statement from the Administrators that the Club is unlikely to go into liquidation will have come as a welcome relief to its supporters, it begs the question of what the future holds in store for Rangers F.C. following its entry earlier this week into Administration.  The Club plans to use the breathing space afforded to it to propose a Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) to its creditors. A CVA proposal usually seeks the agreement of creditors to waive a proportion of the debt due which is then paid over a period of time or from the realisation of assets at some time in the future.   The Administrators have indicated that they are reasonably confident that the Club’s proposal will be accepted by its Creditors. However, it is worth pointing out that a majority of more than 75% in value of the Creditors must vote in favour of any Arrangement in order for the proposal to become binding on Creditors.  If the debt to HMRC exceeds 25% of the total amount of the Club’s indebtedness then HMRC could, block any CVA proposal made by the Club.

The Administrators have also indicated that there are a number of parties interested in acquiring the Club and should the Club fail in its attempts to agree a voluntary arrangement with its Creditors then it seems likely that the Administrators will then try to sell the Club as a going concern.  That sale could be either to the existing owners or new owners.  Whilst, in my experience, most expressions of interest in the acquisition of Football Clubs rarely turn into firm offers, it is clear that the Administrators believe that this is a viable route for them in the event that a CVA proposal is not accepted by Creditors.

However the Club emerges from Administration and in what form and under whose ownership, the major challenge facing the Board is to deliver future sustainability. The current owners have estimated that the Club’s expenditure exceeds its income by some £10m per year. There are those who believe that the game North of the border is in decline and as evidence of that fact point out that had it not been for Sion FC’s expulsion from European competition, no Scottish Club would have survived in Europe beyond the preliminary rounds this season.  The inability to compete in Europe, it is said, reduces revenues and makes Clubs less attractive as a destination for top European players. The recruitment of lesser quality players affects attendances which in turn reduces income which in turn makes it more difficult to complete in European competition. Trapped in that vicious circle, some argue any reprieve for Rangers could only be temporary without radical change.

That may result in a renewed clamour for the admission of Scotland’s top two Clubs into the English league pyramid system.  Clearly membership of the English Premier League would substantially increase the revenue streams of both Clubs and, for all of Celtic’s protestations this week that they can exist independently of Rangers, it is difficult to imagine that they would turn down the opportunity if it arose.

Could it be that this week’s events represent the beginning of a process that sees Rangers and Celtic abandoning Scottish football for greener pastures and if so, what fate lies in store for those left behind? In a few short years, will the fans of Motherwell, Aberdeen and Dundee United all be suffering the same agonies as those experienced by Rangers fans this week?

Ian Scobbie is the head of the firm’s Insolvency Unit and the former Chairman of Scarborough Football Club.
Email: IScobbie@LawBlacks.com
Tel: 0113 227 9327

What “Price” a round of Golf?

Although many people think of golf as a safe, non-contact sport, statistics in the UK show that around 12,000 golfers a year require hospital treatment as a direct result of injury on the golf course.  In one-year alone 3,530 head injury accidents were recorded.  There has even been cases involving settlement of vet bills for treatment to a dog whose leg was broken by a wayward golf ball!

A golf ball is an extremely hard object, and when it’s travelling at high speeds can result in serious injuries if it hits another golfer, or someone else’s property.  Most UK household insurances do not include cover for personal accident injuries sustained while playing sports such as golf.  Most people are not aware of this, and independent research has found that nine out of ten UK golfers are not properly insured on the golf course against personal injury or accident.

Recent news reports have revealed that personal liability claims against golfers are on the increase, with claims tripling in the last five years after the courts ruled in favour of a claim launched by a lorry driver who lost an eye after being hit by a badly sliced drive.

The case that has led to this increase in claims was in 1998, when the high court ruled in the case of Anthony Lighting (whose faulty shot blinded a lorry driver in one eye) that ‘golfers are liable for shots that cause injury, no matter how slight the risk’. The case was upheld on appeal with the Court of Appeal ruling that golfers who mis-hit shots causing injury to other persons will be liable to pay damages even if they do shout ‘FORE!’. In 2001 the UK’s largest Public Liability claim for a golf sport injury was settled.   The £87,000+ settlement (including legal costs) was made following an incident at the London Golf Club in September 1996.  A declared provisional ball was ‘duck hooked’ low to the right, hitting a fellow golfer on the right temple as she walked forwards to the ladies tee.  She suffered serious head injury.  As Golf Courses are often being built close to residential areas nowadays and getting busier, the probability of injuring a fellow golfer or a passer-by is much more common (by ball or club) and the risk of doing so is greater every time you play. Add to this the compensation culture of today, where people are much more likely to prosecute, stepping out onto the golf course is an increasingly risky business, where hitting a fore could result in a costly lawsuit.  Could you afford the costs and damages if sued? It may mean financial ruin if you are not adequately insured! Without insurance your next golf shot could cost you a fortune!

Golf members are starting to see the importance of taking out personal liability insurance, but the law does make provision for injured parties suing the club itself. It would be prudent for managers of golf clubs, to carry out a risk management review and check the clubs insurance policy very carefully.  As the compensation culture shows no signs of abating, clubs need to ensure that they don’t get caught out.

People are often under the misapprehension that their household insurance policy extends cover to golf equipment and public liability needs.  However, many policies exclude public liability cover for sport injury and offer only restricted cover for equipment used for golf.  Some golf clubs offer ‘golf insurance’ for an extra fee on membership or green fees, some even make it mandatory.  This cover is often limited to public liability on that course on that day only.

Personal liability claims can run into thousands of pounds, so the best advice to any golfer is to make sure they have adequate personal liability insurance.  This won’t prevent the incident from happening, but it does mean that if the worst happens, they are protected and reduce the risk of paying out thousands in compensation.

Stephen J Lownsbrough
Associate & Head of Sport
Blacks Solicitors LLP
Tel: +44 (0) 113 207 0000
Email: SLownsbrough@LawBlacks.com

Sport . . .To Tax or not to Tax, that is the Question?

Following the decision by Rafael Nadal   to play in the Gerry Weber Open at Halle next year instead of the AEGON Championships, having reportedly been offered £750,000 by the tournament, it would be easy to say it was simply because of the money.

Chris Kermode, tournament director of the pre Wimbledon London event, admitted: ‘Rafa will not be with us next year. It’s disappointing, but we know how much he enjoys our event and we hope to be welcoming him back soon.’

The tournament is now owned by the LTA and, though paying guarantees to major stars to ensure their appearance is legitimate; reports suggest they would find it hard to justify more than £400,000 going to Nadal; whilst other sources say he was probably paid double that amount by the tournament in previous years.

The Spaniard and Roger Federer are regularly paid guarantees. They are believed to have received more than $1million to play in certain events, particularly in the Middle East, with Murray and Djokovic not far behind. Tiger Woods could command $3million in golf prior to his downfall.

There is, however, particular concern amongst major sport promoters regarding the UK tax system. Overseas stars are obliged by the Inland Revenue to pay tax on worldwide endorsements in proportion to the percentage of their time spent performing annually in the UK. One American golfer is recently said to have paid 400% tax on his winnings at a couple of events in the UK.

The potential damage cannot be understated, not just to major sporting events in the UK, but also to the economy if it puts off key players from taking part and downgrading the quality of the event.

The previous Government were forced to give an exemption to athletes competing in the 2012 London Olympics and also agreed to waive the rule for footballers so that we could host the 2011 UEFA Champions League final.

Next year is the 20th edition of the Halle tournament , and organizers are going all out to secure a star studded field. Roger Federer has already signed to a long-term contract to appear there, and for both players there is the element of saving on punitive tax rates for plying their trade in Britain.

Usain Bolt’s decision not to compete in the Aviva London Grand Prix was not because he was frightened to face his big rivals, Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell, but it was believed that it was in consideration of the potential UK Tax liabilities and he wanted to avoid the tax burden following the ruling in the Agassi case in 2006.

As Bolt earns a fortune from product endorsements, this means that if he only raced five times this year, HMRC could tax 20% of his total earnings. His appearance fees alone are generally reported to exceed £150,000 per event – so we’re talking big money! In reality the Agassi case was a test case on behalf of a number of top overseas sports personalities, including Tiger Woods and Michael Schumacher. As a consequence of the ruling, the HMRC was able to grab a share of Agassi’s sponsorship income, even though it came from overseas countries and had nothing to do with the UK. The problem was that the taxman had become greedy and started claiming far more than his share of the overseas sponsorship which is why the test case arose. Agassi was the first non-British based tennis player to be hit with a tax bill by the Inland Revenue. The fear at the time was that the ruling could seriously damage the representation of all tennis players (and sports stars) who intend to compete in UK sporting events.  The latest decision by Nadal highlights this fact and that it should not go unnoticed that Federer has never played in the UK other than when required to meet the playing obligations of Wimbledon and end of year World Tour Finals. Federer has always preferred to play the Gerry Weber Open at Halle.

Agassi had argued that as he was not based in the UK and his sponsors had no tax liability in the UK then he should not be required to pay tax in the UK. But Justice Lightman sided with the Inland Revenue who claim that as Agassi visits the UK every year to compete in British tennis tournaments at least some of the revenue he generated through sponsorship should be liable for taxation.

The decision consequently had implications for non-UK resident sportsmen who make occasional appearances in the UK and who receive payment for such appearances from sources outside the UK. Such individuals were no longer able to avoid paying tax on earnings linked to appearances in the UK as they were regarded as UK earnings.

The Agassi ruling also had implications for Britain’s many highly-paid touring sports and show business stars. For commercially-minded stars such as Tiger Woods,  and the Williams sisters, the outcome of what had been known in tax circles as the “game, set and match” case showed that two-week appearances in the UK for the Open,  or Wimbledon can carry a heavier tax cost than they imagined.

In the current age of global financial restraint, austerity and cost reductions, the Inland Revenue have for some years actively looked to close “loop holes” in the system and chase additional tax revenue. No one is surprised that when the Revenue starts hearing about the huge pots of money they get their antennae working!

The Agassi case also affected other sports personalities as well as show-business stars such as Britney Spears , Pink and Beyonce, who earn millions every year from sponsorship deals.

For high-profile sports stars such as Federer, Nadal and Beckham, multi-million pound sponsorship deals are an increasingly significant source of income.

David Beckham’s multi-million-pound salary is boosted by sponsorship deals with such as H+M, Ralph Lauren, Adidas and Police sunglasses. Beckham also earns millions for advertising products in the Far East.

Entertainers such as Beyonce and Spears also found their multi-million pound sponsorship deals affected where they are derived from their appearances in the UK. For many sportspeople and entertainers, sponsorship deals and endorsements are now the biggest part of their income.

Entertainers are currently liable for tax on any earnings made in the UK, but touring is notoriously expensive and can often make a loss. However, big stars may be liable to pay British tax if their sponsorship earnings are ruled to be derived from their work in this country.

While HMRC’s arguments in relation to endorsement work where the performance of duties ¬ such as filming an advert ¬ are carried out in the UK may be reasonable, it appears irrational to seek to tax an athlete on a percentage of a global endorsement contract purely because in the performance of duties, the athlete needs to appear in certain events in the UK.

There is no objection to well-paid sports stars suffering UK taxation on prize money earned in the UK. However, losing or diluting international events due to uncertainty over the tax position of athletes in relation to endorsement income is unacceptable and ultimately costly to the UK economy.

Stephen J Lownsbrough
Associate & Head of Sport
Blacks Solicitors LLP
Tel: +44 (0) 113 207 0000
Email: SLownsbrough@LawBlacks.com

Union and League, Different Rules, Same Challenges!

The month of October saw both codes of rugby reach a climax with the Rugby World Cup Final in the 15-man version and the Super League Grand Final in the 13-man game. Although the rules and dynamics of the game for the players on the field are very different, the challenges they face off the field are just the same. Since Rugby Union turned professional in 1995 and Rugby League changed from a winter sport to a summer sport in 1996, the players have faced much greater scrutiny for their behaviour as support for both sports has continued to grow. Picking up the thread from my colleague, Stephen Lownbrough, his article “Blue Moon’s Painful Divorce . . . tip toeing through the legal minefield!” provides an in-depth analysis of the behaviour of one football’s biggest stars, which could see him shipped out of Eastlands in January.

Away from football in the realms of the egg-shaped ball, the recent actions of members of the England rugby team has been called into question. The increased media spotlight, especially at this year’s Rugby Union World Cup, has scrutinised players conduct and individuals have found themselves making a bigger impact on the front pages of the tabloids then the back. Increasingly players are finding their conduct being closely examined by both the media and the public, therefore the tolerance levels that players must demonstrate has to be much higher than the ordinary man in the street.

Two unfortunate incidents highlight when rugby players have fallen below the threshold expected of them and as a result have faced tough penalties. Trevor Brennan (Irish International, Union) took exception to an abusive chant from a rival fan during a Toulouse v Ulster match on 21 January 2007. Brennan lost all form of composure by jumping into the crowd and left the unfortunate Ulster fan Patrick Bamford with a broken jaw. The incident cost Brennan his career as he was struck with a lifetime ban (Later reduced to 5 years following appeal), was fined £17,000 and ordered to pay £3,000 to Mr Bamford who was on the receiving end of a flurry of Brennan ‘haymakers’.

At 20 years and 18 years, Chev Walker (England International, League) and Ryan Bailey (England International, League) were emerging talents in the ranks of the Leeds Rhinos Rugby League squad. Back in 2003, following an altercation outside a Leeds nightclub Walker and Bailey were charged with assaulting another male and were handed sentences of 18 months and 9 months respectively. For many players celebrity status can come very quickly and the increased responsibility to conduct oneself accordingly can be a challenge that certain individuals are not prepared for. The pair were made an example of, in an effort to send a message out to fellow aspiring players that taking on the mantle of a professional rugby player brings with it a huge responsibility. Players must understand they are in a truly privileged position and by making the wrong choices even at an early age can shatter their future dreams.

Two players who failed to demonstrate the level of conduct expected of modern day athletes were Matt Stevens (English International, Union) and Gareth Hock (English International, League). Both were at the top of the pile in their respective sports, however their flirtation with recreational drugs landed them both with bans from their governing bodies. Stevens and Hock were sidelined for two years and took the time to rehabilitate themselves and now both are back playing at the highest level. Their drug of choice was the ‘party drug’ cocaine which is only tested for ‘in competition’ (i.e. during the playing season), so for them both to test positive during the season raised alarm bells around both codes. Damian Hopley, chief executive of the RPA (the players’ union) made himself heard on the issue on behalf of the Rugby Players Association:

“The PRA run confidential helplines for their members through which they can seek help for a number of problems. This is a social issue, it is far wider than rugby. Drugs are so freely available.”

Hopley stressed that the game needed to wake up to the threats posed by drugs and that through the work of the RPA and educational programmes, rugby players would be better served to make informed decisions. In the case of Hock, his club Wigan and particularly chairman Ian Lenagan stood by the player helping him every step of the way during his ban:

“It was very apparent to me that unless a creative plan was put together for Gareth to help him get through the two years, he would almost certainly be a disaster…Rugby League had been his life and he had no other way of making an income. He really would have been on a slippery slope without some assistance.”

Hock has delivered his own presentations as part of a drugs rehabilitation programme at Wigan to the young academy players known. In his own honest and light-hearted way he has got the message across to the youngsters that there is no place for drug taking in their aspirations to become super league players like Gareth. In his own words:

“Back to the top, no distractions, nothing. That’s my goal now. I was playing decent rugby as I was, but I know now I could have been five times better.”

Two players who failed to deal with life after their time in the limelight, without such support as Stevens and Hock received were Marc Cecillon (French International, Union) and Terry Newton (England International, League). With the passing of their accolades and the void of daily training-ground banter, both players transcended towards drink-filled depression. Both players tried to stay close to the game they cherished as players with Cecillon failing to make good a position as an ambassador of the his local club, Bourgoin-Jallieu . Newton opened a pub in his home-town Wigan where he even invited Rugby League teams to come and party, celebrating the end of the Super League season. Cecillon failed to deal with the end of his playing career in a period where the game was changing from amateur to professional, whereas Newton struggled to come to terms with his two-year ban for testing positive for the banned drug, human growth hormone (HGH). Newton’s despair was compounded when his sister died of pneumonia at a time when she was addicted to heroin. Cecillon had turned to alcohol and on a fateful evening in August 2004, Cecillon’s life reached breaking point. In a drink fuelled rampage Cecillon shot his wife five times at point-blank range in a state of jealous paranoia which had stemmed from him learning of his wife’s intentions to seek a divorce. Cecillon was sentenced to 20 years in prison (later reduced to 14 years on appeal) and he was released on parole in July of this year. In the case of Newton he felt his career and marriage were slipping away and his regular dependency on anti-depressants couldn’t prevent the rugby league star from taking his own life in late September 2010. Following the loss of Terry Newton a joint initiative was set up by the Rugby Football League, fans and NHS experts called ‘State of Mind’ to tackle the issues of mental health in the rugby community. Ernie Benbow, Co-founder and Programme Manager for State of Mind said:

“Men are three times more likely to take their own lives and it is vital that we open the conversation of mental wellbeing up to everyone involved in the Sport. Rugby players are big men, with big shoulders, but even they can’t carry the weight of the world on their own.”

In France a clinic was founded by a former French rugby Union international called The Accompaniment and Prevention Centre for Sportsmen (CAPS) which seeks to help athletes both currently playing and retired who encounter psychological problems. Franck Eisenberg, a French sociologist working with the athletes said:

“All your sporting life was built around your identity as a champion…and then, for the rest of your life, you will be someone who was something once.”

All athletes are faced with similar challenges such as relationships, gambling, drugs, drink and retirement. What separates a player is how they deal with these external influences, this article has sought to highlight the most striking examples of where individuals have failed to deal with adverse situations in the appropriate manner. Although we hold our sporting heroes in high regard we must remember that they are flesh and blood like the rest of us. They often are brought into an academy structure as young as 13 or 14 years and all too quickly fame and money they didn’t have before are thrust upon them. Increasingly the clubs need to do more to care for young players’ welfare especially their emotional well-being, we cannot allow players to freefall to into the psychological pit of despair that Cecillion and Newton both found themselves in. Perhaps one of the greatest players to have graced both codes is Jason Robinson, a man who managed to steer his life away from the stranglehold of many of the vices faced by players. Jason describes where his life was at in the early stages of his career:

“I was having great success on the park but off it my problems were overpowering me. It got to the stage that I would be out drinking six nights a week. Drinking was a vicious circle. I had problems so I drank, yet the more I drank, the more problems I had, and the more problems I had, the more I drank. I was getting away with it because on the field I was playing as well as ever”.

Jason knew the error of his ways but it wasn’t until a teammate, Samoan-born New Zealand International Va’aiga Tuigamala recounted a dream to him that he was able to seek solace:

“He told me he could see me standing on top of the world. I had the world at my feet but gradually the world started crumbling beneath my feet. I was amazed. The dream was uncannily true. It stopped me in my tracks. I knew that I had to get my life sorted out. It was just the jolt that I needed.”

Jason’s off field behaviour at the time was probably no different to that of his peers and on the field Wigan were enjoying arguably the best era of performances and results in the club’s history. Jason’s own words best describes the situation:

“At the time I was a typical young lad, naive and irresponsible. When you get success at an early age, as I did, it is hard to deal with.”

Fortunately there is a fairytale ending as Jason now has a settled family life, no longer drinks and his change in lifestyle guaranteed he played at the top level for as long as possible. His achievements in both codes of the game are unrivalled; most notably in League being Man of the Match in both the Challenge Cup Final and the Super League Grand Final. In Union he was one of only four players to have started both the 2003 and 2007 RWC Finals, the other three being Johnny Wilkinson, Ben Kay and Phil Vickery.

It is clear then that players of all ages need access to support and sound practical advice. More experienced players should attempt to mentor younger players coming through the ranks to ensure that they do not make the same mistakes as their generation did. Perhaps most importantly when players do take a wrong turn then the right people and guidance are made available to them. If you have any issues relating to behaviour or conduct issues in the sporting field then why not get in contact with our specialist Sports Law Department, who can give you the very best advice today.

Andrew Boyde
Blacks Solicitors LLP
ABoyde@LawBlacks.com

Race, Creed or Colour . . . . Racism in Sport?

The recent alleged incident and controversy arising from the claims and counter claims of racism in football has again brought into sharp focus the issues with regard to racism in sport generally.

The FA is investigating two claims of racist abuse which have occurred during recent Premier League fixtures between Liverpool v Manchester United and Queens Park Rangers v Chelsea.

Liverpool striker Luis Suarez said he was “upset” by the allegation he racially abused Manchester United defender Patrice Evra, whilst John Terry has vowed to clear his name against alleged racist remarks against Anton Ferdinand at the weekend.

Patrice Evra is set to meet the Football Association to give a full account of his claims of racist abuse from Liverpool forward Luis Suarez after telling Sir Alex Ferguson he is ‘adamant’ about pursuing the issue.

Ferguson, who accompanied Evra to the referees’ room at Anfield when the full-back lodged the complaint to Andre Marriner, admitted the issue was difficult for both clubs but revealed the defender is determined to pursue the
allegation with the FA, a stance that would require Suárez to participate in the inquiry too.

Chelsea manager Andre Villas-Boas earlier claimed that a post-match conversation between Terry and Ferdinand had marked “the end of the story”.  However the Metropolitan Police has announced it is assessing evidence from the incident after receiving a complaint.

The FA has refused to comment because of the sensitivity of the subject and the clubs involved. It is understood that there is unlikely to be any statement from the governing body soon.

With two of the Premier League’s leading players at the centre of such an ugly controversy, PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor insists that the players’ union is prepared to mediate in an effort to secure a resolution. It is something they have done in the past and have expressed concern that two of their players from different countries are at odds over a very serious issue. Only by having a full inquiry on such matters can they try to make sure that such problems don’t arise again.

Lord Herman Ouseley, a chairman of football’s equality and inclusion campaign Kick It Out, warned the incidents could influence players at lower levels and sees the allegation as worrying and potentially very damaging.  There is concern that what happens at the top end of the game has an impact at grassroots level and at parks across the country.

Basically, racism is the unfair treatment or hatred of individuals of a certain race and it can be found almost anywhere – including in relation to sport.  Some sports, such as football, unfortunately have a long history with racism though any sport, even something as sedate as golf, can become embroiled in racism if those associated with it, whether players or spectators, show racist attitudes or actions.  Thankfully racism in sport has become less frequent, but it can still be present and it is up to everyone to help make it go away for good.

The work of charitable organisations such as Show Racism the Red Card cannot be underestimated. Show Racism the Red Card is an anti-racism charity, which was established in January 1996.  The aim of the organisation is to produce anti-racist educational resources, which harness the high profile of professional footballers to combat racism. Racism often is simply seen as being “black and white” when in fact it is much more complex in many ways.  Racism can be practiced at an individual level, such as when private citizens make comments or stereotypes concerning others, or at an organisational level, such as if policies are implemented to discriminate against others.  These actions and  attitudes may be taken in order to benefit one race, or simply because one race is thought to be inferior to others.  In the United Kingdom, the Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from being discriminated against in employment on the grounds of colour, race, nationality, religious beliefs or ethnicity. This is true of discrimination whether it is done on purpose or not as well as whether it is direct, indirect, harassment and/or victimisation.

Racism has long haunted popular sports such as football, but it can also occur on any pitch, course, track or arena.  This can be especially true of sports such as golf or tennis in which racial minorities have a shorter professional  history.  However, there is never any excuse for racist actions or chants pertaining to a particular sport and to say that racism only comes about when racial minorities become involved in a sport places the blame on the players rather than on those who actually perpetrate racism.

There have been many news stories in recent years regarding initiatives to eradicate racism in sport as well as official investigations into racist incidents involving players and fans, such as the Show Racism the Red Card campaign.  However, not all efforts to confront racism in sport make the news. Every time one spectator reports the racist chanting of another, every time one player tells another that racist attitudes aren’t cool, and every time that players and spectators come together to congratulate the achievements of others regardless of their race, racism is
confronted in sport.

Confronting racism in sport is important so that each player and spectator can enjoy a fair and equal experience. Understanding racism, knowing how it pertains to sport and confronting examples of racism are all important to eventually ending racism in sport.

Race and sport: Milestones

1881  Guyanese-born Andrew  Watson captains Scotland, becoming the first black international footballer

1889  Arthur Wharton, the world’s first black professional footballer

1936  Jesse Owens wins four  gold medals at Berlin Olympics

1977   Commonwealth leaders agree to discourage sporting links with apartheid South Africa

1977  Laurie Cunningham becomes the first black footballer to play for England

1982  During World Cup finals, the National Front actively recruits at England matches

1999  Founding of Football  Against Racism in Europe

2006  England bowler Monty Panesar becomes first Sikh to represent any nation except India in Tests

2008  Lewis Hamilton becomes the first black Formula One world champion

Stephen J Lownsbrough
Associate & Head of Sport
Blacks Solicitors LLP
Tel: +44 (0) 113 207 0000
Email: SLownsbrough@LawBlacks.com

Crouch-Touch-Pause-EDUCATE!

Many pundits before the Rugby World Cup had predicted that the route to the final would have matched England (winners in 2003 and finalists in 2007) and New Zealand (tournament hosts and pre competition favourites) against one another in the final to be played at Eden Park in Auckland on Sunday 23^rd of October.  Such a matchup is now an impossibility following England’s 12-19 defeat to France.  One player who knew before the tournament began that he would definitely not be playing against England was Carl Hayman.  Arguably the current greatest tight-head prop of World rugby, Hayman, like the England squad, will be watching the World Cup Final from the comfort of his own front room.

Hayman sent shockwaves through the rugby fraternity by turning down a £700,000 a year contract to represent his country in their own back yard, at this year’s World Cup.  Hayman instead opted for a reported £1.125m a year contract from Toulon to play in France for two seasons.  Hayman himself called his decision a ‘selfish’ one as he wished to maximise his earning potential in what is increasingly becoming a short career.

Another tight-head prop received a sum of £1.125m in 2005; however this was awarded in compensation under
entirely different circumstances through the RFU’s insurance policy.  Matt Hampson had his rugby dreams snatched away from him during an England U21’s scrum session in 2005.  As the two sets of forwards engaged for a scrum, the scrum collapsed and Matt took the full weight of both sides of the scrum through his neck.  Matt is now rendered a quadriplegic as a result of a dislocated neck stemming from the incident.  The dark art of scrummaging has come under much scrutiny in recent years and the timely release earlier last month of “Engage! The Fall &
Rise of Matt Hampson” stands to remind every one involved in rugby that safety has to be of paramount importance particularly in one of the most technical aspects of the game.

Matt’s harrowing tale is one that has created calls for a prohibition on scrummaging because of such safety fears.  James Bourke (a former doctor for Nottingham RUFC) in a 2006 British Medical Journal article called for there to be an outright ban on contested scrums within the game.  His concerns were that the laws of the engagement of the scrum and the amount of insurance cover for injured players were both inadequate.  Matt received the standard pay-out for somebody from a Premiership club who is seriously injured with lifelong consequences while playing for
England.  Had Hampson been a junior rugby player, he would have received less than half, just £500,000 in final settlement. It is estimated that the Hampson family require £250,000 a year to continue to pay for the 10 carers he requires to live his life.  Following Matt’s injury the RFU set up a working party under Martyn Thomas, Chairman of the RFU Management Board to investigate the incident and make recommendations for the future.

It is clear then that the non elite level schools and clubs are worried about the dangers they come up against,  especially in the face of a compensation culture.  Professor Allyson Pocock, director of Edinburgh University’s Centre for International Health Policy, previously called for the ban of contested scrums in schools; “We know that most injuries occur in tackles and the scrum so there have got to be much greater safety measures in these areas”. At grass roots level the enforcement of the laws of the game relating to safety falls at the feet of referees.  Two cases that highlight the potential liability that referees can face are Vowles v Evans & Welsh Rugby Union [2003] 1 WLR 1607 and Mountford v Newlands School and another [2007] EWCA Civ 21.  In the former case contrary to the laws of the game a referee allowed an inexperienced back-row forward on the opposing team to take the place of an injured front-row forward at prop and rather than opt to make the scrums uncontested for the remainder of the
match, a scrum collapsed and left the hooker (Mr Vowles) confined to a wheelchair.  In the latter case in an U15’s game a 16-year-old was allowed by the referee to take to the field and 14-year-old Matthew Mountford who was half
the weight of the 16-year-old boy suffered a shattered elbow when he was tackled.  Following five operations to insert metal plates into his arm, he has been left scarred and permanently disabled.

So where does this leave the local schools and clubs who are going to be flooded with new and renewed interest in the game of Rugby Union following the hype of the World Cup?  Will schools and amateur clubs opt out of offering the traditional game of Rugby Union in favour of one with a de-powered scrum, simply because of fears of being sued?  Rugby Union’s whole identity is founded upon there being a position for every size and build, contested scrums require front-row forwards to be a certain shape.  If contested scrums are taken away from the game then 116 years of two separate forms of the game will be lost and we will just be left with Rugby League and a ‘sport for all’ lost forever.  There needs to be an investment of time and money into ensuring coaches and referees are up to date on current laws and techniques, following a full risk assessment with a focus on safety.  As we increasingly worry about the next generation of children becoming more obese than the last, then let’s embrace a game that does make due allowance for size and shape, providing a sporting outlet for all who are willing!

If you have any issues relating to injuries suffered whilst playing sport which fall outside the laws of the game then why not get in contact with our specialist Sports Law Department, who can give you the very best advice available.

Andrew Boyde
Blacks Solicitors LLP
ABoyde@LawBlacks.com

 

Hillsborough . . . . . Quest for the “Inconvenient” Truth!

Following an e-petition containing more than 138,000 signatures requesting the full disclosure of all government documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, the Government (having promised to put forward for debate any petition that reached more than 100,000 signatures) was prompted to issue a statement that the subject of the petition would be debated in Parliament on the 17 October in a half day debate.

The Government was also committed to the full disclosure of the papers (including cabinet papers) pending consultation with the families of the victims and the Hillsborough Independent.

Supported by a Twitter campaign, the Government was obliged to make its position clear and confirm that it was committed to the publication of the documents.  The petition had called for the immediate release of the cabinet papers, seen as potentially significant in revealing the approach taken by the Thatcher administration to the disaster, following a Freedom of Information Act request by the BBC.

The Information Commissioner agreed that the papers would be released after the Hillsborough Independent Panel, set up by the previous government to examine the full circumstances of the disaster, gained access to previously unseen documents.

The Information Commissioner indicated last month in response to the campaign that the government was happy for all the papers to be released as soon as the panel, in consultation with the families, so decides.  It is expected that the information will be shared with the Hillsborough families first and then to the wider public.

Whilst the scheduling of the debate and timing has been welcomed by the Hillsborough Family Support Group as another good piece of the jigsaw, the preferred way forward was for the documents to be considered first in context by the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and then released to the families of the 96 victims before being made public.

The families hope that the report, which will draw on thousands of unreleased documents, will shed light on the many unanswered questions still surrounding the 1989 disaster and its aftermath.

Mindful that the Hillsborough disaster has been the subject of claims, accusations, argument, counter argument and controversy for more than 20 years it is perhaps opportune to look back and reflect on the actual circumstances and also be mindful of other disasters over that terrible 10 year period.

The 1980s became known as the “Disaster Decade” and saw a number of appalling disasters causing significant loss of life, not only at Football grounds: Heysel stadium 29th May 1985; Bradford City 11th May 1985 and Hillsborough 15th April 1989, and also the Kings Cross Tube Fire 18th November 1987, Clapham Rail Collision 12th December 1988 and the Zebrugge (Herald of Free Enterprise) Disaster 8th October 1987.

The worst sporting disaster prior to Hillsborough was when 66 fans were crushed to death during the Glasgow Derby in Scotland in 1971.

Many of us, and especially the families of those who lost loved ones, do not need reminding that at least 96 football supporters died in Britain’s worst-ever sporting disaster.

The “official” explanation at the time was that people were crushed to death at Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield during the FA Cup semi-final between Nottingham Forest and Liverpool resulting from too many Liverpool fans being allowed in to the back of an already full stand at the Leppings Lane end of the ground.

More than 2,000 Liverpool fans had still not got into the stadium when the match started at 3pm.

A police spokesman said orders were given for the gate to the stand to be opened because they believed the pressure of fans outside the ground was “a danger to life”. However as fans rushed in, those already there were pushed forward and crushed against the high, wire-topped safety fences.

Improved security measures which had been introduced at grounds to keep rival fans apart meant that, for many, there was no escape from the crush. Police and match officials attempted to help those trapped clamber over the safety barrier.

Some fans alleged that bad ticket allocation contributed to the disaster, as Liverpool had far more supporters than Nottingham Forest but were given 6,000 fewer tickets and allocated the smaller Leppings Lane stand.

The final death toll from the Hillsborough disaster was 96, with 170 people injured. Following a public inquiry new safety measures were introduced at football grounds across Britain.

Relatives of the Hillsborough victims campaigned for the police officers who were in charge of safety at the ground to be prosecuted. In 2002, the two most senior officers were put on trial: One was acquitted and the charges against the other were dropped when the jury could not agree on a verdict.

[The net result of the High Court rulings was that private prosecutions continued.

The Crown Prosecution Service showed no signs of taking over the cases, as it had the power to do and so the Hillsborough Family Support Group had to find money to meet the costs of their High Court battle, which left a real sense of injustice.]

The Debate in Parliament on 17 October is hoped to be a watershed in order for the real truth to be divulged as to what really happened and who, if anyone, was really to blame. Hopefully for the bereaved families it may also assist them finding a sense of justice and closure to more than 20 years of heartache.

No one doubts that there may well be plenty more twists and turns in the judicial road to a final reckoning on Hillsborough!

22 years on what has British football learnt from its findings following Hillsborough?

After Heysel and Bradford, the tragic events in Sheffield should have emphasised the urgent need for widespread improvements in Britain’s football stadia.

The Taylor report recommended that top grounds in England and Scotland should become all-seater, and certainly these days the Premiership boasts some impressive venues. Old Trafford,  Anfield, the Emirates, Eastlands and Stamford Bridge to name but a few.

A number of clubs, such as Middlesbrough, Derby, Bolton Wanderers and Sunderland, took the radical step of abandoning their traditional base to move to purpose-built venues – another response to the Taylor report.

Lower down, scores of other clubs, helped by the Football Trust, carried out major refurbishments of their stadia, though there was no compulsion to go all-seater.

Despite all this, and more than 20 years after Hillsborough, some fans still argue that standing should still be allowed at even the biggest fixtures, contending that all-seater grounds have diminished the atmosphere, even in the name of safety.

Unfortunately, the standard of Premiership grounds does not appear to have been matched in some European countries.

Ironically, there is now more money than ever in football, thanks to television rights, sponsorship and large crowds.

The hope must be that such wealth enables clubs to constantly monitor the fabric and systems at their grounds to try to make sure that large-scale tragedies are confined to history.

Stephen J Lownsbrough
Associate & Head of Sport
Blacks Solicitors LLP
Tel: +44 (0) 113 207 0000
Email: SLownsbrough@LawBlacks.com