THE IMPASSE BETWEEN FOOTBALLERS AND TOURNAMENT SPONSORS

THE IMPASSE BETWEEN FOOTBALLERS AND TOURNAMENT SPONSORS

In the past the rights and relationship between sponsors and participants of football events seemed to be well ironed out. However, this week we witnessed Paul Pogba removing an Heineken bottle on the interview table as well as Cristiano Ronaldo  putting aside a coke bottle during his interview. Thereby, sending Coca Cola shares tumbling.
 This kind of behavior should not be encouraged, except if there exist terms which permit participants entering into the UEFA Championship to side step the official sponsors of the competition. If not this reprehensible conduct by this players goes against the custom and Usages of football sponsorship contracts. As an established understanding in the football business arena which dates back from time immemorial, tournament sponsors are entitled to place their brands and products up for advertisement during the match, pre match and post match. And this has become part and parcel of the Customs and Usages of football contracts. Thus, irrespective of your sentiments, as a footballer you are bound to respect the sponsors of an event you are participating in, although, that would not include you standing as the representative of that brand since you do not have a direct contract with them. However, even if you are not a brand representative of a particular brand whenever you Grace an event in the chain of the tournament you are participating in (such as pre and post match interviews or the proper match itself) you are bound to respect the official sponsors of the tournament. Nothing in this world gives you the right to erase the visibility of that particular brand irrespective of your sentiments. Being the fact that their funds made it possible for you to participate in that tournament. Thus, any act that tends to bring opprobrium by  a participant towards an official event sponsor should be treated as a breach of contract and the Sponsors should seek for damages via the official organisers of the competition. However, this does not extend to the sponsors using the image rights of the player. As the image right of the player reposes squarely on him and can only be used by the sponsor after acquiring the requisite permission from the player. It cannot suo motu, without the consent of the player use his image to advance its brand.
However, with regards to the impasse between messrs Ronaldo, pogba and the official sponsors of the UEFA Championship this is not the situation. The sponsors only placed their brands in an event which forms part of the transaction of the event they are investing. So it was not like they placed the images of the players on their brands during the interview. Thus, if the players were uncomfortable with what this brands represented they could have as well stayed away. In the sense that, these are the persons who have ensured via their resources that this tournament takes place. In a nutshell, this is their tournament and if you are uncomfortable stay away.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Analysing CAS decision on the prortionality of the FIFA Football Agents Regulation

Analysing CAS decision on the prortionality of the FIFA Football Agents Regulation~E.U Olubor Esq. The subject of this dispute bother on the fundamental question, whether FIFA can extend its regulatory powers beyond the task of governing the sport of football itself and cover peripheral economic activities, particularly the market of football agent service which it did with the establishment of the FFAR The Panel in reviewing Article 15(2) of the FFAR which imposes a service fee cap on service charges to be paid to football agents. The panel in assessing its compatibility with article 101TFEU. The panel concurs with the position of PROFAA that FIFA is an association of undertakings which holds a dominant market position within the definition of article 101& 102 of the TFEU respectively and also relying on the decision in Piau where the EU General Court specifically confirmed that FIFA holds a “collective dominant” position under Article 102 TFEU in the relevant market of football a
Read more

UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (ECJ) ON THE PROPOSED EUROPEAN SUPER LEAGUE

UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (ECJ) ON THE PROPOSED EUROPEAN SUPER LEAGUE~ Emmanuel Uyi Olubor Esq.  The ECJ ruled on the issue of whether UEFA or FIFA rules restricting teams from constituting a separate league are anticompetitive and a breach of a dominant position.  Before I descend into the nitty-gritty of the decision of the ECJ, I would like to commence by establishing certain facts First, the decision is not binding in Britain as a result of BREXIT, thus British teams like Arsenal, Chelsea et al. Can't use this decision reached by the ECJ as a pretext to join the European Super League. Secondly, as against what was reported by most media outlets, the ECJ did not authorize the establishment of a European Soccer league, instead what played out was that the ECJ ruled on points of law on an issue that was sent to it by the commercial court in Spain which was hitherto instituted by the European Super League Company. The ECJ decided on whether UEFA an
Read more

GUNNARSDÓTTIR v OLYMPIC LYONNAIS: An AFFIRMATION BY FIFA ON THE MATERNITY RIGHTS OF FEMALE FOOTBALLERS

GUNNARSDÓTTIR v OLYMPIC LYONNAIS: An AFFIRMATION BY FIFA ON THE MATERNITY RIGHTS OF FEMALE FOOTBALLERS.~Uyi Olubor Esq. The new edition of the FIFA Regulation on Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP)came with numerous innovations. One of those innovations is the enthronement of Maternity rights for Female Footballers. To the extent that, football clubs are forbidden from making the validity of a player's contract subject to a player being or becoming pregnant during its term. These new provisions were recently tested in the dispute between Sarah Bjork Gunnarsdóttir v Olympique Lyonnais at the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chambers (DRC). The dispute arose after a Player who just became pregnant agreed with her club, to leave her base in France and return to her home country in Iceland for the duration of her pregnancy. The club immediately, filed for the social security allowance on behalf of the player amounting to EUR 45.99 per day. The player then inquired as to the reasons why her sa
Read more