The AFL ideal off-season has been punctuated with a number of high profile, alcohol-fuelled incidents, igniting debate as to whether certain behavioural standards should be applied to athletes outside of their strict playing duties. As monies have poured into sports in recent times, sponsors and holders of television broadcast rights have expected greater returns from their investments in sporting codes, including the use of prominent players for cross-promotional purposes.
In order to protect these commercial interests, many player contracts with clubs and sponsorship agreements now include ‘moral hazard’ clauses, allowing for termination where the athlete is involved in a major scandal. Insurance products can also be purchased to somewhat mitigate this risk. read more |
 |
The federal Government recently conducted a review of the anti-siphoning ‘scheme’ for the television broadcasting of sport. This ‘scheme’, introduced in 1994 under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), was designed to ensure that television coverage of events of national importance and cultural significance (which, for the most part, read sporting events) was not siphoned off exclusively to pay television. Live broadcasting of these events are dealt with by ‘anti-hoarding’ provisions, requiring commercial television licensees to offer the unused portions of these rights to televise a designated event to the ABC and SBS for a nominal charge (which occurred in the broadcasting of the 2006 FIFA World Cup). read more |
|
The origins of the America’s Cup sailing competition – forever associated with Australia due to a famous victory in 1983 – date back to 1851, where a boat named America won the 100 Guinea Cup for winning a race around the Isle of Wight. The winners, members of the New York Yacht Club (‘NYYC’), donated the trophy to the NYYC under a deed of gift, to be held as a ‘challenge’ trophy, for friendly competition between foreign countries. The winning Yacht Club from the prior holding of the event makes the rules and hosts the subsequent event, provided those rules are in accordance with the terms of the deed.
Thanks to some unusual provisions within the deed, the involvement of legal challenges during the America’s Cup is not new – reader’s may recall various protests made by the NYYC where it tried to reveal Australia II’s winged keel, as well as challenging the Australian origin of its invention. However, the prelude to the holding of the 33rd America’s Cup in early February 2010 has featured an unprecedented number of battles between lawyers for the Société Nautique de Genève (‘SNdG’, the home club of the defending boat Alinghi) and the Golden Gate Yacht Club (‘GGYC’, home of the BMW Oracle challenger).
Despite the deed prohibiting competition in the northern hemisphere between November 1 and May 1, SNdG initially planned for the regatta to be held in Valencia during that period, which also had the approval of GGYC. Initial rulings considered the regatta could be held in Valencia, ‘or any other location’, leading to attempts by SNdG to move the regatta to Ras al-Khaimah in the United Arab Emirates. The GGYC sought to prevent the move by bringing an action in the New York Supreme Court, which rejected the change, interpreting the phrase ‘or any other location’ in the earlier judgment to mean any other location that complied with the deed – which did not include the UAE. While SNdG indicated it would appeal the decision, the parties eventually accepted the regatta being held off Valencia. read more |
The federal government was active in the field of sport law in 2009, with the release of various discussions papers, from a review of ambush marketing protection, the convergence of sports news reporting and digital media, as well as receiving the Independent Sport Panel’s report reviewing its investigations into reforms required to ensure the Australian sporting system remains prepared for future challenges at both the community and elite levels (the ‘Crawford Report’) – which generated much debate among various sporting codes and administrators. read more |
|
The previous edition of our Sports and Entertainment Newsletter [insert hyperlink] highlighted a number of ongoing issues in the field of sports law which have since progressed. Updates on recent issues include:
- The Major Sporting Events Act 2009 (Vic), aimed at supporting the acquisition, retention, staging and management of major sporting events in Victoria, was passed by the Victorian Parliament.
- The High Court of Australia’s review of Spriggs v Commissioner of Taxation and Riddell v Commissioner of Taxation, considering the tax deductibility of management fees for professional athletes. While the exploitation of the players’ sporting prowess and associated celebrity was inextricably linked to their employment as footballers, the HCA found that the players conducted their businesses in a commercial fashion through the retention of managers whose duties went well beyond the negotiation of playing contracts. As a result, the HCA held that there was a sufficient connection between the players’ gaining or producing of assessable income, and the fees charged by their managers, such that the fees were deductible. read more
|
|
The use of athlete related intellectual property in commercial ventures continues to grow, as evidenced by the extraordinary growth in online ‘fantasy football’ competitions both in Australia and in the US. As these online competitions are completely based on the statistical performance of athletes, they are dependent on the performances of leagues, teams and athletes, raising questions as to the ownership and use of those compiled statistics.
As the US market for these competitions is more mature and profitable, the commercial interests surrounding these competitions have already led to US courts addressing these intellectual property issues within a sporting context. However, it has not yet been directly considered in Australia. read more |
Unsubscribe
This e-mail is from Anzarut & Holm. Level 2, Professional Chambers, 120 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000. The e-mail and any attachments are confidential and are intended for the named addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and do not disclose, distribute, or retain this e-mail or any part of it. While we have checked this e-mail and any attachments for viruses, we do not warrant that they are virus-free. You must therefore take full responsibility for virus checking.
Copyright © 2010 Anzarut & Holm. All rights reserved.
|
