Sports Law Round-Up

New Balance v Liverpool Football Club
 
New Balance and Liverpool Football Club have resumed their dispute at the High Court in London this week, with the Merseyside club looking to sever ties with their current supplier and be allowed to form a new deal with global sportswear giant, Nike. 
 
Recent reports had suggested that Liverpool were set to announce a club-record, £70m-a-year kit deal with Nike. This would begin following the expiry of the club’s current deal with fellow American brand New Balance at the end of this season. However, New Balance have alleged a breach of contract over a failure to comply with the matching right set out in the technical partner agreement. 
 
A “matching right” grants an existing technical partner the opportunity to receive notice of and match any offer made by a competitor, and thus extend the time period of its current agreement with the club. This allows for a degree of reassurance for the partner as they will have the opportunity to renew a partnership once the term expires (should their pockets be deep enough to match competing offers). 
 
Despite New Balance protesting otherwise, Liverpool believe that New Balance’s offer simply does not match the offer made by Nike. New Balance’s current deal with the Reds sits at approximately £40 million per year, higher than the proposed Nike base offer of £30 million per annum. However, Liverpool claim that Nike’s supposedly larger distribution ability, arguing that New Balance cannot match their rival’s 6,000 global stores, means that in practice they simply cannot match Nike’s offer. 
 
A decision is set to be given very soon on this interesting case between two sporting giants. Should New Balance come out on top, it will be interesting to see how the relationship between them and Liverpool survives following this court battle. 
 
UPDATE: Liverpool Football Club emerged victorious. Details to follow in the next post.
 
Cardiff to appeal to CAS over Sala payment 
 
Cardiff City Football Club are set to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport against FIFA’s ruling that they must pay the first €6 million instalment to Nantes for €17 million forward Emiliano Sala, who tragically lost his life in a plane crash in January 2019 when travelling from Nantes to Cardiff. 
 
Earlier this month, FIFA’s players’ status committee came to the above decision following Cardiff’s refusal to pay the transfer fee for the player, arguing that the transfer had not been finalised and as such was null and void. The committee, however, concluded that all elements of the necessary paperwork had been completed and as such Cardiff are legally obliged to pay the full €17 million agreed fee. 
 
According to France’s Ligue de Football Professionel, Nantes uploaded Sala’s transfer agreement onto FIFA’s TMS international transfer registration system at 3:32pm on 19 January. Just forty minutes later, Sala’s transfer was “matched” on TMS, allowing for the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) to be requested by the Football Association of Wales (FAW). This was done on 21 January, before the French FA is said to have checked with its league that this was in order and then sent the certificate to the FAW at 5:14pm. Then, at 6:30pm, the FAW reportedly acknowledged receipt of the certificate, which is the final step in completing an international transfer according to FIFA’s regulations. Tragically, at 8:16pm, less than three hours after his official transfer, Sala’s aircraft crashed into the Channel on its flight from Nantes to Cardiff, resulting in the death of both Sala and pilot Dave Ibbotson. 
 
Ricciardo Settlement
 
Formula 1 driver Daniel Ricciardo has made an out-of-court settlement with his former advisor Glenn Beavis, who was claiming more than £10 million. 
 
Beavis had claimed that he was still owed commission by the Renault driver from his lucrative contract with the F1 team, filing a lawsuit in the London High Court. Beavis was believed to have been entitled to 20% commission on Ricciardo’s contract with Renault, and claimed he had helped to negotiate and secure the Australian’s deal. 
 
The two parties have amicably settled their differences for an undisclosed sum, ending proceedings in the High Court.