Property website Zoopla’s decision not to renew its main shirt sponsorship of English Premier League football club West Bromwich Albion because of the alleged misconduct of one of its players may bring about a step-change in sports sponsorship contracts, a UK law firm has said.
Zoopla announced this week that it will not renew its £3m (€3.7m/$5m) two-year sponsorship deal with West Brom in light of striker Nicolas Anelka’s controversial ‘quenelle’ gesture and the fact that the club ignored its request not to play Anelka on Monday night.
Gerard Cukier, partner specialising in sports disputes with London law firm Kingsley Napley LLP, said that commercial sponsorship agreements do not normally require football clubs to control their players’ behaviour on the pitch to ensure that the sponsor’s reputation is not adversely affected, but could do so in future.
“The Zoopla case will certainly make sponsors think about introducing clauses entitling them to instantly (in very serious cases) terminate the sponsorship agreement rather than having to issue warnings and wait until the contract expires,” he told Sports Sponsorship Insider.
“Football players’ contracts with their clubs contain specific clauses allowing for termination for misconduct or bringing the club into disrepute so why not sponsor contracts?”
Cukier believes that such clauses will become increasingly common as companies refuse to tolerate behaviour, which could negatively impact their brand.
BBC Sport reported today that outdoor clothing company Jack Wolfskin may terminate its two-year deal signed with West Brom in the summer of 2013, while Holler Watches is also said to be considering its relationship with the club.