Threats to a footballer related to a separate image rights agreement.
A fairly common practice employed by football clubs is to enter into two agreements with one player, where one constitutes the football contract, and the other specifies the terms of the club's use of the player's image. The case of one of my clients, whose remuneration was "divided" between two contracts, with the lion's share of his earnings stemming from the marketing agreement, and only a small portion reserved in the strictly football contract, prompted me to describe in this post certain unfavorable aspects associated with such a construction.
At the outset, it is necessary to answer the question of whether the regulations of the PZPN (Polish Football Association) allow for the practice of entering into separate contracts for the use of a player's image by the club. The PZPN resolution 1)Resolution of the Polish Football Association Management Board dated March 27, 2015 provides that the contract should include the determination of the club's use of the player's image. It should be added immediately that this requirement is not reserved under the penalty of invalidity, meaning that a football contract without such a provision is valid.
In the case I am analyzing, this matter was resolved in the following way: in the football contract, the player agreed to the use of his image for advertising and marketing purposes, with the provision that detailed terms would be specified in a separate agreement. It should be added that out of the total remuneration that the club was to pay the player, only 30% constituted payment for professional football playing, while 70% was due to the player from the image contract.
The proportions of the remuneration may seem insignificant as long as the club pays on time. But what if it stops?
Lack of Payment
The awareness that a player, to whom the club owes remuneration for a period of at least two months, is entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract after prior notice to the club for payment (I wrote about it in detail here) is fortunately quite common. However, it should be noted that the regulation clearly specifies that it concerns arrears regarding remuneration due for professional football playing. In a situation where the club pays the remuneration from the football contract but is in arrears with payment from a separate image contract, the player is not entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract citing this circumstance 2)at least without proceeding before the Chamber of Sports Dispute Resolution.
Therefore, if the remuneration proportions are similar to those in the case I described, the player may effectively receive only a small percentage of the amount due to him, yet still does not have the possibility of simple contract termination.
Termination of the Image Contract
Another risk associated with "splitting" the remuneration into two contracts is the possibility of termination or unilateral changes to the "image" contract by the club. It should be remembered that the fairly restrictive regulations of the PZPN regarding contract termination apply exclusively to contracts for the professional playing of football.
In the "auxiliary" contract, which is concluded with the player, the parties can define the conditions for ending the cooperation completely differently, for example by stipulating a one-month notice period. Let's imagine such a situation - the club wants to terminate the football contract with the player by mutual agreement. The player does not agree because he has negotiated satisfactory financial terms. The player's remuneration has been divided into two contracts, with the football contract, as in the case I am handling, covering only 30% of the total amount. The club then terminates the image contract with the player and sends him to the reserve bench. The player is left with a remuneration that is a fraction of what was agreed upon.
Compensation
The discussed arrangement may also affect the amount of claims by the player in case the club declares termination of the contract in violation of the PZPN resolution. The amount of compensation due to the player in such a situation is equal to the lost remuneration until the end of the contract, reduced by the income obtained from playing football in another club. So, going back to our example, a player who receives only 30% of the total remuneration for playing football may not necessarily be able to claim full compensation based on the PZPN regulations.
It should be emphasized that the described cases are just some of the unfavorable consequences that may affect the player if they accept the "splitting" of remuneration into separate contracts. Not always does the additional contract concern the use of image rights, however, the above remarks have a general character and remain relevant also in relation to other unnamed contracts. Usually, the club's motivation for proposing separate contracts lies in tax considerations or financing part of the contract by another entity such as a sponsor or a foundation associated with the club, rather than a premeditated intention to harm the player. However, it is worth being aware of the legal consequences of such a structure.
Fot. Foter.com