Tag: Mike-Glover-Smith

The Sporting Events Bill: a legislative framework for major sporting events

Posted on June 5, 2026June 5, 2026 by Anna Weeden

The Sporting Events Bill, which establishes a legislative framework for future major international sporting events hosted in the UK, is currently moving through Parliament. Its key provisions relate to ticket touting, advertising and trading in restricted areas, unauthorised association with an event, transport and funding.

What is the Sporting Events Bill?

The Sporting Events Bill (“the Bill”), introduced to the House of Lords on 14 May 2026, offers a common legislative framework for future major sporting events. While in the past, Parliament passed event-specific legislation such as the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to plug any necessary legislative gaps, the Bill establishes an event-agnostic legislative framework that will govern major sporting events hosted by the UK going forward. This would likely include the upcoming men’s UEFA EURO 2028 football tournament, and, if the UK’s bid for it is successful, the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035.

This new framework aims to ensure that the UK remains competitive when entering bid processes for hosting rights for major international sporting events. The goal is to make it clear that the UK is able to fulfil any required commitments to sporting event owners during the bidding process (for example, regarding protections in place for the event), and to do so efficiently without the uncertain and cumbersome process associated with passing bespoke primary legislation.

Which sporting events will be covered?

The framework will apply to events held wholly or partly in the UK on an irregular basis which are of significant international interest, and would bring social or economic benefits to the whole or part of the UK, and to events likely to facilitate holding such events (clause 3 of the Bill). For example, while UEFA European Championships, FIFA Football World Cups and Rugby World Cups may be in scope, events that regularly take place in the UK such as the Wimbledon Championships or FA Cup Final are not in scope of the Bill.

Key Provisions

The Bill includes provisions in respect of the following issues:

Ticket touting (clauses 5-7 and Schedule 1)	Under the Bill, it is a criminal offence to sell, offer to sell, expose for sale, or advertise an event ticket without authorisation in a public place, in the course of a business, or to make a profit.
Advertising in restricted areas (clauses 8-10 and Schedule 2)	Under the Bill, it is a criminal offence to carry out an advertising activity in a restricted advertising zone during a specified period, or to arrange or permit for this to be done. An advertising activity is anything done to promote a product, service or business to members of the public who are in a restricted advertising zone or watching or listening to a broadcast of the event.
Trading in restricted areas (clauses 11-13 and Schedule 3)	The Bill sets out a criminal offence which partially mirrors the ‘advertising in restricted areas’ offence in respect of trading. Trading activities include (i) selling or offering or exposing a product for sale, (ii) providing or offering to provide a service or providing entertainment for gain or reward, and (iii) appealing for money or other property (except begging).
Unauthorised association with the event (clauses 14-16 and Schedule 4)	The Bill prohibits a person acting in the course of a business from engaging in the unauthorised use of a representation (of any kind) in a manner likely to suggest to the public an association between the sporting event and goods or services (or a person providing them) during the specified period.

Those guilty of the ticket touting and advertising and trading in restricted areas provisions can be fined, and breach of the unauthorised association with the event provision is treated as an infringement of a property right, with various court remedies available.

The Bill also includes provisions to facilitate transport arrangements for events (clause 17 and Schedule 5) and to enable national authorities to provide financial assistance to support sporting events (clause 25).

Event-specific regulations

The Bill has been drafted with built-in flexibility to accommodate the varied requirements of the different sporting events to which it will apply.

Although the Bill offers a framework for issues affecting a broad range of sports, there is an expectation that an appropriate national authority and/or the Secretary of State will introduce regulations applying one or more of the Bill’s provisions to specific sporting events within its scope. Many parts of the provisions are defined by reference to these event-specific regulations, such as the location of the restricted advertising and trading zones in the provisions governing advertising and trading in restricted areas.

There are also various carve-outs and exceptions, and the relevant authorities are empowered to specify further ones by regulation. Authorisations can be granted to ensure that, for example, event sponsors can carry out advertising or trading within a restricted zone.

What happens next?

The Bill was debated during its second reading in the House of Lords on 3 June 2026. We will continue to monitor its progress through Parliament and keep clients informed on key updates.

It is worth noting that there is a separate push to make it illegal for tickets to concerts, theatre, comedy, sport and other live events to be resold for more than their original cost. On 19 November 2025, the government published its response to its consultation on the resale of live events tickets, and proposed a draft Ticket Tout Ban Bill in the King’s Speech on 13 May 2026.

Those in any way involved with major sporting events, including organisers, sponsors and commercial partners, should consider how they will be affected and take proactive steps to ensure they are prepared once the Bill is ready to come into effect.

Please reach out to Ella Ditri or Mike Glover-Smith for support on this.

F1 season cut short: What happens next?

Posted on March 18, 2026March 18, 2026 by Anna Weeden

On Saturday Formula 1 (F1) announced the decision to cancel the Bahrain and Saudi Arabia Grands Prix due to the conflict in the Middle East.

While the human cost of the conflict is immeasurable and far outweighs any sporting consideration, the cancellation of multiple races will nonetheless have significant consequences for F1.

The sport is reported to face losses in excess of £100m as a result of the cancelled races – a figure that is likely to be substantially higher once sponsor compensation and other stakeholder claims are factored in, given the loss of value arising from a shortened season.

Depending on how the war unfolds, cancellations to further races could follow – in particular rounds 23 and 24, in Qatar and Abu Dhabi, could be at risk.

Mass race cancellations are not unprecedented, with the Covid pandemic resulting in races being cancelled or held behind closed doors. The prospect of a reduced racing calendar has therefore been front of mind for stakeholders negotiating contracts with rightsholders including F1 and the teams in recent years.

This has led to sophisticated stakeholders – in particular drivers, sponsors and broadcasters – digging into the force majeure provisions in their contracts with rightsholders, which can relieve a party of its obligations if they are unable to perform due to circumstances outside of its control. Sponsors and broadcasters will often try to negotiate these clauses to ensure they are entitled to a pro-rata refund of the fee for the affected Season if races are cancelled, while drivers will be keen to ensure their fee is unaffected by circumstances outside of their control.

Rightsholders will be reluctant to make these changes, given the loss of income, and there will be many cases where unequal bargaining power, or a willingness to get the deal done will leave parties who signed up to rightsholders’ standard terms without legal recourse.

While many cases will be resolved on a commercial level, with substitute rights granted at other races to maintain partnerships and key relationships in a sport that is notoriously a “small world”, the soaring commercial success of F1 and the ever increasing values of commercial deals means it would be unsurprising if the 2026 Season is marred by high-profile litigation.

Brands negotiating new sponsorship agreements with sports rights holders (including F1 teams), or renewing existing arrangements for the 2027 Season onwards, will now be minded to dig into force majeure provisions to ensure there is a satisfactory mechanism – which may include substitute rights or expert determination of the value of the lost rights – to ensure their interests are protected if races are cancelled.

McLaren v Palou: key takeaways

Posted on March 2, 2026March 5, 2026 by Anna Weeden

In a well-documented High Court case, McLaren has been awarded millions of dollars in damages after driver Alex Palou reneged on an agreement to drive for the Arrow McLaren IndyCar Team, and to provide reserve and test driving services to the McLaren Formula 1 team.

This case provides interesting lessons for teams, athletes, agents and brands relating to agreements between teams and their elite athletes, and commercial agreements with brands and suppliers.

In particular, this case shines a light on the following issues.

Agreements with athletes

SIGNING ON FEES

Any element of an athlete’s fee that is payable in consideration of their signature is likely to be unrecoverable by their team, as was the case in McLaren v Palou, in which the Court ruled that the signing on fee was a literal reward for Palou’s agreement to sign the contract. From the team’s perspective, it would typically be considered reasonable to ensure all fees are expressed as subject to performance by the athlete, payable in instalments, and refundable if the Driver defaults.

TERMINATION RIGHTS

If an athlete is entering into a contract in order to achieve a specific outcome, whether that be securing a Formula 1 seat or a regular starting position in a football’s team’s lineup, they should be advised not to rely on promises and non-contractual representations, but instead to consider ways to hold the team accountable contractually. For example, termination rights linked to the team’s failure to support an aspiring Formula 1 driver in his journey by offering him a certain number of rookie test sessions, or including a footballer in a certain number of starting lineups during each season, can help the athlete to exit a relationship that is not working, and avoid protracted, expensive legal proceedings such as McLaren v Palou. That being said, this case has demonstrated that contracts can, and regularly are, broken in sport. If a relationship is not founded on mutual trust, making the wrong long-term commitments can be career defining.

LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION

In McLaren v Palou, McLaren claimed it had suffered substantial losses relating to its Formula 1 and IndyCar teams and their commercial agreements with third parties. These alleged damages far surpassed the fees payable to Palou under the driver agreement. Careful drafting can help athletes to avoid liability for losses that do not directly result from the athlete’s breach. As a minimum, if the team’s bargaining power is such that the athlete is on the hook for losses associated with the team’s agreements with third parties, the athlete should resist providing indemnities in this regard and should require the team to agree to an express obligation to take steps to mitigate its losses. In circumstances where an athlete is being courted by another team, the athlete should take a leaf out of Palou’s book, requesting an indemnity to shield the athlete from incurring these sorts of losses.

Commercial agreements with brands or key suppliers

KEY INDIVIDUALS

In cases where major commercial agreements are contingent upon the presence of key individuals in the team, suppliers, brands and teams should weigh up the benefits of making this contractual. From the supplier or brand’s perspective, this would provide them with clear recourse – and ideally the ability to exit – should the key individual leave the team.

From the team’s perspective, in the event of the athlete’s breach of contract leading to the sponsor or supplier terminating the agreement, the team will have a more straightforward claim against the athlete given the causal relationship between athlete’s breach and team’s loss. Better still, if the team is concerned about the athlete honouring the contract, an indemnity could be sought to cover anticipated losses. That being said, the benefits of naming key individuals in commercial agreements should be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking specialist legal advice, particularly as the risk of losing the athlete in a non-breach scenario could leave the team exposed.

PERFORMANCE BONUSES

A brand will often try to include a performance-related element in sponsorship deals. This might be tied to the fee or a break clause where a certain level of performance is not achieved. While the team may be confident of achieving the performance milestones, circumstances outside of the team’s control such as a key team member’s departure (or failure to join the team as expected) could compromise the team, leading to lower than expected revenues or the departure of key partners. In McLaren v Palou, the Court determined that McLaren could not recover all of its losses linked to failure to achieve performance bonus milestones, citing the inherent uncertainty in projecting performance outcomes notwithstanding the Driver’s talent. That said, it may be preferable for a team to agree to a lower overall guaranteed fee, over a higher fee that encompasses performance-related elements.

Our sports team has extensive experience advising teams, athletes, agents and brands on agreements with elite athletes, as well as commercial deals with brands and suppliers. For more information, please get in touch.