THE Premier League could be sued by foreign broadcasters looking to recover payments with no live matches to air.
With the season currently on hold due to coronavirus, clubs could already be forced to pay back around £762million if the games are not played.
Premier League clubs could face further financial complications if overseas broadcast rights holders demand their money backCredit: AP:Associated Press
Canal+ will not pay their next £95.3m instalment on Sunday for their deal to show French football.
And now there are fears the Premier League may suffer a similar fate with broadcasters demanding their money back.
Overseas rights holders – of which there are 41 – pay £4.2billion to show top-flight matches across the globe.
And now they are exploring the possibility of taking legal action.
Lois Langton, partner at leading London law firm Howard Kennedy, told the Evening Standard: “We have had enquiries from overseas broadcasters, who have paid a lot of money to broadcast Premier League matches in their respective jurisdictions and currently have no matches to show.
“They are looking at potentially suing the Premier League for the absence of content on their TV channels and it is that you can see having a catastrophic knock-on effect to various layers of football, because it is those TV deals that have been a game-changer in terms of clubs being able to afford astronomical wages and huge staffs.”
In the UK, the likes of Sky and BT have a watertight £3billion-a-year deal which expires on July 31, with next season’s deal kicking in the following day.
And they could refuse to pay their final tranche of television money for the current season should it not be played by that date, having suffered a sharp decline in subscribers since the coronavirus outbreak sent sport into lockdown last month.
Joel Leigh, another partner at Howard Kennedy, reckons clubs’ insurance will not cover the unprecedented scenario they find themselves in.
He said: “Most contracts don’t provide for something as specific as Covid-19.
“Instead, what’s happening is people are re-familiarising themselves with slightly out-of-date or ethereal legal concepts, like force majeure clauses, that cover events that are unavoidable.
“There’s ‘frustration’, where you can discharge a contract on the ground of frustration because something happens that significantly changes the rights and obligations of a party who cannot possibly have anticipated at the time the contract was entered into.
“There are a wide range of potential arguments to be had in all areas in all sports, not just football. What every club is doing, I’m sure, is checking the wording of their applicable policies.
“Insurers, in this particular economic climate, will be trying to void policies wherever they can. That wouldn’t be the end of the matter, of course, as there could be litigation beyond that.”
Premier League clubs are due to hold a conference call on Friday to try and make more of a plan going forwards – the possibility of playing the rest of the season in a congested schedule.
This could involve clubs playing their matches at neutral grounds and being kept in ‘safety camps’ in between matches.
But even playing matches behind closed doors could draw legal battles with Covid-19 still spreading and endangering lives.
Alexandra Mizzi, a senior associate at the same company specialising in employment law, said: “As an employer you have an obligation to provide a safe workspace.
“Where there is the risk of transmission in a contact sport, then it is really very difficult to see how players could play safely and in line with current public health guidance if the games are resumed.
“One can see all sort of potential for disputes if it were the case that games were resumed while there was a high risk of infection.
“It is difficult to foresee how Premier League games could go ahead if the Government guidance on social distancing remains in place.”
Prem plot to end season in behind-closed-doors Midlands ‘quarantine camp’ from NEXT MONTH despite coronavirus lockdown
Source: Soccer - thesun.co.uk
