Another matter addressed in recent editions has been the ongoing dispute between the British Olympic Association (BOA) and the London Organising Committee (LOCOG). As readers may recall, the issue revolved around the calculation and division of profits generated by London 2012 and whether or not the costs of Paralympics Games should be ring fenced from the surplus from the Olympic Games and underwritten by the government. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) had attempted to resolve the matter and the international governing body made a ruling in favour of LOCOG which the BOA refused to accept.
However, a dispute that looked likely to end up in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has now been resolved. The key elements of the settlement deal are:
- 60% of profits will be diverted towards the development of sport in the UK, with the remaining 40% being split equally between the IOC and the BOA;
- LOCOG will waive the rights to any royalties on Team GB merchandise;
- Additional marketing support for the BOA in terms of the Games legacy once the Games close;
- The BOA will be afforded the right to purchase additional Olympic tickets, which it can sell to raise funds.
Comment
The timing of this dispute, and the fact that it was essentially a fight over money between two key Games' stakeholders, has been far from ideal and clearly it is good news that a resolution has been reached. However, it is difficult to see what it has actually achieved. Overall, the settlement does little more than confirm what had been previously agreed from a profit distribution perspective. Furthermore, the additional agreed terms are relatively minor matters that could have been resolved behind closed doors and without the negative publicity. The BOA wanted to secure a financial package that would provide the governing body with a surplus for the coming years, but the agreement in effect reflects what was already in place. The wisdom of escalating this matter as far as the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the considerable legal costs the BOA will have incurred, must therefore be questioned.
The contents of this article are intended as guidelines for clients and other readers. It is not a substitute for considered advice on specific issues. Consequently, we cannot accept any responsibility for this information or for any errors or omissions.
Thomas Eggar LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC326278 whose registered office is at The Corn Exchange, Baffin's Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1GE (VAT number 991259583). The word 'partner' refers to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the members of the LLP is displayed at the above address, together with a list of those non-members who are designated as partners. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Lexcel and Investors in People accredited.
Thomas Eggar LLP is not authorised by the Financial Services Authority. However, we are included on the register maintained by the Financial Services Authority so that we can carry on insurance mediation activity which is broadly the advising on, selling and administering of insurance contracts. This part of our business, including arrangements for complaints and redress if something goes wrong, is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The register can be accessed via the Financial Services Authority website. We can also provide certain further limited investment services to clients if those services are incidental to the professional services we have been engaged to provide as solicitors.
Thesis Asset Management plc, our associated financial services company, provides a comprehensive range of investment services and advice. Thesis is owned by members of Thomas Eggar LLP but is independent of and separate to it. No lawyer connected with Thomas Eggar LLP provides services through Thesis as a practicing lawyer regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Thesis is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Thesis has its own framework of investor protection and professional indemnity cover but Thesis clients do not enjoy the statutory protection of solicitors' clients.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.