Sponsorship Agreements

In February 2021, SAG-AFTRA’s National Board voted to approve a new Influencer Agreement.  But, the announcement included few details, leaving many Brands and so-called Influencers to wonder what’s the deal?

To date, SAG-AFTRA has not released the actual long form agreement covering Influencers, but it has posted an Influencer Agreement Fact Sheet online here.  The Fact Sheet makes clear that, for now, the Influencer Agreement is extremely narrow in reach.  Indeed, it all but places the entire onus of documentation, compliance, and pension and health contributions solely on the Influencer.  Therefore, the Influencer Agreement will allow Influencers to earn union eligibility and make their own contributions toward their own benefits.  Here are the key points for Brands and Influencers to be aware of:
Continue Reading Brands And Influencers Need To Know About SAG-AFTRA’s New Influencer Agreement

On Wednesday, amid growing concern over the spread of  Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19” or “coronavirus”), the Italian government announced that all sporting events in Italy will resume.  The catch?  They will all take place behind closed doors—no spectators will be allowed to attend for at least the next month.

Italy, as the epicenter of Europe’s coronavirus outbreak, previously undertook drastic measures to slow the virus’ spread—closing all schools in the country, cancelling sporting events, and instituting bans on other public gatherings across the country.

While the epidemic has not yet reached similar proportions in the US, the virus’ spread has also not shown any sign of slowing down.  Could similar measures be taken in the US?  If so, what does this mean for event organizers and brand sponsors?

Brands pay big bucks—in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars—to sponsor high profile sporting, entertainment, and cultural events. What are the repercussions if event organizers are forced to cancel sponsored events because of the coronavirus outbreak?  Does the analysis change if the events go on as scheduled, but spectators are banned from attending?

force majeure; CVOID 19; Coronavirus
Continue Reading Coronavirus: Are Spectator Bans the Worst Case Scenario for Brand Sponsors?

We previously wrote about California Senate Bill 206, the “Fair Pay to Play Act,” back in April, and now Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed that bill into law.[1] The law becomes effective on January 1, 2023. After numerous revisions to the bill since our last post, here is a quick look at the final product.

The new Fair Pay to Play Act allows California student-athletes to earn compensation from licensing their name and image and to obtain professional representation by lawyers and agents to assist with that effort, all without losing scholarship eligibility or amateur status under the National Collegiate Athletics Association’s (NCAA) Division I and II eligibility criteria. Importantly, the law specifically prohibits colleges, athletic associations and intercollegiate conferences from paying such compensation to prospective student-athletes.
Continue Reading California’s Fair Pay to Play Act: This is Only The First Quarter

California Senate Bill 206,[1] the “Fair Pay to Play Act,” was amended again last month, and is making its way through the legislature under sponsorship by Sen. Nancy Skinner-D and Sen. Steven Bradford-D. If passed, the new law would pave the way for college athletes in California to earn compensation—including a stipend or other financial incentive from the college itself—for licensing their name, image, or likeness. The law would also allow athletes to obtain legal representation in connection with their participation in college sports, all while maintaining scholarship eligibility and amateurism under the National Collegiate Athletics Association’s (NCAA) Division I and II eligibility criteria.[2]
Continue Reading Faces and Names: Modern Issues in Athlete Publicity Licensing

Sponsorship rights are a critical component of the revenue stream for almost every major venue in the United States. Long-term sponsorship deals not only provide much of the funding for new venues to be built, but they also support the refurbishments that allow existing venues to retain tenants and attract short-term residents, such as concerts, sporting events and tournaments. Sponsorship spending in North America alone came to a staggering $23.1 billion in 2017, an increase from the 2016 figure of $22.3 billion. Most of this sponsorship cash flows to and from venues in major cities. One example out of many is Los Angeles, which is home to a multitude of venues supported by an even wider array of long-term sponsors. Los Angeles recently hosted the 2018 NBA All-Star Game and the 2018 NCAA Men’s Basketball Western Regional Semifinals. The city is now gearing up for additional high profile events, such as the 2020 MLB All-Star Game, Super Bowl LVI and the 2028 Summer Olympics, along with related ancillary events. The Los Angeles market is currently undergoing a period of intense growth, as indicated by the construction of new, state of the art venues, such as the Ram’s stadium at Hollywood Park, the Banc of California Stadium for the LAFC, and (potentially) a new stadium for the Clippers. The abundance of venues both new and old is a clear sign that even more high-profile events will be coming to LA in the years to come. These popular events – both those already scheduled and those yet-to-be-planned – present venue owners with additional hosting opportunities, making it essential to have flexibility in existing long-term sponsorship agreements.
Continue Reading Winning the Gold: Why Venue Owners Need to Consider the Importance of Flexibility in Sponsorship Agreements

The end of the collective bargaining agreement between a professional sports league and the players association that represents the athletes triggers a series of dominos: The players go on strike, the league implements a lock-out of the players, the parties meet over the course of several weeks to try to negotiate a new deal, both sides posture (with the league cautioning that pre-season and regular season games will be cancelled and the players association threatening to decertify as a union if a new agreement cannot be reached), the league files an unfair labor practice complaint with the National Labor Relations Board coupled with a declaratory judgment action in U.S. district court seeking a ruling that the lock-out is a legitimate negotiation tactic under the labor laws, the union decertifies and files its own lawsuit claiming that the league’s lockout constitutes price-fixing and an illegal group boycott in violation of the antitrust laws, and fans brace for lost games.
Continue Reading Losing Games: Player Strikes Adversely Affect Sponsorship Agreements