In the world of social media, some brands are still struggling with how to manage public comment being made about them via platforms like Twitter and Facebook. No longer are complaints and criticisms written on letters and only seen by the customer services team – opinion is posted on blogs, indexed by Google and commented on by the world.
Many savvy brands and some sports franchises have social media policies and employment contracts to stop rogue employees or athletes using social media or even traditional media to cause damage to the reputation of the company. Anyone who has ever signed an employment contract will have seen clauses that limit use of email or the internet in such a way that stops an employee bringing the company into disrepute. Employment contracts also usually contain clauses that prevent company representatives speaking to the press without consent from management.
So with such mechanisms available, and with an existing rule (69) that deals with misconduct and bringing the sport of sailing into disrepute, why does the America’s Cup need to put in place a wide ranging rule that seems to forbid any kind of criticism? (responsible expressions of legitimate disagreement are not prohibited.)
One might imagine that if a competitor (in this case a team and the yacht club which it represents) was going to invest $60 million into a project, that they would want that project to succeed. One might also think that if that team was commercially funded, then selling the whole project would be an important part of delivering partners a return on investment (ROI). A competitor doesn’t have a lot of motivation then to disparage a venue, or good character of a commercial partner of the America’s Cup.
After the current defender of the America’s Cup contributed to enormous damage to the reputation of the ‘asset’ during the last cup cycle, it is perhaps only proper that they try to protect what is left – but now that deals are being done hastily to show progress, perhaps ACEA want more support from competitors – a nod and clap in unison upon every announcement…
Article 60 may be seen as being aimed squarely at Emirates Team NZ. Grant Dalton has made several public statements that could, under the strictest definition of the proposed article, be construed as disparaging, however other teams may also be affected – if for example a competitor’s press officer ran a widely read blog!
The Article reads:
60.1 The favourable reputation of the America’s Cup, its regattas, events, selected venues, Officials, sponsors, commercial partners and its Competitors is a valuable asset and creates financial and other tangible and intangible benefits for all. Accordingly, each Competitor shall not (and shall use its best efforts to ensure that any team member, owner, officer, employee, contractor, affiliate, agent or representative of the Competitor shall not) and each Official shall not make or cause to be made, or authorize or endorse, any public statement, or engage in any other act or conduct or any activity, in each case, on or off the water, that is prejudicial or detrimental to or against the welfare or the best interests of the America’s Cup, or the sport of sailing, or that may impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of the America’s Cup, any Event, or in the integrity and good character of any Competitor, Official, selected venue, sponsor or other commercial partner of the America’s Cup. Conduct contrary to the welfare or the best interests of the America’s Cup includes, but is not limited to, public statements that unreasonably attack or disparage a regatta related to the America’s Cup, an Event, a selected venue, a funder, a sponsor, a commercial partner of the Event or a Competitor, another Competitor, an Official, or the commercial viability or integrity of the America’s Cup or any of its regattas or events, but responsible expressions of legitimate disagreement are not prohibited.
60.2 The Jury is authorized to discipline or otherwise penalize any Competitor (including any team member, owner, officer, employee, contractor, affiliate, agent or representative of the Competitor) or Official found by the Jury to have breached or violated Article 60.1 of this Protocol. The Jury may initiate its own enquiry into any breach or violation of Article 60.1, or may act upon receiving a report or complaint by or on behalf of any Competitor or an Official. The Jury may impose such penalties or orders as it believes to be just and equitable in accordance with this Protocol, including but not limited to those penalties set forth in Article 15.4(d). Any fines imposed by the Jury for breach of Article 60.1 shall be paid as may be directed by the Jury as it determines to be just and equitable.
60.3 All defined terms used in this Article 60 shall have the meanings given to them in this Protocol, with the addition, for the purposes of this Article 60 only, of the following:
(a) the definition of “Competitor” in Article 1.1(p) includes the yacht club holding the America’s Cup; and
(b) the definition of “Officials” in Article 1.1(mm) includes the Event Authority and ACRM and their respective officers, employees, contractors, representatives and agents.”
Putting on a brave united front to the world is one thing. Enshrining it in the protocol with penalty for not flying the flag is quite another.
