Case note: McGill v. The Sports and Entertainment Media Group and Others
A footballer and an agent enter an unwritten exclusive agency agreement. The agent sets up a transfer for the player. However, a different agency takes over as the player’s agent prior to completion. This was the basic factual background before the Court of Appeal in McGill[1]. The court had to deal with various interesting legal issues arising from this litigation, and its judgment merits careful consideration.
This article will deal primarily with the Court of Appeal’s decision on the agent’s claim that he lost a chance to complete the player’s transfer. It will also briefly touch on the findings in relation to the agent’s earlier settlement with the player and how this affected his subsequent litigation against the other agency (the Jameson / Heaton[2] issue).
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Agents | Football | Intermediaries | The FA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries | United Kingdom (UK)
Related Articles
- Will The FA have problems enforcing the Intermediaries Regulations?
- Top 50 football law articles you should read this season
- “Football for Sale” - What is the problem, and what are the solutions?
- What effects have FIFA’s Intermediaries Regulations had on player representation and commission levels?
Written by
Sam Stevens
Sam read Law at the University of Warwick, following which he completed an LLM at the University of Cambridge.
Sam accepts instructions to advise and represent clients in contractual, regulatory/disciplinary and personal injury matters involving all major sports.
Dan Lowen
Good article, Sam. There's also an interesting point on the tension between an agreement that complies with The FA's regulations and an agreement that's binding at law. As Mr Justice Henderson observes, "the 2006 FA Regulations had no statutory force. In law, they are no more than the rules of an unincorporated association, by which its members (and anybody else who agreed to abide by them) were contractually bound." As the judgment confirms, non-compliance with those rules did not prevent a legally binding agreement coming into force.
reply
Sean Cottrell
Thanks Dan. It is a good point that you raise. Thanks for highlighting this.
reply