9.05.2018

Gambling on Sponsorship

New Zealand’s size and geographical proximity to Australia has resulted in a number of trans-Tasman sporting events. This trans-Tasman rivalry offers fantastic visibility opportunities for sponsors in two jurisdictions rather than one.
The New Zealand Breakers, for example, compete in the Australasian National Basketball League. The recent championship battle between the Breakers and the Perth Wildcats was hotly contested, with the best of three games taking out the championship. With sold out crowds and thousands tuning into the live coverage, all eyes were on the players – including their uniforms.
The first game was played in New Zealand, and curiously, each Wildcat player displayed a large piece of sports tape on the back of his singlet. This was not a strange new type of brand marketing, instead, it was there to cover the logo of one of the Wildcats’ sponsors, “Player”. In the second game, played in Perth, the “Player” logo returned. In the final, held in New Zealand, the Wildcats appeared in a new kit that did not depict the “Player” logo at all.
You may well speculate on what occurred. Was there some form of rift between the team and its sponsor, were sponsorship fees not paid, or perhaps there was a breach of contract? Actually, the issue was much more straightforward, it was simply our law.
“Player” is an online sports and race betting agency in Western Australia. While it is not illegal for New Zealanders to gamble on overseas internet sites, New Zealand’s Gambling Act 2003 prohibits the advertising in New Zealand of overseas gambling. This prohibition includes any form of communication that publicises or promotes gambling, or a gambling operator, when that gambling or operator is outside New Zealand or is reasonably likely to induce people to gamble outside New Zealand.
It would seem that the use of sports tape during the first game was a creative, albeit last minute attempt to avoid committing an offence under the Act and being fined up to $10,000.
Although $10,000 may seem a fairly insignificant sum, the fine must not be viewed in isolation. There are a number of additional costs that could be factored in, including the sunk advertising cost of initially having become a sponsor, production of new “away kits” without the prohibited sponsor logo, the obligation to report convictions to insurers and auditors, and, of course, legal fees and expenses.
The Perth Wildcats are not the first sports club to realise that trans-Tasman events require sports clubs to heed the law. The Department of Internal Affairs (“DIA”), the government agency tasked with enforcing the Act, has investigated several other sports teams where sponsors have included overseas gambling operators. In 2010, the DIA ordered the Wellington Phoenix soccer body to remove a Centrebet billboard from Westpac Stadium, and the Newcastle Jets to remove the Centrebet logo from their playing shirts. That same year, the Warriors’ rugby league club was investigated in relation to three Keno-sponsored NRL games.
The Wildcats’ singlets highlight potential conflicts that can arise between sports sponsorship and advertising laws in different jurisdictions. When considering sponsorship as a form of advertising, the basic rules should not be forgotten. Issues to be considered include when and how the brand will be displayed, the costs involved, the consequences if the brand is not displayed for any particular reason or the brand is brought into disrepute; and, if another jurisdiction is to be involved, the implications of its laws.
We recommend that sponsors have a programme in place to ensure they are compliant in all jurisdictions in which their brands or products are promoted.
Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Clarity on Liquidated Damages following Termination
The United Kingdom Supreme Court in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd [2021] UKSC 29 has clarified the operation of liquidated damages clauses in the event of termination.  The dec...
Is your will in draft form?  High Court refuses to exercise its discretionary power to validate a draft will notwithstanding beneficiaries’ consent
The High Court’s recent decision in Re: An application to validate the will of Olive Ruby Piper [2021] NZHC 534 serves as a valuable reminder to make sure that your estate planning documents are...
16.09.2021 Posted in Family & Trust Wills Estates
New Fair Trading Act provisions spark need to review small trade contracts
The Fair Trading Amendment Bill received Royal Assent on 16 August 2021 and is now the Fair Trading Amendment Act 2021 (Amendment Act).  The Amendment Act amends the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA), with...
Employment Relations Authority Finds Dismissal of Unvaccinated Border Worker to be Justified
On 1 September 2021, The Employment Relations Authority (Authority) determined in GF v New Zealand Customs Service [2021] NZERA 382, that the New Zealand Customs Service (Customs) was justified in its...
10.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
AML/CFT guidance with the High Court’s decision in Reserve Bank of New Zealand and TSB Bank Limited
On 31 August 2021, the High Court of Wellington released its decision on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand v TSB Bank Limited.
09.09.2021 Posted in AML/CFT & Banking and Finance
Supreme Court asserts Employment Relations Authority exclusive jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has recently issued a significant judgment clarifying that the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) has exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising in a “work context”. In d...
09.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment
How much does one truly deserve?
A critical analysis of the New Zealand and Australian High Courts' approach to quantum meruit claims within the construction industry
06.09.2021 Posted in Construction & Regulatory
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->