In line with war-time-like emergency powers to keep non-believers in check, the rugby world cup will have its own kangaroo court.And you can't even show annoyance by boycotting sponsors: any RWC losses arising from lost sponsorship wind up being covered by the government anyway. [Update below]
But how much it will cost the taxpayer for a High Court judge to sit on it, with support staff, remains a mystery.
Commercial disputes arising at the rugby tournament will be dealt with by High Court Justice Douglas White at the private offices of Russell McVeagh – the official law firm of the rugby world cup.
Most big law firms have a slice of the tournament’s lucrative legal gravy train, according to the New Zealand Law Society’s LawTalk magazine.This sort of thing pushes me from being ambivalent about rugby to actively hating it.
Russell McVeagh acts for Rugby World Cup Ltd (the tournament owner); Buddle Findlay acts for Rugby New Zealand 2011 Ltd (the joint venture between NZRU and the government).
Minter Ellison Rudd Watts acts for RTH (the official travel and hospitality provider), a number of corporates on rugby world cup 2011 related issues, and was appointed to represent a number of inbound teams including those from the Pacific islands.
LawTalk reported a significant part of the tournament’s legal framework would be the Major Events Management Act, which was passed with the protection of the tournament as its primary goal.
It’s aim was to “maximise the benefits to New Zealanders, prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation of the tournament at the expense of the organiser or sponsors, and to ensure the smooth running of the tournament.”
Big-dollar global sponsors will be working with Russell McVeagh and a small army of “monitors” to jealously ensure their rights are protected.
Update: In the comments below, Anon writes:
"any RWC losses arising from lost sponsorship wind up being covered by the government"And so I will reduce at the margin my likelihood of buying stuff from RWC sponsors. I'm really lazy, so the effect won't be large. But if sponsorship helps internalise warm glow positive externalities from events, such marginal reductions in purchasing likelihood ought help internalise angry glow negative externalities.
This is not correct. The government covers 2/3 of the losses from Rugby New Zealand 2011 Ltd, which is responsible for organising the tournament. So not buying tickets costs the government money.
Rugby New Zealand 2011 Ltd has nothing to do with sponsorship, which is is handled by Rugby World Cup Ltd, a subsidiary of the International Rugby Board. So boycotting sponsors has no effect on the government.