Tuesday, 26 July 2011

Rugby Court [updated]

Apparently the RWC is getting its own court, situated in the offices of its own law firm, to adjudicate disputes arising from the crazy emergency legislation passed to protect the RWC against such evils as little girls setting up lemonade stands on the sidewalks where rugby fans might walk. Writes Jock Anderson at the National Business Review (you should subscribe...):
In line with war-time-like emergency powers to keep non-believers in check, the rugby world cup will have its own kangaroo court.

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.
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]
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.

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.
This sort of thing pushes me from being ambivalent about rugby to actively hating it.

Update: In the comments below, Anon writes:
"any RWC losses arising from lost sponsorship wind up being covered by the government"

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.
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.

11 comments:

  1. If there was ever a country that needed a written constitution ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Every RWC since at least 1999 has had the same rules, so by extension Wales, England, Australia and France have abided by the same rules. NZ had co hosting of the 2003 WC but lost it because it would not abide by these rules.

    Fifa has similar rules.. which means dozens of countries great and small abide by the rules of these world events.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  3. @JC: As my mom would have said, even if everybody else is jumping off a bridge....

    ReplyDelete
  4. "any RWC losses arising from lost sponsorship wind up being covered by the government"

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eric,

    Except nobody is jumping off a bridge or doing anything remotely harmful to the economy or the national psyche. A suggested loss of $40/60/100 million dollar loss is massively within a GDP of $170 billion or even national liabilities.. especially when Govts make multi-billion decisions lasting decades.

    A rugby WC for NZ is a "branding" for its first passion and the ABs, a tourist opportunity and a showcase.. its a cheap deal for Govt and the regions.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  6. @anon: That is useful! Thanks!

    @JC: I wonder how well that would have gone over had it been the selling pitch at the outset instead of a bunch of made up numbers about benefits...

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I wonder how well that would have gone over had it been the selling pitch at the outset instead of a bunch of made up numbers about benefits..."

    Not well at all.. we expect our politicians to lie about critical stuff like this. Economists don't seem to understand the yin and yang about this.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  8. A few of us were arguing from the start that it was bait and switch; I don't think there ever has been an honest cost benefit study used in support of a city or country bid for a major event. Happy to damn both voters for believing it and RWC for exploiting it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Does this court have powers to perform the required crucifixions should we fail to win the RWC?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 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.nice post thanx for sharing

    ReplyDelete