25 - Part 3: Negotiations and Public Relations
In Part 3 of this series, we explore the commercial and reputational consequences of Mills’ Tweet, and the corrective action taken by him.
Commercial settlement – sponsors
Endorsement deals with sponsors represent a valuable and lucrative source of income for many professional players. They raise player profile and can influence overall market value.
As a result of his public statements and recent national controversy, Mills’ sponsors are naturally concerned and his existing endorsement deals, and future deals, are at risk.
Being a well-known sportswear brand, Neikea caters to all genders, and it was safe to say that its customers were not pleased by Mills’ statement. Unsurprisingly, neither were Nikea; and they believed that their association with Mills brought their brand into disrepute.
“7. Player Warranties:
7.1. The Player has not during the past and shall not during the term of the Agreement….behave in any manner, which may reasonably be considered materially prejudicial to the Company or its Products or the legitimate interests of the Company or such that the Company would no longer wish the continuation of the its association between the Company and its Products on the one hand and the Player on the other.
[…]
10. Breach and Termination
10.1. The Company and the Player acknowledge that a breach by the Player of Clause 7.1 above is incapable of remedy and shall entitle the Company to terminate the Agreement immediately”
At the start of the meeting, Nikea take a hard stance and their lawyers remind Mills of their contractual right to terminate the relationship immediately. However, Mills shows remorse during the meeting and his solicitors highlight the various measures Mills took to prevent any negative publicity for him and his sponsors. Notably:
1. Mills issued a swift public apology to both Russel and the referee (and commercial settlements were reached, with a children’s charity receiving the settlement sum paid by Mills to Russell).
2. He wholeheartedly apologised to Women Can and wrote a statement, agreed with them, advocating for women’s rights in sport.
3. He served his disciplinary sanction without protest and paid his fine immediately.
4. Footage of him in full training with Paddington emerged, showing him to be at peak form. The manager praised his work ethic and he was part of the squad for the weekend’s upcoming fixture.
5. He received sympathetic press following the incident and his decision to accept and acknowledge his mistake was well received by the media, the fans and the public.
Taking these mitigating factors into account, Neikea decide to give Mills one last chance, provided he agrees to the following:
1. The annual endorsement fees paid by Neikea are to be reduced by 20%.
2. Mills is subject to a ‘probation period’ until the end of the season, giving Neikea the right to unilaterally terminate their relationship with him if he is found guilty of any misconduct by the FA or any other tribunal during the season.
Mills accepts these conditions. After all, he was aware that he must stand accountable for his actions. This is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things, especially had he not promptly instructed his solicitors to help him.
Public relations – ‘Women Can’ and other social groups
The impact of Mills’ statement spread far beyond the individuals he intended to attack.
While his statement that Russel was “rolling around like a little girl” was not intended to identify or offend anyone except Russel himself, it had the direct impact of equating the female gender with weakness and he should not have said this. The women’s activist group, ‘Women Can’, took serious issue with his statement, and put pressure on the FA to act against Mills, which they did (as dealt with in part 2 of this series).
Women Can were also extremely influential in relation to public opinion, where Mills was described as ‘patriarchal’, ‘sexist’ and an ‘alpha male’, among other things in the press. This heavily influenced Neikea’s decision to seek to terminate their relationship with him, which (thankfully for Mills) was salvaged thanks to some good advice and negotiations by his representatives.
However, Mills genuinely felt he needed to make up for his actions and the whole incident sparked a desire in him to do as much as he could to remedy his faults and strive to advocate the women’s game – he wrote a personal apology to the group ‘Women Can’ (which they accepted) and committed himself to a course in diversity and equal opportunities, referred to him by the FA. He began to take a sincere interest in the women’s game and was seen attending Paddington’s women’s team fixtures, during his free time.
While his efforts to remedy his faults certainly did not convince everyone, Mills was well on his way to putting the incident behind him, repairing his own reputation, and winning his way back into public favour; many were willing to give him his fair chance, since he was turning over a new leaf. At least they believed so…
-
There have been many instances where sponsors instantly disassociate themselves with athletes following adverse publicity. Cases involving Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong are two high profile examples. ↩
-
Sanctioned in 2016 by the FA for a series of sexist and homophobic tweets over a two month period in 2012, before he rose to fame. ↩
-
Banned for 3 UEFA Champions League matches (reduced to 2 on appeal to CAS) for comments made against a referee following PSG’s defeat to Manchester United in the 2018-19 Champions League round of 16. ↩
-
Suspended for 1 first time match and fined £50,000 by the FA for racially stereotyping a fellow teammate Benjamin Mendy on Twitter. Notwithstanding this, manager Pep Guardiola and Mendy himself have come out in support of Silva, saying the tweet was nothing but a joke shared between two friends. ↩