considering that, do you know if it would be legal for a clause to be written into the players contract with the association - that any external individual contract must be checked/approved (only) for the purposes of conflict or potential conflict by the association? Seems like it would be or have been the sensible thing to have in place, considering people are usually out for themselves and the results are terrible for all concerned when it does come to head. This is not the first instance of this sort of thing.
Totally agreed, unless it is impossible for them legally to have any interference with the players individual contracts.
Look at it this way - the whole saga can be prevented if the players, coaches and DBA officials just talk to each other, that is maintain proper communication and good relationship like any close-knit, well-run organization. What is the association set up for? For example, the players know they aren't allowed to sign personal contracts as per DBA policy but still went ahead.Later, DBA came to know about it, the players were openly seen wearing Kjeldsens T-shirts/tops (as seen on TV as claimed by some fans here) but chose to do nothing,thereby tacitly giving permission by not even warning or alerting the culprits about the rule violation (maybe DBA did but took no concrete action). The two years later, two coaches managed to broker a deal with Danisa for DBA who happily jumped at the opportunity without first notifying the five Kjeldsens players there is a conflict of interest and/or breach of contract on the part of the five players involved; and when things turned awry, DBA simply chose to sacrifice the five players by expelling them. In the first place, do we realize that before DBA could find any sponsor for a long time, the players took the initiative to sign up personal contracts; indirectly, Kjeldsens is helping DBA by sponsoring the five players. I mean DBA is the players immediate authority who is supposed to provide support and look after their interests and wellbeing. In this case, the five players have committed a mistake but their original intention is not bad, DBA didn't suffer any losses until Danisa comes along with an attractive deal. But is this how DBA should deal with the 'errant' players? Did DBA reveal to Danisa they have five players sponsored by Kjeldsens before agreeing to the terms of the new contract? As for the five players, they have been contributing to Danish badminton for several years positively, winning titles and doing their part to promote the sport in Denmark and elsewhere - don't they deserve some credit and better treatment than expulsion? There is such a thing called long-service award and achievements. Even if the Danisa contract is worth millions, how about using some of the money to compensate Kjeldsens and save the five players? I think at this late stage, the Danish Sports Ministry may have to come in and resolve the issue. Who knows, Team Denmark may still have a chance at the Sudirman Cup with a full-force lineup.
Assuming Danisa is only interested in fighting a worldwide cookies war with Kjeldsens, I should think DBA needn't allow itself to be a pawn in their corporate game, the interests of Danish badminton as a whole ought to be paramount.
this depends on the legal system of the country. But would you allow your employer to do it? Or would you regard it as an invasion of privacy and autonomy?
There was no misunderstanding between DBF and the players on who owns the right to the advertising space on the national team uniform. Therefore, DBF should not be accused of not informing its players. The players did not insist on putting blue tin cookies on the national team uniform, as they knew that is not their decision. The players' objection was towards a specific sponsor because they signed a contract with a very strange, or even devious, provision that prevents them from wearing the logo of their sponsor's competitors. The players knew the risk but decided to take a chance ("not too many competitors"). They are responsible to untangle the mess. Who signed the contract first is not an issue. The players simply don't have the right to sign a contract with that provision, if they want to honor their agreement with DBF and remain on the national team. Just to be clear, signing their own personal contract is not the problem. The problem is that they stepped out of bounds and promised something they have no rights to. They knew enough not to promise putting blue tin cookie on the national team uniform, but they now claimed that they did not anticipate white tin cookie would become the sponsor. And that, unfortunately, is their own mistake.
i suspect that the association would require the players not to enter into any personal contract with any third party which may conflict with their duties to the association unless and until it is pre-approved in writing by the association. obviously, the players' personal contract with a third party is supposed to be confidential, meaning they can't disclose the contents to the association unless the third party agrees to that specific disclosure. This disclosure to and pre-approval by the association maybe a condition of the personal contract.
Whoever is right or wrong, there are many losers in this debacle, except for one... 5 top players: lose DBA: lose Danish public: lose Kjeldsen's: lose Danisa: win... and rubbing their hands in glee
Apparently the coaches were not aware of this little fact when they "encouraged" this deal... and so were unwittingly used as such.
do you think it is now possible for the top 5 players and the coaches/management of DBA to work together again in the future, even if they now reconcile?
Judging by how they've reacted to the situation I don't think the they'll really ever go back to how they were. I mean it's really not a big deal that Mogensen didn't shake Toft's hand, if he politely refused just explaining they're at odds, that's fair play. But shrugging, backing up and giving Toft a dirty look is an overt statement to his disdain towards the DBA. It's also worth mentioning that these 5 are quite headstrong with their personality, at the very least observable on court. I am of the personal opinion that even if they do strike a deal, it'll be business only.
I would for sure allow my employer to do it. The amount of the contract could be blotted out. It would just be a safe guard, to stop everybody be stuck up creek without a paddle. Lets face it everybody found out the conditions of the contract anyway. If I wasn't happy about a potential employer having this tiny amount of control and in return they pay me to do my hobby as a job, I could not sign, not join the association and try doing it independent.
I don't get what your saying. obviously nothing was approved by the association because the players had a big red sticker saying Kjeldsens on their shirt and we know that sponsor was in complete confliction with their contract with the association. So either that's not in place(but should be) or it is and the association never did their job. Either way If i were funding a bunch of players who take several years to train up and needed them for team competitions that they want to play in, I would not leave it to chance or trust them to not mess it up in some way for me, so I would have all the procedures in place.
One can argue that allowing the company to view the contract will also give them the ability to make the conflict occur, thus forcing the players out without them having to fire them. Obviously this is hypothetical, and there's a lack of communication between the players and the association. Companies are out there to make a profit, not to protect their own employees. As long as they don't do anything illegal, they really can do anything the please, including screwing their own employees over. In this very case, if there was motive, DBA seeing their contract would have enabled them to create a situation to fire the players. But this is all hypothetical anyway. From a legal standpoint, I don't see any benefit from reveal the details of a contract, other than notifying the associations of potential conflicts. As much as I too would like to believe that there are decent people out there, money talks, exemplified by the current Danish cookies debacle.
??? DBA could not create a conflict. The players are allowed individual contracts, if there is nothing in that contract that will stop the players playing for the national squad then there is no way of a problem occurring, what do you mean? DBA would just check for clauses like "you can't advertise with a competitor in our industry at any time even in team play" etc.
First things first, this is purely speculative and hypothetical, in no way am I saying this occurred, but only an example for how DBA can potentially screw their players over for reasons such as "I hate this player, but can't expel them for a random reason". Scenario: 5 players sign with cookie company, in their clause it says that "you are not allowed to wear a competitor's brand e.g. Danisa" Intent: Man, I really don't like these players, they're hogging up the funding, they disrespect the staff, we just don't get along, but I can't really just fire them because they're the only ones who win any kind of medals. (Once again, I'm only talking a possibility, even then a small one). Action to expel the members: Purposely sign their sole competitor and reason that as the national body, their priority is above the player's. In this case, the player's revealing their contract in terms of what they can and cannot do is to their disadvantage. Their solution should be raising potentially conflicting stipulations to the DBA before signing the contract, before anything is legally binding. Not saying DBA created a conflict, but if they wished to, they could have. Revealing your binding contract to anyone with authority over you can allow them to place you into a situation where you lose. Thus, think twice before you sign anything, and then think two more times. P.S. totally not a lawyer
Hypothetically still. Your missing something, they couldn't just approve that there is no potential conflict then renege. Knowing the details would be of no be benifit if you are trying to get one over and get rid of players so that scenario doesn't work as it would be all there on file. the answer is association should see the contracts but as I said could only dissaprove them based on a potential conflict.
The "5 players" didn't collectively sign a sponsor contract with Kjeldsens. The first two were Boe and Mogensen in 2012. The players have been negotiating terms for national team inclusion/representation several times over the years until the current version (apparently a first actual collective players agreement) as announced in February 2013. It's not like the terms were a mystery to them, they had a hand in it. Juhl, Pedersen, Fischer only signed with Kjeldsens afterwards. As can be seen here at the Swiss Open in 2013, no sponsorship to be seen (and at the 2013 WC still no sign of sponsorship): The players agreed to be part of marketing Team Denmark as a product when they signed the collective agreement yet when push came to shove they couldn't even live up to their end of the deal due their individual contracts (which in all practicality is at most two weeks out of the year) As for your theory: they played with this Kjeldsens sponsorship on the NT jersey last February in the European Team Championships so any conflict should have arised fairly recently or been simmering for a while which is also not out of the questio.( I also mentioned there must probably have been some underlying issue as well to cause such a strong reaction). Badminton Denmark hasn't had a shirtsponsor for ages btw ... Media coverage in Denmark is very minor in case anyone thought otherwise. This cookie-gate has been the most attention it's had in ages . Anyhoo they are back in talks apprently ...
Thanks for adding more details to the picture. This is consistent with my read of the situation, based on the available information and the reactions from the parties involved. Good to know that Danish badminton is getting its day in the media. As they say, no publicity is bad publicity. A few years back, the Harding-Kerrigan incident pushed figure skating into new heights in popularity. Maybe the cookie war will do the same for badminton, at least in Denmark.
