Promoter v. Soccer Club

Just like Leicester City’s Remarkable Triumph in the 2015/16 Premier League Season, Shields Legal’s Client Was an Underdog that Overcame the Odds, Persevered, and Emerged Victorious

Introduction

Shields Legal’s client, a sports promotion business, specialized in helping professional sports teams secure U.S. venues for exhibition matches and promoting these events. After many years of working exclusively with a professional soccer club, they negotiated a new contract. Although this contract was no longer exclusive, it granted our client the right of first refusal for upcoming sports events.

Problem

Under the new option contract, the soccer club was required to offer the promoter the right of first refusal for any opportunity to promote a U.S. match. When an opportunity arose, the club presented it to the promoter, who promptly accepted the terms provided. However, the club had initially failed to disclose all the terms. Once the complete terms were revealed, the promoter accepted those as well. Subsequently, the club attempted to introduce new, material terms, including changing the venue for legal disputes from Dallas to Mexico and imposing additional obligations on the promoter that were not part of the original contract. These new terms were deal breakers. The club then tried to back out of the agreement using various excuses. Ultimately, the soccer club refused to proceed with the match, leading the promoter to file a lawsuit.

The promoter won at trial, prompting the soccer club to file an appeal. The promoter then retained Shields Legal to handle the appeal. The challenges on appeal stemmed from the fact that the options contract was originally drafted in Spanish and lacked clarity. Additionally, the parties had unsuccessfully negotiated further terms after the option was accepted. Many communications and filings were in Spanish, and even one of the appellate justices, who speaks Spanish, had a different translation of the option acceptance than what was presented to the trial court.

Solution

The soccer club’s disorganized arguments persisted through the appeal. Shields Legal responded with steady persistence. First, Shields aggressively pushed the club to comply with appellate rules and submit a coherent brief. The club’s lawyers were required to file three separate briefs before they could clearly articulate the issues for appeal. Second, Shields avoided getting sidetracked by the club’s chaotic theories, instead redirecting the focus of the appeal to the winning facts and law.

Conclusion

News of the dispute spread throughout the soccer world, generating negative publicity for our promoter client until the final judgment was affirmed. The appellate court ultimately agreed with Shields Legal’s argument that the promoter had complied with the right of first refusal contract terms and that the acceptance of the opportunity resulted in an enforceable option. Shields’ handling of this challenging appeal demonstrates that slow and steady truly wins the race. The case is reported at 2024 WL 5244620 (Tex. App. – Dallas Dec. 30, 2024).