Ferdinand v. Manchester United, Essay Example

A Case Study of HR and organizational communications management in professional sports

Introduction

The background to the case of the ‘absurd’ offers a story of the devolution of channel communications into management conundrum. Contemporary integration between human resource and organizational communications management is well presented in the foregoing brief analysis of a professional sports team member of the British Football Team and Corporation, Manchester United. In this study, a player is put to an ethical examination by his superiors in detriment to himself and to the Team. However, complications related to standing regulatory restrictions substantiate the impetus for decision by United’s management sheds the spotlight on the professional rigors that ‘employees’ of such publically noted organizations must be complicit with.

Initiation of the problem in focus begins with Rio Ferdinand, the England and Manchester United defender, whom was due for a random, routine drug test but unintentionally ‘forgets’ because he is moving and finds himself late to the training ground after the testers have gone home. Two days later he tests with negative results. Responsive to this slip in fulfillment of protocol according to contract, the incidence is taken up between Manchester United and the Football Association, concluding in decision that he must not be selected from the England Squad to go to Turkey for the forthcoming European Championship qualifying match the next month.

Communications delays to announcement of the decision by the manager, Sven Goran Eriksson fueled speculation, and at the dawn of the qualifying match at the press conference given by Manchester United the announcement reached the public that Ferdinand had been left out of the squad. Reactions from disgruntled team members underscored the issue of compromise to confidentiality by contract; branding Ferdinand as ‘guilty’ without actual drug abuse charges. Attention is also called to Ferdinand’s obligatory appearance at a Football Association hearing the consecutive week of the match. Threat of boycott by the players finally furthers the impression of division between the Association and the stance taken by the players. At the final hour, the Association announces that an agreement has been reached and the match goes forward.

Case Study

If the primary function of public relations is identity management, mismanaged communications, both in terms of content and the form, may lead to desultory results for all parties. How PR messages are constructed and channeled is the fundamental nexus upon which the very future(s) of individuals, commercial and political enterprises spin. Indeed, the term “spin doctoring” situates the practice of business communication in the realm of a “cure.” Unfortunately more damage than cure often results from so called “official” interventions on ethical dilemmas. In confrontation with commercial contract relationships, and in particular concerning contractor such as sports players whom are both “labor” and licensed trademark (and even in the case where licensing rights are under contract by another party) independent and inherent legal rights of an individual supersede all regulatory claims.

Once a violation of person has taken place, even where automatic repudiation of a contract has been deemed in response to neglect of performance by the contractor and resultant irresponsibility toward the reliance of the contractee is at stake, regulatory authority takes a back seat. While decisions made by the contractee (i.e., Manchester United) in conjunction with a regulatory body (i.e., FA) provide the contractee with a position of what appears at first glance to be customary and “official,” the legislative underpinnings of the relationship in question only point to breach, not punitive license to mismanage or harm the contractor (i.e., team player) beyond retraction of obligation. It is at the locus between public relations communications and legal praxis, and especially in relation to legal writings, that questions of “right to reputation” and superseding legitimacy gets played out both within courts of law and within the spin doctoring of public discourse.

Stakeholder mediation of the Ferdinand v. Manchester United case reveals that the vertical channel of communication mobilized by United’s management and the Football Association in response to Rio Ferdinand’s breach of contract to test in a timely manner, has resulted in bad faith negotiations with he and the other players whom call the decision unfair. What was an errant mistake by Ferdinand, which did not in fact result in a dirty drug test, only a late one, resulted not only in internal communication with Ferdinand, and action in the form of a retracted game contract for the European Championship qualifying match in Turkey, but an outright public defamation of his person within the press.

While Manchester United obviously views this as a customary and legitimate mode of public relations practice, the exaggerated model of denying the player his normative position on the field for one game, has resulted in a more complicated internal issue with the morale of other players, and a far more critical external matter which is potential lawsuit by Ferdinand for ruin of individual reputation and violation of trademark licensure.

From a business perspective, Manchester United’s public relations channel and message appears, at first glance, a fairly typical method of dealing with violators of strict regulatory provisions within the professional international sports arena. However, since Ferdinand did not, in fact violate those provisions beyond “mistake” rather than intentional misconduct or denial of performance, his obligation to the contract agreement is salient as all preceding actions by him as a contractor, point to “good faith” consideration of the constructive conditions of the contract. In short, there was no rationale for Manchester United to believe otherwise once he tested “drug free” and limitation of performance for only one game within the contract, and investment in continuation with the agreement as the contractee for future performance substantiates this position.

Therefore, something happened that was not quite proper communications management. By forsaking Ferdinand’s identity for the sake of team identity, in response to regulatory legislation, was an unwise decision on the part of the Football Association, on behalf of Manchester United. Excuse in this regard is hard to imagine, as regulatory bodies are obviously staffed by counsel, and regardless of specialization, lawyers are trained comprehensively, and especially in respect to sub-specialties within the law such as the relation of commercial regulatory policies pertaining to reprimand, and the rights of players whom are also trademarked identities. It appears that the success of the message failed under the very circumstances the team management expected to hedge against; players whom assume independent decision under contract. Institutional communication barriers between Manchester United, the FA and players do not at all translate to a barrier between internal decisions against players and their exhibition within the public sphere. Not only was Ferdinand not told about the press conference prior to release, he was given no official channel within the organization from which to effectively respond as a “team player” willing to support decision with his reputation intact.

An alternative approach to negotiation of Rio Ferdinand’s contract breach with Manchester United would have been a concerted effort on the part of management to reprimand the player according to Football Association rules, but without severe damage to his reputation within the public media. If the intention was to continue Ferdinand’s contract in good faith with use of his identity for licensure, and in full support of his co-players position and reputation as a “team” with both celebrity and professional considerations, management of public relations should have been met with more discretion.

Collaborative message building is essential to formation of a coherent organizational picture; a representation that incorporates all levels of professional interest and stakeholder responsibility. Consultation with counsel outside of the regulatory commission on such matters should be made an actionable item within organizational strategy, so that all forthcoming issues that may, and most likely will occur, are dealt with both precision and protection in mind. What Manchester United hoped to accomplish with its existing top down, yet politically and legally incompetent method of informational dissemination and identity management, invariably resulted in yet another communications (and extra-organizational) dilemma.

Conclusion

Official communications strategies require careful handling, particularly in a case where 1) third party contracts bind contractor’s to corporations through employment and representation, that are then; 2) subject to decisions between the contractee and a regulatory body;  and 3) dissemination of those decisions are then made to the public through press release. Where there is highly restrictive vertical flow of communication between the contractee and the regulatory body, and the contractor, in this case a team sports professional whom is also a legal trademark, dissemination of information between the contractee and the regulatory body, and the adverse incumbent whom is potentially in breach of contract over the “mistake” pertaining to preceding agreement to test on time, must be effectively managed. Each cog in the machine must be dealt with on equivalent terms.

Despite concern over forthcoming performance by the player, identity management of both the team and the player must be brought under ethical and legal consideration, and this is in either in a unilateral or bilateral agreement context, as international law stipulates “right to identity;” and especially in the case where that identity is so articulated according to trademark code in formation of contract, under commercial law, which also includes brand identity as an aspect of those conditions.

Due to a fairly recent history of precedent related to cases of identity mismanagement and related rules regarding defamation and attendant charges in the United Kingdom, the team and the Football Associatino have actually put themselves in a precarious position for legal detriment. Defamation, libel, and slander are all elements of common law that can result in deep pocket damages for Plaintiff’s harmed by tortfeasors, but in the case of trademarked identities it is an almost absolute fiscal slaughter. Here, we see that for professional sports players, the dual status as ‘employee’ and ‘celebrity identity’ promulgates tense situations at times where the true opponents in the game reveal themselves to be on the same team; and solutions may only be found through public humiliation and reproach.

Trademarked players are considered under contract conditions according to reliance on constructive conditions and/or parallel rules in the U.K., which are typically stipulated according to signatory agreement. In the case whereby Ferdinand were to sue Manchester United and the Football Association, counter-action may be pursued by the defendants citing prior knowledge of the testing within the player’s contract, and that  breach of performance constitutes automatic repudiation of contract by the player. The corporation and the institutional body obviously aware of these potentialities are nevertheless responding to the player’s action by “custom” (i.e., where the reputation of Manchester United is handled with absolute “sports authority” – a coach finger that plays out within the popular imagination of the public and the fans, as more macho, and more righteous than the regulatory laws themselves).

Proverbial public reprimand of Ferdinand, however has resulted in a level of severity that is unusual to enforce internal restrictions (i.e., press release of his “guilt” as rationale for detracting his right to play in Turkey), and will most likely be considered excessive and unfair, not to mention unreasonable in terms of a continued expectation of future performance by the player. In sum, the exclusion of internal communication with the player prior to release of official information to external parties by a highly vertical channel of communication – deemed customary by team management and the regulatory body – is a sitting duck for litigious action by the player. Legally speaking, prior court decision is in favor of Ferdinand. Regardless of contract breach, tortious action by the other party and its regulatory counterpart is negligent toward the individual legal rights of the player which are constructed as “denial of future benefit” and “protection from harm.” In fact, contract and tort suits filed against parties for defamation of reputation, mismanagement of identity of other libelous acts by plaintiff individuals with legal standing as commercial trademarks, have been especially successful at winning their cases within British courts.  This includes foreign nationals, residing elsewhere, whom file charges against the British press.