Damage control: managing misconduct allegations in sport

What to do when allegations are raised

Privacy (data protection) law considerations

Allegations of misconduct may be made in a variety of ways. They could come to light first via a media enquiry, a social media post, a whistleblowing claim or in an anonymous blog or open letter. For an organisation, it is critically important to establish the facts and the legal position as soon as possible. 

Assuming claims have been made against an employee, immediate steps might include:

• suspension or other disciplinary action;
• referral of the matter to any relevant authorities; and/or
• the commissioning of an internal investigation.

The considerations around suspension (or other disciplinary action including dismissal) will be largely employment-law driven, albeit an eye to reputation is important. However, there are also important privacy (and data protection) factors. For example, if allegations of a criminal nature are raised against an employee and a police investigation is commenced, the starting point is that an individual under investigation (prior to charge) has a reasonable expectation of privacy, as established by the Supreme Court’s decision in ZXC v Bloomberg [2]. The suspension of a high-profile employee in such circumstances might even be argued to constitute an infringement of their privacy rights if it served to reveal that they were the person under investigation. It could also form the basis of a later claim in the Employment Tribunal, as the case of Mendy v Manchester City [3]demonstrated. 

On the other side of the coin, those who raise allegations of misconduct will also have rights that need to be considered. In cases of sexual misconduct, the complainant will be entitled to lifelong statutory anonymity pursuant to section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (1992 Act) if the allegations relate to an offence to which the 1992 Act applies [4]. Regardless of whether the 1992 Act applies or whether the allegation is of a sexual nature, the privacy rights of a complainant will merit very careful consideration.

Other legal considerations will include:

• Analysing the lawful basis for any processing of individuals’ personal data in the course of responding to or investigating the allegations. This includes establishing that such processing is fair and lawful pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and therefore that a lawful basis exists under Article 6(1) of the UK GDPR. Where the information involves special category personal data (such as data concerning health or a person’s sex life) [5] or personal data relating to criminal offences (including allegations) [6], the organisation must also be able to demonstrate that a condition under Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) applies.  Alternatively, one of the exemptions from the UK GDPR [7] might apply – for instance, data protection law does not prevent an organisation seeking legal advice on matters where sensitive personal data is involved [8]; and

• Contractual or common law duties of confidence owed to individuals, including pursuant to specific provisions in employment contract(s) or internal policy documents.

The rights of those individuals involved in the allegations must therefore be assessed when it comes to any internal or external communications.  Internal communications should generally be restricted to a need-to-know basis for the purposes of handling and investigating the allegations. More generally, organisations must ask themselves the basis for any communications, and how this interacts and is to be balanced with the rights of individuals. The emotional wellbeing of individuals involved must also be considered at every stage.

Strategic and communications planning

Providing appropriate support and guidance to both the complainant and the individual facing allegations – working closely with HR or people teams – is not only the right thing to do, but also vital for protecting an organisation’s reputation. Failing to do so, particularly in high-profile cases, could lead to further backlash. For instance, when Red Bull opted to suspend the woman who had accused the team principal of inappropriate behaviour, the negative impact on her mental health made headlines and generated negative public perceptions of the F1 team’s handling of the case.

Engaging with all relevant stakeholders in the ‘right’ way is particularly complex in the world of sport. Power and influence are often spread across multiple groups by design, to encourage balanced representation and fair decision-making.  Sports industry stakeholders are therefore, by their nature, fragmented. Whether this is a governing body grappling with conflicting viewpoints amongst club owners or leaders, or professional bodies coming up against individual sportspeople with a powerful reach of their own, it can be much more difficult to maintain a consistent narrative or approach than within a business. 

From a crisis communications perspective, the best approach is always to plan and prepare before a crisis hits. This means having clear protocols for who responds, how, and when – supported by pre-agreed internal sign-off processes. In practice, this involves pre-drafting reactive statements for key types of potential allegations (such as sexual misconduct, bullying or safeguarding issues), ensuring spokespeople and crisis teams are trained and ready, and having trusted advisors on-call to provide urgent support when needed. In the world of sport, this also requires careful planning for how to brief a wide range of stakeholders and maintain as much alignment as possible across diverse, fragmented audiences.

The commentary above assumes that the allegations deserve to be taken seriously. While rare, it is not unheard of for individuals to raise allegations of misconduct that are wholly without merit, fanciful and/or malicious.  This can be difficult to establish at the outset and even a preliminary investigation may be needed. There is unquestionably a degree of risk in forming such a view early on and taking robust action to protect the organisation and/or individual(s)’ reputations when the facts are not fully established.  Invariably, there will need to be a degree of triage.  But there have certainly been examples where this is the position [9] and the purported complainant becomes a prospective or actual defendant.

How to manage increasing publicity

In sport, cases often involve high-profile organisations and individuals – which means that the spectre of publicity is constant. Moreover, the threshold for media and public interest is typically lower than in the corporate world. Given the influence of digital and social media, publicity can take many forms nowadays – however, in the context of a case with legal ramifications, mainstream press coverage remains the most significant driver of public attention (and therefore potential reputational damage).

Organisations will need a core team to manage the reputational risk posed by media coverage, comprising certainly the heads of legal and communications, and most likely other senior leadership team members, including the CEO.  This is likely to be supplemented by the involvement of external reputation lawyers and communications advisors, working closely together.  Here are some of the most important considerations for dealing with media coverage (and the surrounding scrutiny):

Assessing how to communicate

1. From a communications perspective, the first priorities are to establish the facts quickly and prevent misinformation from spreading in the meantime. Simply ignoring media enquiries until all the facts are known is rarely effective; it creates an information vacuum that journalists and commentators will inevitably fill with speculation. A better approach is to issue a carefully worded holding statement that acknowledges the situation and outlines the immediate steps being taken, without discussing the allegations in substance. For example, when Chelsea FC faced media pressure over allegations of historic abuse in 2016, the club acted quickly by publicly acknowledging the claims [10] and launching an internal investigation, helping to demonstrate accountability and prevent damaging speculation from taking hold. This early communication and coordinated action played a key role in managing the narrative during a highly sensitive period.

2. In a high-profile situation, the first public statement an organisation issues will usually feature prominently in the initial wave of media coverage; sometimes it will still be quoted several news cycles later. This initial choice of words can therefore have a major, lasting impact on public perception, setting the tone for how the organisation is perceived throughout the crisis. Striking the right balance between transparency, sensitivity and caution is critical. When individual victims and witnesses are (or may be) involved, the priority must be to support them and cooperate with any associated police and/or legal proceedings, above all else. In many circumstances, this requires organisations to refrain from sharing detailed information publicly, at least until legal investigations or proceedings have concluded. In such situations, organisations are usually well-advised to state this directly in their external and internal statements, to ensure journalists and key stakeholders are aware and do not speculate. A typical example of such a holding message is as follows: “We take these allegations extremely seriously and are fully cooperating with the ongoing police investigation. While that process continues, we are unable to comment further. Our immediate priority is providing appropriate support to those affected.” 

3. Reputation management is not about avoiding accountability; it is about responding with fairness, clarity and speed. When responses are delayed or inconsistent, reputational damage can deepen – many cases have highlighted the critical need for a central, authoritative voice within an organisation during a crisis. This should be supported by close coordination between legal and communications teams, and proactive engagement with a complex network of stakeholders. While there is often a temptation to rely heavily on written statements, a more proactive approach – such as offering leadership interviews, issuing a named statement or showing public accountability – can sometimes help to mitigate reputational damage and begin the process of rebuilding trust sooner. This must of course be considered in the context of any legal obligations.

Legal considerations

4. Turning to the legal framework around media reporting, there is no absolute obligation to approach the subjects of a story before publication. However, it is established journalistic practice to seek comment and the legal risk in not doing so for a publisher is considerably higher. As such, those affected by coverage should expect and are entitled to be provided with a reasonable opportunity to set out their position in response to questions or allegations that may be raised.

5. The pre-publication engagement is crucial and provides all involved with an opportunity to try and influence coverage whether by on-the-record comments or background communications. The latter may range from phone conversations with the journalist to legal correspondence designed to highlight the potentially unlawful nature of any article.

6. Where allegations of misconduct are involved, a number of interests are likely to be engaged when dealing with the press:

• [11] The employer: where the media indicate an intention to publish information that is inaccurate and defamatory, confidential or otherwise misleading, the organisation will likely want to remind the relevant outlet(s) of their obligations. The best way to do this is usually a substantive response to the factual inaccuracies or (as applicable) an explanation of why information is confidential and there is no overriding public interest in publication. This is usually done through external counsel in correspondence that is not intended as an on-the-record response (most media organisations will still respect this, although it is not a legal requirement to do so).  Aggressive, but unsubstantiated, responses that threaten legal action are rarely successful.  Any threat about the consequences of publication must be underpinned by a clear and articulated basis to achieve its desired aim.  Injunctions are a rarity and interim pre-publication injunctions in defamation are all but impossible when dealing with the mainstream press, unless they make no effort to advance a substantive defence to a potential claim.

• Individuals about whom claims are made: similar principles apply, although consideration will also need to be given to whether an individual (e.g. a senior executive or player) should have their own legal and communications representation, separate to their employer. In many cases this will be appropriate and necessary to avoid conflicts of interest arising. As noted above, where an individual is under investigation by the Police, they may be able to prevent publication of the fact and details of that investigation, including if necessary through injunctive relief (pursuant to ZXC v Bloomberg).  Alongside the privacy rights of individuals under investigation, media publications will also have to be mindful of the need (once a suspect has been arrested) not to publish any information that creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in any criminal proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.[12] 

• Complainants and witnesses: Such individuals may be cooperating sources for the media, but, if not, their rights (including any anonymity rights) will require extremely careful consideration. Where they are also employees, the employer will also need to factor their position and rights into any response it may give whether on-the-record or on background.

7. The toing-and-froing of legal correspondence and engagement with the journalist will eventually reach a point where it becomes clear that an article either is or is not going to be published:

• Preparation: When publication is imminent, organisations should prepare by scenario-planning (i.e. ‘war-gaming’) for the most likely media narratives and developing a corresponding set of key messages to share with each key stakeholder audience – including employees, partners/sponsors and the general public. The use of third-party validators should also be considered (e.g. former players, safeguarding experts and representative/industry bodies) who can help support the organisation’s messaging, if appropriate.

• Legal and communications teams should jointly map out best- and worst-case headlines and prepare parallel media strategies accordingly, including Q&As and social media escalation plans.

After publication

8. Once an article is published, anyone affected by the coverage may wish to take advice on the options available to seek a correction, complain or take legal action about its content. The likely causes of action in cases such as this will be defamation, misuse of private information (possibly alongside a claim pursuant to the UK GDPR and DPA 2018) or breach of confidence.

9. The media tail of a high-profile misconduct allegation is often long, with sustained public interest well beyond the initial news cycle. Journalists will likely continue to pursue updates on investigation outcomes for months, if not longer. While it is critical that any investigation is thorough and fair, excessively lengthy processes risk creating public skepticism and fueling damaging speculation. Regular, carefully managed updates – even if only to confirm that the process is ongoing – can help maintain credibility and demonstrate that the matter is being taken seriously. This may assist in preventing any vacuum being filled by further negative coverage.

10. Mainstream media coverage is, of course, not the only forum for reputation risk in misconduct cases. Allegations of misconduct (especially in sport) also find their way onto other channels, most frequently social media. Again, those affected by such content may wish to take action either against individuals who post the information or (more likely) against the hosting platform.  While the question of platform liability^[13] could occupy a whole article in itself, and is increasingly in the limelight, social media are more likely to remove content that engages a person’s privacy rights than where there is a dispute about the truth or otherwise of a post.  Of course one has to be realistic, and it will often be practically impossible to remove all online information; a dose of proportionality and pragmatism is usually necessary. 

Key to handling publicity, though, is the preparation and culture of an organisation.  Invariably, well-prepared, cohesive organisations will recover better from even the most serious of crises involving misconduct allegations.  A botched investigation into the allegations and an incoherent communications strategy can, conversely, have much longer lasting reputational and other consequences.

Conclusion

Misconduct cases are, by their very nature, unpredictable.  Clubs, governing bodies and other sports organisations must, first and foremost, be driven by doing the right thing when claims are made.  This approach is invariably the best way to protect reputation.  Some criticism, whether in the media or otherwise, is inevitable.  But the way in which the fallout of allegations is dealt with goes a long way to determining whether the reputational harm becomes a lasting problem. 

^[1] ‘What athletes and their teams need to know when responding to criminal allegations’, lawinsport.com, 31 May 2024, last accessed 10 June 2025, https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/what-athletes-and-their-teams-need-to-know-when-responding-to-criminal-allegations#_Toc168055346

^[2] [2022] UKSC 5, see also WFZ v BBC [2023] EWHC 1618 (KB), https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0122 (last accessed 10 June 2025)

^[3] Case No: 2411709/2023, https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Mendy-v-Manchester-City-FC-judgment.pdf (last accessed 10 June 2025)

^[4] Sections 1 and 2 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992

^[5] Article 9 UK GDPR

^[6] Article 10 UK GDPR

^[7] See Schedule 2 DPA 2018

^[8] See paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 of the DPA 2018 for the legal professional privilege exemption

^[9] See, for example, Glenn v Kline [2021] EWHC 468 (QB), a claim brought by the former CEO of The Football Association and arising out of a campaign of harassment and defamation orchestrated by the publication online of fabricated claims of misconduct. 

^[10] Safeguarding review, chelseafc.com, https://www.chelseafc.com/en/safeguarding-review (last accessed 10 June 2025)

^[11] This is pursuant to the old case of Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269, which remains good law despite much commentary.

^[12] Section 2, Contempt of Court Act 1981

^[13] See for example, Georgia Tetlow, Emily Costello, ‘The Online Safety Act: tackling online abuse in sport’, 7 Nov 2024, last accessed 13 June 2025, https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/the-online-safety-act-tackling-online-abuse-in-sport/

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

© Farrer & Co LLP, June 2025