On the legal protection of the right to privacy, reputation and image of American sports stars
Today's professional players are famous, and those who are talented may have made a name for themselves locally a long time ago. In recent years, celebrities' fame has become a means of earning huge fortunes, and famous sports stars have concluded a large number of contracts through the promotion and sponsorship of various goods and services.
They can gain more from allowing their likeness to be used on goods and services, far more than their sporting performance or the accolades they have won. For example, Michael Jordan signed his first sponsorship deal with Nike in 1985, totaling $2.5 million.
He made more money from contracts with sponsors than he earned through the American league. Before LeBron James set foot in the NBA, he signed a five-year contract with Appledeck Sports and Entertainment Media for a five-million-dollar investment to promote their jerseys.
In addition, he signed a seven-year sneaker contract with Nike with a total value of $90 million. In 2015, NBA superstars Kevin Durant and Serena Williams received $35 million and $13 million, respectively, from sponsors.
Ben Simmons is an NBA rookie who signed a $20 million sponsorship fee with Nike before entering the NBA. In the United States, state legislation specifically enacts celebrity reputation, privacy and portrait rights. This system of regulations is constantly improving, and it is not exactly the same in all states.
The U.S. Federal Trademark Act and the Antitrust Act also provide several protections for athletes under the Lanham (Trademark) Act. Defamatory assault includes verbal rumors, defamation, and verbal defamation. In civil litigation, reputational damage is not only caused by celebrities, but celebrity reputational damage is also a special kind of infringement.
Professional players often get the attention in the news, and their personal and work get the media attention, which makes them uncomfortable and their reputation suffers.
Although the definition and treatment of defamation varies from state to state, Article 558 of the Second Restatement of the Tort Law provides a general interpretation of it:
"Civil liability for defamation shall be established in the following ways: (1) making erroneous and insulting remarks against the other party; communicate this declaration to third parties without special permission; (3) the speaker made an error, and such error was at least negligent; (4) A lawsuit may be brought regardless of whether the statement issued by the person concerned with a specific injury. ”
Such a statement must be both false and defamatory, i.e., it is intended to damage the reputation of the person to whom it is directed in the minds of others.
This concept is not covered, but another factor that is generally accepted is that a misrepresentation should be a statement about a fact, not just a statement of opinion.
Written reports on the professional conduct of players and coaches are primarily expressions of personal views and do not serve as a basis for prosecution, even if they are detrimental to the player's reputation.
For example, a report that says that a coach "often finds ways to mess things up" and that "this season will be no exception" would not be a slur that can be sued, because it is merely a view of how the coach is likely to perform in the coming season and what the coach is capable of.
In addition, reports of "manipulating" a boxing match, taking cocaine with his opponent after the match, and clandestinely using a holster containing a hard substance are also unrealistic reports that will seriously affect the reputation and property of the fighter. False descriptions of a player's private life, such as his illegal activities, are also a slur.
As a result of the landmark case of the New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court's derogatory law on "traditional states" has been amended for the Federal Constitution.
Therefore, for nearly 40 years, the First Amendment on freedom of expression has also been taken into account in defamation cases.
For a well-known sports star, to be considered a "public figure", if it is to be valid, then clear and conclusive facts are needed to prove that he has "deliberate malice".
That is to say, the respondent either knew that his statement was wrong, or the respondent was indifferent to the truth of his statement.
So, while players may be protected by stigma laws, it will be difficult for them to prove the necessary elements of these stigma violations.
