Kenya’s Sports Dispute Terminal has ruled on a dispute between two rivaling factions within the management of the country’s Premier League football club AFC Leopards related to two sponsorship deals with gambling operators Betway and Sportpesa.
According to the tribunal, both agreements were void and the two factions will have to agree upon one sponsor. Otherwise, the tribunal itself will choose which one of the two companies would be represented by AFC Leopards.
John Ohaga, Chairman of the SDT, explained that under an agreement, made on December 22, 2015, all the club’s decisions regarding the above-mentioned deals first need to be approved by tribunal members in order to be deemed valid.
One of the club’s factions signed a sponsorship agreement with Sportpesa on January 26, and the other penned a similar deal with rival Betway only a day later. Mr. Ohaga said that the two groups have gone ahead with inking the said deals without waiting for those to be approved and this is why the tribunal has declared them void.
The SDT Chairman also said that they have talked to the two gambling operators as well and they have explained that they had signed valid sponsorship agreements with AFC Leopards. It also seems that the two companies have said that they may eventually bring the matter to court. According to Mr. Ohaga, both Betway and Sportpesa will still be referred to the tribunal eventually.
The official concluded that if the two rivaling parties do not reach an agreement on which one of the two gambling operators to be chosen, the country’s Sports Dispute Tribunal will have to analyze, re-examine, and make a decision on behalf of the football club.
Under the terms of the deal between one of the club’s factions and Sportpesa, the gambling operator will annually translate the amount of KES30 million for a period of five years and with increment of 5% per year. As for the Betway deal, the company will pay KES30 million per year over the next three years with an increment of 10% per year.
A representative for one of the rivaling factions attended the Tuesday ruling and said after it that the dispute between the two involved parties was not that much about the sponsorship deal but rather about escalating personal differences between the club’s executives.
