[interestednovice]

So it seems pretty clear that Gary’s contract doesn’t limit social media use or restrict it any way. That means he’s not bound by anything the BBC says about it.

So the standoff is clearly about them wishing to have him sign an addendum to cover social media and he’s refusing to do so and rightly so.

What no doubt complicates matters is that the agreement is likely between the BBC and his limited company which means the BBC has no influence on him full stop. He is simply the “individual” provided by his company to provide services to the BBC.

It’s most likely a bit more complicated than that. At a guess, there will be general legalese in the contract about not impugning the reputation of the BBC and so on, even if the full social media rules were not actually written in. Legally, the BBC HR people will probably be arguing that such language “implies into the contract” the full terms on public statements and social media use and so on. Obviously, conversely, Gary’s side will be arguing that he never thought that when he signed the contract - and despite occasional criticism, the BBC have never seriously rebuked his tweets before so there wasn’t much precedent for this.

It’s actually quite a complex legal debate. If the BBC side win the debate, he can effectively be sacked for breach of contract; if they don’t they have a problem on their hands as they have a “valid contract” that the BBC themselves are now no longer happy with.

I’m sure, at a minimum, the contract will guarantee that it is Lineker himself who appears though - otherwise literally anybody off the street, employed by his company, could appear in his place. That would never have got past the BBC lawyers at drafting stage.