[interestednovice]

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.

He can’t be sacked. He’s not an employee. He’s the individual named to present in the services agreement between his company and the BBC. 
HR doesn’t factor in this at all. It’s a commercial contract.

The substitution clause will allow his company to provide a suitable alternative individual and the Beeb will have the right to refuse.

Assuming he and his lawyers know how to do business the termination period for the agreement will be at least a year.

Add to that, the BBC is likely to have given evidence in the ongoing IR35 court case between his company and HMRC and by doing that they would have made clear that he is autonomous and only be bound by internal policies whilst providing his services - i.e. whilst he is on air.

That’s why I said he would “effectively be sacked for breach of contract”. In reality, as he is not an employee, the contract would be terminated due to breach. The overall impact of that is equivalent to a sacking

I am, as I said, assuming that such clauses would be in the contract. I am assuming this as they are standard for absolutely everything. When you are ending a contract because the other party is in breach, any time limit to ending it is usually void. Again, assuming it is drafted properly. I don’t know why you would assume Lineker has a crack team of top lawyers but the BBC doesn’t. I would think both parties do and the agreement is likely very complicated, but legally sound.