[Adsales]

Ok so if you please check the section about the obligations about the “duties and obligations” of the consultant (the provider of the services) then you’ll see that the wording is as follows:

During the Engagement the Consultant shall comply with the Client's policies on [social media] [use of information and communication systems] [anti-harassment and bullying] [no smoking] [dress code] [substance misuse] [OTHER RELEVANT POLICY].

Engagement is defined in common and case law as the periods during which the consultant provides services to the client. In other words, in this case the occasions where Lineker is working for the BBC. Not while he works for other companies or where he does in general not represent the BBC.

The sole legally valid restrictions on a contractor are confidentiality, IP, disparaging actions, poaching (clients and staff) and not to perform services which are deemed similar to a competitor.

This is further underlined by HMRC IR35 assessments and seemingly the BBC has provided evidence that he is outside of IR35 to HMRC.

If he were employed then this would be an entirely different kettle of fish with social media policies for example reaching all the way into entirely personal posts, out of working hours and the BBC would be in full control.

I generally agree for contractors there are such limits; however performers ARE treated differently,  as their value is in part the 'brand' they bring to the work rather than just work activity.  If they arguably damage their brand they devalue the work or cost the contracting party value in financial or reputational terms. 

Hence different value, and different obligations to those doing an interchangeable task/job/function 

Nobody is hiring Gary Lineker to turn up at a studio and read an autocue, chat with guests, appear in some promotional pictures for £1.3 million. The overall package of reputation,  image, performance ability,  contemporary opinions of the audience that like him is the value he brings in addition to the functional skills [which is us very good at]

I see where we take a different view now  i understand your position - its well founded-but disagree.

We don’t have to agree and I get where you’re coming from but unfortunately the law doesn’t differentiate between performers and a big standard IT consultant. The same rules apply.

And then there’s of course the issue I highlighted last night and which in fact seems to be the case as reported by the Independent. His contract is likely the same it was in 1999 save as to fees and maybe the addition of data protection changes post GDPR.