Analysis: there are many legal ramifications from this story, including animal cruelty laws and morals' clauses in contracts with sportspeople
Last weekend, a video surfaced on Snapchat showing Premier League soccer player Kurt Zouma kicking and slapping a cat, while laughs can be heard as the terrified pet tries to escape. The harrowing footage has caused outrage on social media and has been widely reported by media outlets in Ireland and the UK.
A Change.org petition has called on his club, West Ham United, to terminate the player's contract of employment. To date, the club has fined Zouma and his cats have been taken away by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA).
We need your consent to load this YouTube contentWe use YouTube to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From Sky Sport News, reaction and fallout from the Kurt Zouma cat video
The incident raises a number of legal issues, namely animal welfare concerns and the contractual obligations of the player. As Zouma is based in England, the relevant legislation is the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Animal welfare is divided into two broad groups in this act: the promotion of animal welfare and the prevention of harm to animals.
Section 9 (1) creates a duty of care which is placed on the person responsible for the animal. This person must ensure that the animal’s needs are met, to the extent required by good practice. The Act does not define what is meant by the term 'good practice’. It is up to the courts to define this term, but the RSPCA contends that the term is not static and may change with time.
Section 4 states that is an offence for an individual to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal including the person subjecting an animal to unnecessary suffering or failing to act to prevent the suffering. The person must know or ought reasonably to have known that the act or failure to act would cause unnecessary suffering to a protected animal. A protected animal is defined under section 2 as a domesticated animal that is under the control of a human on a permanent or temporary basis and is not a wild animal. It would seem that Zouma could be prosecuted under section 4 of the 2006 Act.
We need your consent to load this YouTube contentWe use YouTube to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From The Guardian, West Ham manager David Moynes defends his decision to play Kurt Zouma after the defender was filmed kicking his pet cat in a Snapchat video
Since 1824, the year the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA, before it received Royal assent in 1837) was established, offenders have been the subject of private prosecutions. According to the The Role of Private Prosecutions and Safeguards against Injustices June 2020 parliamentary report, 85% of all prosecutions under the 2006 Act are taken by the RSPCA. The right of the RSPCA to prosecute as a private body has a statutory footing by way of Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985. Since 2021, the Crown Prosecution Service (akin to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Ireland) may take over from the RSPCA prosecutor or decide to discontinue the RSPCA prosecution on application from the defendant or defence solicitor.
Since June 2021, the maximum penalty in a number of offences increased from six months to five years, including section 4. The Snapchat video is of significance, as the ‘use of technology to publicise or promote cruelty’ may be deemed an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing. An individual charged under section 4 will either be tried in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland in 2019, Conor Dowling from the ISPCA says reports of animal cruelty are at an all time high
Then, there is the matter of the player’s contract, which could be terminated by the club. The standard professional sportsperson contract will contain express provisions relating to salary, duration, termination, incapacity due to illness or injury, disciplinary rules and grievance procedures.
It will also contain references to the club’s obligations, such as to provide medical treatment and pay player's basic wage while they are injured and ensure that the rules and regulations of the relevant sport are adhered to. There will be provisions about the player's obligations, such as not to play for another club during the currency of the contract, attend all training sessions and matches as required, maintain their physical fitness and health and wear appropriate safety equipment such as shin or mouth guards.
A contract may be terminated if the player commits a criminal offence which results in a custodial sentence. Professional playing contracts will also contain the broad term of bringing the sport into disrepute. This may include extra marital affairs, the taking of recreational drugs and on-field violence. This could also be extended to include cruelty to animals.
We need your consent to load this YouTube contentWe use YouTube to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From Sky News, Vitality pull sponsorship of West Ham over Zouma cat video
A sponsor may want to protect its reputation in the event of an individual sports person becoming embroiled in a controversy. Misconduct on the part of the spondee may cause embarrassment or the stigmatisation of the product or service of the sponsor or endorser.
The use of morals' clauses in sponsorship contracts may provide some protection for the sponsor. When drafting a contract, the sponsor may ask that a term be included that terminates the contract in the event of the sportsperson engaging in behaviour that is detrimental to the sponsor. When the sponsor is endeavouring to include such a term in relation to a particular sportsperson, the situation is more straightforward. It becomes more difficult when a sponsor requires such a clause in relation to a team or a club, most spondees would take issue with the sponsor exercising such a large degree of control.
Conduct that is not associated with the sport - such as extra marital affairs or abuse of animals - is a more complex situation
In general, the sponsor would not be entitled to damages, but would be permitted to terminate the contract. If a contract does not include a morals' clause, it leads to the question whether the court would imply such a term. The court may be more willing to do so in situations where the sportsperson has breached the contract by engaging in conduct that is associated with the sport (for example, being found to have taken a prohibited substance). However, conduct that is not associated with the sport - such as extra marital affairs or abuse of animals - is a more complex situation.
At the moment, the possible legal consequences are hypothetical. Essex Police are currently investigating the matter and it remains to be seen if the player will be charged and subsequently tried in court of law. A central tenet of the common law is that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Despite the damning evidence, the player has the right to due process and fair procedures.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
