Speedway Riders - Employment Status?

[Humphrey Appleby]

Wow! Makes Sports Direct look like a logical and compassionate employer.

Sooner or later, someone is going to test this arrangement in a court of law and I am not minded to believe that the position adopted by the "employer" will be tenable.

The system has survived because realistically no promoter in recent years has dared to prevent a rider signing a contract with another team. And I think there's also a dispute resolution process if that actually happened.

 

The only real consequence is there's a merry-go-round of nominal loan fees paid by one promoter to another, with the occasional transfer fee being demanded (and I think riders even get a percentage of that). The system seems rather pointless nowadays, but it doesn't prevent riders from earning a living.

[A ORLOV]

Once you sign the multi coloured proper contract, the Promoter owns you for as long as he wants to, that's a fact.

And all the BSPA members abide by that, the first Rider to challenge that would not get a Team place in the UK.

You are contracted yearly from March to October, but you are still owned 24/7 by your Parent club when your seasons contract ends.

And it will continue until all the riders one year turn round and tell the promoters what to do with their contract.

[waiheke1]

And it will continue until all the riders one year turn round and tell the promoters what to do with their contract.

Or one rider or one promoter "takes one for the team" and challenges it. The ideal would be someone like PK (who is retiring)to tell wolves he wants to ride for team x and team x to say they will not pay a fee. PK rides one meeting for the team then retires. DH seems to have burnt all bridges so maybe Leicester could be the ones to bring down this system.

[scaramanga]

Once you sign the multi coloured proper contract, the Promoter owns you for as long as he wants to, that's a fact.

And all the BSPA members abide by that, the first Rider to challenge that would not get a Team place in the UK.

You are contracted yearly from March to October, but you are still owned 24/7 by your Parent club when your seasons contract ends.

i believe tony rickardsan challanged it before he retired from british speedway his parant club didnt want him to go out on loan and tried to block it untill rickardsan thretend to go to court using the bossmon ruleing that came into football

might have a few details wrong as it was a while ago

also the reason riders are free to sign for other clubs on loan is the system is that way as there is almost no loyalty in speedway riders changing clubs and clubs not wanting riders back

Edited October 14, 2016 by scarra

[Fourentee]

The system has survived because realistically no promoter in recent years has dared to prevent a rider signing a contract with another team. And I think there's also a dispute resolution process if that actually happened.

 

The only real consequence is there's a merry-go-round of nominal loan fees paid by one promoter to another, with the occasional transfer fee being demanded (and I think riders even get a percentage of that). The system seems rather pointless nowadays, but it doesn't prevent riders from earning a living.

 

I suspect there's a tacit acceptance among promoters that if Fred Bloggs is an asset of Club A but wants to ride for Club B, by and large it's in the interests of the system for the two promotions to agree a loan fee and let him get on with it. Next year Club A may be casting covetous eyes at Joe Smith of Club B anyway.

[Humphrey Appleby]

i believe tony rickardsan challanged it before he retired from british speedway his parant club didnt want him to go out on loan and tried to block it untill rickardsan thretend to go to court using the bossmon ruleing that came into football

Bosman only applied to international transfers, which has never been relevant in speedway. Football had to abolish the retain-and-transfer system domestically because players circumvented the rules by using foreign clubs as intermediaries, but no transfer or loan fees have ever been payable when speedway riders sign for a team abroad.

[Little Thumper]

With regard to the Ben Hopwood matter, on the Eastbourne eagles site, Martin Dugard says,

 

"Common-sense has prevailed. If Ben had been allowed to ride, then there would have been a free-for-all next year, with riders picking and choosing where they wanted to ride".

 

In a free, market-based economy, you might have imagined that a person who classifies themselves as self-employed would have the right to decide who to provide services for and be able to negotiate the price for the service provided.

 

Apparently, a different set of rules applies in the Alternative Universe known as Speedway Land and a casual bystander may be inclined to observe that the "employers" seem to feel that they should keep a tight hold on most of the cards in the deck.

 

Just my opinion, obviously.

 

 

[Vince]

I think the asset system is poor and does a lot more harm than good, particularly to the development of British riders.

 

However I can also see that in a team sport like Speedway you can't have riders operating as completely free agents as they could choose a team based on the pay offered and track being ridden literally week by week. Clearly they have to be contracted to a team on a yearly basis and certainly can't be allowed to ride as a guest when their own team is racing.

 

The sport cannot afford to pay and treat riders as employees when they are free to go and work abroad or for other teams when theirs isn't racing so some sort of compromise has to be reached and generally where it is suits most.

 

The Ben Hopwood situation appears to be more about whether he was sacked or not and not as straight forward as you are making it out to be.

[Little Thumper]

I think the asset system is poor and does a lot more harm than good, particularly to the development of British riders.

 

However I can also see that in a team sport like Speedway you can't have riders operating as completely free agents as they could choose a team based on the pay offered and track being ridden literally week by week. Clearly they have to be contracted to a team on a yearly basis and certainly can't be allowed to ride as a guest when their own team is racing.

 

The sport cannot afford to pay and treat riders as employees when they are free to go and work abroad or for other teams when theirs isn't racing so some sort of compromise has to be reached and generally where it is suits most.

 

The Ben Hopwood situation appears to be more about whether he was sacked or not and not as straight forward as you are making it out to be.

 

Vince, again you speak wise words.

 

I do assure you that I am not presenting the Ben Hopwood matter as straight-forward.

I am not aware of the facts of the matter so I am in no position to give any verdict.

 

The point that I am trying to make, and I apologize if my argument lacks clarity, is that speedway riders are either "employees" or "self-employed".

 

Yes, there may be some grey areas and perhaps cases before the Court at the moment, such as the Uber case may offer some guidance to enable better classifications of peoples' employment status to be made.

 

In reality, in makes no personal difference to me whatsoever if all riders are employed (or not) by the Man in the Moon.

 

What does get me a little excited is where I see what could be construed to be an injustice and where one party to a "contract" appears to enjoy rather more benefit and in so doing, detriments the other party.

 

Speedway riders at all levels face hardship both physical and financial and I would hate to think that anyone might feel inclined to take advantage of their good nature.

 

Riders careers are usually relatively short and I think that they should be given every opportunity to, if they so desire, earn a fair and just reward for their endeavours, without being impeded by rules and regulations that would perhaps be better suited to a previous age

 

Just my opinion, obviously.

[waiheke1]

Good post vice. Conversely, it seems clubs have the ability to terminate contracts at a moments notice, without compensation. I would assume tgerefore that the contractor (I. E. rider) should have the same ability to do so.

However, of that is the case I can see that the scb would be able to have conditions such as a rider being only able to ride for x number of clubs in a competition on one season which presumably would stop a rider from "club hopping" during a season.

[mickthemuppet]

No-one has yet legally challenged the asset system in speedway, which is why it still exists. However, it's hard to imagine its survival if anyone ever did, although in practice I don't think asset holders really dare to make it difficult to sign for another team for that reason.

 

I actually think tracks genuinely developing riders - by which I mean run training schools and development teams etc.. should be compensated in some way, but it should only extend to riders for a limited period and not indefinitely.

Then who are these tracks running training schools

[Humphrey Appleby]

Then who are these tracks running training schools

I was saying if tracks ran training programmes.

Good post vice. Conversely, it seems clubs have the ability to terminate contracts at a moments notice, without compensation. I would assume tgerefore that the contractor (I. E. rider) should have the same ability to do so.

However, of that is the case I can see that the scb would be able to have conditions such as a rider being only able to ride for x number of clubs in a competition on one season which presumably would stop a rider from "club hopping" during a season.

I'd say that if so long as a promotion is willing to pay a rider at previously agreed rates for the duration of the contract, a rider should be bound by that. If not, then they should be free to seek another team.

 

Of course, the standard BSPA contract is effectively zero hours in practice, so it's difficult to determine what's fair and reasonable.

[*JJ]

Then who are these tracks running training schools

Mostly, Scunthorpe and Rye House. Most don't bother or can't get the extra dates to run speedway training.

[Little Thumper]

Today's ruling from the employment tribunal which found that Uber drivers were not self-employed but were employees and should be paid the national living wage and enjoy the rights and protections afforded to employees must surely have implications for speedway riders.

 

The court found that the Uber drivers were not free to choose who they worked for and when they worked and therefore the terms and conditions imposed upon them meant that they could not be classified as self-employed.

 

If speedway riders are judged to be employees, is there any justification for promoters to seek to avoid their obligations under the law?

[Little Thumper]

They're not. They're self-employed contractors.

 

Do you still think that after today's tribunal ruling?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status

 

So how do speedway riders' working practices differ from Uber drivers?

[arnieg]

Do you still think that after today's tribunal ruling?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status

 

So how do speedway riders' working practices differ from Uber drivers?

I'm pretty sure that speedway riders are still self-employed. Looking at all the leading cases (e.g. Lorimer) I think that it is still quite clear that speedway riders are self-employed. (For example whose responsibility is it to find a substitute if the rider can't perform services because they are working elsewhere?)

 

And this is an employment tribunal so does not set a precedent that displaces existing tax case law.

 

[Note I used to earn my living explaining tax law to accountants]

[John Leslie]

So how do speedway riders' working practices differ from Uber drivers?

Well, I've never seen one stop to pick up a passenger....

 

...not until Greg Hancock in the Aussie GP anyway.

[Little Thumper]

I'm pretty sure that speedway riders are still self-employed. Looking at all the leading cases (e.g. Lorimer) I think that it is still quite clear that speedway riders are self-employed. (For example whose responsibility is it to find a substitute if the rider can't perform services because they are working elsewhere?)

 

And this is an employment tribunal so does not set a precedent that displaces existing tax case law.

 

[Note I used to earn my living explaining tax law to accountants]

 

Well, I bow to your superior knowledge, arnieg.

 

But as I understand it, to be classified as self-employed, you must be able to offer your services to whoever you like, whenever you like.

 

If a rider has signed a contract to ride for a team, how could they be free to offer their services in the free market?

 

And then of course, there is the matter of riders being "assets" and how that reconciles with the notion of free self-employment.

[arnieg]

But as I understand it, to be classified as self-employed, you must be able to offer your services to whoever you like, whenever you like.

 

Not necessarily true. Tests of employment vs self-employment are numerous and no one test over-rides others . For example a self-employed consultant could easily have a clause in the contract for services that prevents him/her offering services to a client/customer's direct competitor.

 

And then of course, there is the matter of riders being "assets" and how that reconciles with the notion of free self-employment.

 

Complete red herring as the asset system is nothing to do with employment, it is specific to sport. And technically riders are not assets, it is the contract that is the asset.

[The Doctor...]

 

Do you still think that after today's tribunal ruling?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status

 

So how do speedway riders' working practices differ from Uber drivers?

 

As other people have mentioned, not likely to affect speedway at all.

 

Uber drivers are under no contract to stay with uber, are free to do as they please working whatever hours they choose, and can openly work for another firm at the same time - am very surprised of the result today tbh.