Barny.

The sponsors pay them because they play well. That's all.

Their image only comes into it when they get caught out and PRs advise it might tarnish the product.

As if anyone chooses whether or not to buy a razor blade on the basis of a footballer's alleged infidelities.

"The point that has apparently been lost in the media fury is the Imogen Thomas was trying to BLACKMAIL Mr Giggs. "

Is there any evidence whatsoever of this, beyond Ryan Giggs claiming to a judge that he wanted a superinjunction for that reason? Since he would have had to give a reason, other than just "I'm a rich famous man, I should get to have sex with any woman I like and no one should get to write about it and embarrass me in front of my wife and children."

The original Sun article quoted Thomas telling their reporter to eff off and leave her alone, her private life was none of their business, she was at this hotel to meet her mother, etc. Not the actions of a blackmailer, but of an ordinary person without the money to buy a superinjunction.

Mr Bumble, Dicken's Beadle, spoke volumes when he claimed the law was an ass if it expected a poor husband to keep his wife in tow.
We can see quite a few battles coming about as a result of social networks breaking the Gordian Knot of English Law; and any other kind of legal restriction come to that.
Societal advances steam-roller over laws designed for another time. Legislation had to be hurriedly introduced to cater for the effects railways and road traffic had on society - dead and alive.. We think the same may be claimed for racial crime. Even the telegraph and the postal services changed things.
Now it's the turn of the internet. Everybody saw this coming. Hoped it would go away.

Call Me Irresponsible

@Lloyd Jenkins check this link out http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html

@Jake the point is that you and I can go about our business with fear of the press reporting on it.. so it goes without saying that it is because he is rich and who he is will be the reason that the press will target him.. Are you saying that all rich people are fair game?

Footballers and alluring ladies do not meet at the local pub, supermarket, or anywhere within the domestic sphere. Even the golf links.
Somebody must go on the prowl.

Ambush

Why foolish? By taking action against people for contempt for announcing what the judge (and yourself) described as not the point of the injunction, and something that could easily be found out, he changed the nature of his case; it went from being about mere tabloid gossip to an attack on free speech and natural justice.

I would be really interested in seeing the ABC figures for the paper and their web stats.

Especially given that when the name did break and everyone had a go at it, The Mirror's 'Naming Private Ryan' was a far more attention-grabbing front page and so more likely to pick up casual sales than was the far more pedestrian Sun, whose story it was.

I think judges are taking some convincing that the details of sexual relationships, no matter how fleeting, are in the public interest.

I also think the argument that footballers are role models and if they do have extra-marital affairs they must be exposed is looking a little worn.

I see this as a victory for The Sun and the rest of the press. They have strung out a story which would have lasted a few days to many months.

The narrative has developed from "footballer sleeps with reality TV star" (yawn) to "courageous journalists and Tweeters fight Kafka-esque court secrecy and doddery judges to expose iniquity" (hooray!).

If this shift can be achieved each time a celebrity tries to protect their identity, then it will be worth the legal bills.

It wouldn't surprise me if a PR agency has already advised its clients to take out a privacy injunction in order to generate additional publicity.

I can't help but think this does represent a substantial challenge to the idea that the balance between privacy and public expression should be judged by reference to the public interest - which was inevitably leading to a fewer celeb kiss and tells. It'll be v interesting to see which footballer will be next to go for an injunction

I agree with the author, the press have won the battle to name Giggs and generate a story that can sell (even though they were prevented from discussing the lurid details provided by the kiss'n tell whore), but they've ultimately lost the war. Parliament will undoubtedly use this case as casus belli to enact a privacy statute that removes any criticism that the Judges are making up privacy law as they go along and prevents any unwarranted harassment that infringes the Article 8 rights of citizens, especially where there is no public interest issue.

The Press were turkeys voting for Christmas.

"One might imagine a judge thinking something along the lines of "a combination of the Twitterati, a fixated MP and some strongly suspected leaking by tabloid journalists may have conspired to make us look like monkeys, but I'll be damned if I'll let some down-market scandal rag make any money out of it. So there Rupert Murdoch, take that"."

That may be the rumoured "missing fourth paragraph" of Tugendhat's judgment upholding the injunction ;-)

Probably a silly question, but why does the Trafigura case always get trotted out (see jake's comments) whenever privacy injunctions are discussed? It's totally irrelevant to the position, havening beend ecided on legal principles far older than the 1998 HRA.

@ D Banks

'I also think the argument that footballers are role models and if they do have extra-marital affairs they must be exposed is looking a little worn.'

Not when they get paid by sponsors on the back of the fact they are perceived as role models.

Or as the kids say these days - "obvious statement is obvious."

@Simon Calvert He has a right to privacy the same as everyone else, but only people like him can afford it. The press is behaving appallingly, but the way to deal with this is through a new independent regulator with teeth, not by the misuse of laws intended for other purposes (temporary so as not to prejudice a trial). And anyway, the judge has said the point was not to protect his privacy. Giggs crossed a line when he attempted to ID twitter users, and natural justice was not upheld when the judge declared blackmail (with the implied blackmailer) without the small detail of a trial. This injunction is about something that is not in the public interest, but that is not true of all - such as the building company director injunction or the Trafigura case, and even Andrew Marr to a lesser extent.