‘Cancel’ culture: artists vs sponsors

Those in the live industry are well attuned to the need for cancellation insurance for things like adverse weather conditions or travel disruption. But recent years have seen acts pull out of shows and festivals for ideological reasons and opposition to certain types of sponsors being involved. In this chapter from IQ‘s Touring Business Handbook, Lewis Lawrence, senior associate at Russells Solicitors, considers the legal implications for acts who see withdrawing from bills as their most powerful and potent form of protest.

The music industry descends on Brighton in the UK every May, bristling with excitement to see the next wave of emerging artists to perform at The Great Escape. However, in 2024, the festival felt markedly different; it was overshadowed by over 100 artists cancelling their performances due to the festival’s sponsorship arrangement with Barclays, which they claimed had financial ties with arms companies supplying weapons to Israel.

The company denied this, saying in a statement: “We have been asked why we invest in nine defence companies supplying Israel, but this mistakes what we do. We trade in shares of listed companies in response to client instruction or demand and that may result in us holding shares. We are not making investments for Barclays, and Barclays is not a ‘shareholder’ or ‘investor’ in that sense in relation to these companies.”

A growing number of artists have pulled out of events in recent years over concerns about the political affiliations or the ethical values of event sponsors. Over 100 artists cancelled their performances at SXSW 2024 due to the US Army and a defence contractor being partners of the festival. Several well-known artists have also cancelled headline performances in recent years, citing similar reasons in their press statements.

In an increasingly polarised world, many performers feel compelled to distance themselves from brands whose values conflict with their own, to uphold their personal beliefs and/or protect their reputation with fans. This raises questions about how the issue should be dealt with when contracting for performances.

“The damage to a promoter’s reputation in suing an artist could potentially outweigh any benefit of litigation”

HOW THE ISSUE IS DEALT WITH CURRENTLY
In most performance contracts between artists and promoters, artists do not have a contractual right to pull out of a performance based on disagreements over the identity of sponsors. Therefore, in most cases, an artist cancelling a performance under such circumstances technically constitutes a breach of contract.

This potentially leaves the artist open to a claim by a promoter for their losses, which could be substantial. Those losses could include all of the promoter’s costs for the show (e.g. venue and equipment hire, staffing, marketing costs), unless the “limitation of liability” clause in the contract caps an artist’s liability in the circumstances.

Despite this, many artists have been able to cancel shows on this basis without facing significant legal repercussions, with disputes resolved behind closed doors. This is primarily because promoters are reluctant to sue artists.

Firstly, court proceedings in the UK (and most other jurisdictions) are public, meaning that a company’s public image needs to be a factor in deciding whether to initiate litigation – especially where the person or company being sued, such as an artist, has a substantial following. The damage to a promoter’s reputation in suing an artist could potentially outweigh any benefit of litigation.

Secondly, there is an interdependency between booking agents and promoters in the live music industry; promoters are aware of the importance of preserving relationships with companies with whom they often have repeat business.

Thirdly, the concept of “safety in numbers” also plays a significant role here. The collective nature of cancellations by artists for similar reasons can make it difficult for promoters to take a hardline stance, and it can put pressure on organisers to comply with artists’ requests. For example, both of the respective promoters of The Great Escape and SXSW have confirmed that they will be changing sponsors for future events.

“The growing frequency of these cancellations poses a question as to whether or not the current industry approach is fit for purpose”

HOW THE ISSUE CAN BE HANDLED MOVING FORWARD
With the above context in mind, artists already have some de facto protections that deter promoters from litigation against them. However, the growing frequency of these cancellations poses a question as to whether or not the current industry approach is fit for purpose and whether or not new practical measures or contracting changes should be considered.

From a practical perspective, promoters would ideally disclose their sponsorship arrangements as soon as possible when engaging with artists; visibility of sponsorship affiliations at the outset could allow artists to make informed decisions about their participation. However, this does not quite align with how promoters engage sponsorships. For festivals, promoters secure sponsorship deals at various stages, meaning that sponsors may be engaged closer to the event date after artists have already signed performance contracts.

Giving artists a contractual right to cancel performances each time a major sponsorship affiliation is agreed (after an artist has already confirmed their performances) would likely present an unacceptable degree of uncertainty and would be impractical if offered to all artists. Artists with sufficient bargaining power could potentially request a list of “banned” festival sponsors within their performance contracts, but this is perhaps unfeasible. The fluid nature of branding partnerships means such lists would require constant updates and monitoring. Unless the list was short (and exhaustive), it would likely be difficult to negotiate.

For artists performing on headline tours (i.e. not festivals), they do have some level of control over the identity of sponsors, given that their identity should be made subject to mutual agreement in performance contracts. However, venue owners often have their own wider sponsorship deals that may not be within the promoter’s control, making it difficult for promoters to provide comprehensive disclosures regarding all brand associations.

From a contractual perspective, one solution is for artist agents to negotiate a “reputation clause” into contracts, which allows for artists to cancel a performance if the identity of a sponsor could cause harm to the artist’s reputation due to the brand’s political affiliation or ethical stances. This is potentially justifiable from an artist’s perspective, given that some promoters seek to negotiate the same right to terminate a contract against artists (e.g. if an artist commits an act that could harm the promoter’s reputation).

However, a promoter’s concern would be that the principle could be open to abuse. Artists may seek to cancel performances based on subjective interpretations of what constitutes a reputational risk. Given that promoters already bear a lot of risk in funding shows, they may find what could be construed as a wide cancellation right unacceptable. The exact wording of these clauses is important. They can be drafted to read more objectively, which mitigates some of the promoter’s risk.

Promoters could also seek to widen the scope of their ability to terminate their arrangements with sponsors; similar reputation clauses (as mentioned above) are worth considering including in sponsorship agreements. However, there would be practical and financial implications to terminating a sponsorship arrangement, especially if terminated close to an event date. Promoters may struggle to find alternative sponsorship funding, which may be essential for profitability.

“With brand-related cancellations becoming more frequent, informal approaches to the issue may no longer suffice”

CONCLUSION
In an unstable landscape for promoters, facing rising costs and unpredictable ticket-selling metrics, sponsorship income continues to be a key revenue stream for events.

If contracts become too rigid or heavily focused on the identity of sponsors, they may reduce the flexibility needed for promoters to engage in sponsorship deals.

Equally, many artists prioritise their values and their reputation in an environment that is increasingly politically conscious and polarised and are willing to cancel shows (and face the potential repercussions) if an event sponsor’s values do not align with their own.

The interconnected and public nature of the live music industry has led to many disputes being resolved without substantial legal repercussions, and after the fact. However, with brand-related cancellations becoming more frequent, informal approaches to the issue may no longer suffice.

Promoters, agents, and artists may find it necessary to take proactive steps to adapt to these issues and protect themselves and their reputations – whether by revisiting contractual norms, artist booking procedures, or transparency of communication over brand partnerships.

As the industry adapts to these new challenges, it will be essential for all parties involved to strike a balance between the financial risk of promoters, artistic freedom, and reputation, and the realities of the ever-changing politicised public.

• The 2025 edition of The Touring Business Handbook, published in association with Chorus TM, is available in print, digitally, and on this dedicated year-round mini-site. To purchase a print copy of the report, get in touch.

A preview version of The Touring Business Handbook 2025 is below.

Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.