Moral hazard clauses that allow sponsors, sports bodies or clubs to tear up contracts because of a players off-field behaviour are set to become the norm, according to a leading sports lawyer.

Allens Arthur Robinson (Allens) Partner David Yates, who has advised both sponsors and sports bodies on contractual issues, said neither party was prepared to continue weathering the increasing negative publicity brought about by players behaving badly.

'Sponsors are saying they want their teams being covered on the back page of the paper rather than having players splashed across the front page for their latest indiscretion,' said Mr Yates. 'And in a tough financial climate sporting bodies are no longer willing to risk millions of dollars in sponsorship because of bad publicity.'

Moral hazard clauses in sponsorship agreements can allow sponsors to immediately withdraw or renegotiate their financial support if the clubs or sporting organisation they back are embroiled in a major scandal. Clubs meanwhile are drafting player agreements that allow them to terminate the contract of any player behaving badly to head off any such action by a sponsor. In the past, attempts to squeeze these situations into standard form termination clauses have at times met with difficulty.

'For the sponsor it protects its brand and reputation. But for a sporting club it can offer them a way to read the Riot Act to misbehaving players and therefore act more effectively to keep them in line,' said Mr Yates.

While such clauses have occasionally been used before, they are now likely to be prominent in any future sponsorship or player contract negotiation.

Mr Yates said while recent high-profile incidents of sporting players behaving badly would be a clear case of a moral hazard clause being triggered in a contract, the boundaries weren't always so clear.

'The explosion in new technology, camera phones and blogs has meant that sports players are under intense scrutiny and the slightest indiscretion can end up in the media,' said Mr Yates. 'Ultimately it may not be the actions of sports star but the amount of negative publicity those actions generate that leads a party to consider invoking a moral hazard clause.'