The legal battle over the future of the America’s Cup
The NYYC has raised legal concerns regarding the America’s Cup Partnership’s compliance with the Deed of Gift, triggering a review and possible reform of the trophy’s management
A new and potentially significant chapter in the run-up to the most important sailing event that Naples is set to host in 2027: following months of silence from the New York authorities, the New York Yacht Club has asked the Charities Bureau of the New York State Attorney General to examine the compatibility of the America’s Cup Partnership (ACP) with the Deed of Gift, the 1887 document which governs the trophy as a charitable trust under New York law.
The America’s Cup represents a weighty ‘legacy’ to uphold, one which, over time, has made the drafting of the protocols for the various editions increasingly complex. The conditions imposed by the Deed have certainly not made life any easier for the organisers and have, on several occasions, led to disputes that have ended up in the courts of New York. The most notable such dispute in recent times, following Valencia 2007, led to a significant delay in the schedule, the cancellation of the campaigns of some teams that were already ready to return to the water, and a 33rd edition reduced to a contest between just two participants – a scenario in some respects similar to that experienced in 1988.
These are very strict restrictions, which today may appear to be at odds with the most modern commercial principles, but which were introduced to safeguard the legal and sporting framework that has helped make the Cup a unique event. It is precisely these constraints that are now back at the centre of the debate, with a request that formally calls into question, before the relevant body, certain elements of the governance framework established for AC38.
This is not the first initiative on this issue. The matter had already been brought before the Charities Bureau under case number 26-020937, which was opened on 12 February following a report by John Sweeney, a private individual with extensive experience in the Cup’s sphere. However, the NYYC’s request changes the nature of the case: the club to which the coveted Cup was originally entrusted in 1857 and which acted as its trustee until 1983 is now stepping in.
On this matter, the NYYC identifies five key issues. Firstly: the ACP was established as a permanent body, intended to govern not only AC38 but also future editions, whereas, according to the club, the Deed assigns governance to the Defender and the Challenger of Record for each cycle. Secondly: Article 13.1 of the Protocol stipulates that a challenging club which does not join the ACP may have its challenge rejected, unless unanimously approved by the Partnership’s board; for the NYYC, this would constitute an additional condition beyond those laid down in the Deed. Thirdly: the advance definition of rules intended for future matches, between clubs not yet identified, which, according to the NYYC, would risk undermining the mechanism of mutual consent envisaged on a cycle-by-cycle basis. Fourthly: the failure to publish the Partnership Agreements governing the ACP, which have not been made available to the other clubs concerned nor, as far as the NYYC is aware, to the Attorney General. Fifth: overall, the possible shift from an open Challenge Cup to a periodic regatta governed by a central body, a change which, again according to the club, would require an amendment to the Deed subject to review by the courts in New York.
