Final whistle: navigating financial claims upon relationship breakdown as a professional athlete

There is a currently a fundamental difference between how financial claims arising on separation are treated between married and unmarried couples. 

Upon divorce, one financial remedy available to a separating couple is spousal maintenance. This is where the court orders one spouse to provide regular payments to the financially weaker spouse to meet their day-to-day living costs if required. This is often relevant in cases involving professional athletes, where a couple have become accustomed to a high standard of living, but where one spouse may have sacrificed their career to support their partner’s sporting career and will not be able to meet their own reasonable needs upon divorce.

The relationship between spousal maintenance and professional sport was analysed closely in an excellent Financial Remedies Journal article written by barristers at 29BR chambers. One key issue highlighted was that of 'stockpiling': in cases involving footballers, their ex-spouses have often been awarded generous maintenance sums which outweigh their current needs and allow them to accumulate income to give them financial security going forward.

This was the case in the matter of AB v FC [2016] EWHC 3285 (Fam), where the husband (who was a former Premier League footballer expected to continue earning c.£900,000 p.a. net until 2020) was ordered to pay global maintenance of £204,000 p.a. on a joint lives basis (i.e. where one spouse pays maintenance to the other indefinitely until one of them dies; the recipient remarries or the court orders otherwise) despite this being a short marriage. In this case, the couple had spent at a high level, did not have anything by way of savings and had a young child together. £80,000 p.a. of the total award was earmarked for the wife to make mortgage payments, with the judge highlighting the need for the wife to have continued financial security to reflect her substantial ongoing caregiving role to the parties’ young child.

The prevailing trend in English family law has been a move away from orders that last for the joint lives of the couple to orders for a specific number of years (known as a fixed term) or capitalised maintenance (i.e. when one spouse pays a lump sum to the other which the receiving party can, in theory, invest to produce their own income). This directly links to the clean break principle, whereby the courts must consider when it can end financial obligations between the couple at the earliest opportunity. 

Only in particularly unusual cases would a court now consider a joint lives order, although it will be interesting to see how case law in this area will develop going forward. Along-term order with built in variation triggers (for example upon retirement of a player or a specified drop in income as they earn less in the twilight of their career) may be the most suitable way of dealing with maintenance claims against professional athletes.

A prenuptial agreement (or a 'prenup') is a formal document entered into by both parties to the marriage before the wedding in which they set out how their assets, income and future financial claims will be dealt with in the event that the marriage breaks down.  Similarly, parties can enter into such an agreement once they have legally married – this is known as a postnuptial agreement (or a 'postnup'). Collectively, these types of formal deeds are known as nuptial agreements.

Although nuptial agreements are not currently automatically binding in England and Wales, the courts are increasingly likely to give effect to well-drafted agreements following the landmark case of Radmacher v Granatino in 2010. There are important requirements that these agreements must meet, including that they are freely entered into, that both parties receive independent legal advice and provide full financial disclosure and that the terms of the agreement are fair to both parties.

It is important that parties wishing to enter into a nuptial agreement seek specialist advice as early as possible. For those with high incomes such as professional athletes, a well-drafted prenup or postnup can carry real weight and provide a reference point upon separation as to how financial claims should be dealt with which, subject to each person’s needs being met, will be difficult to dispute.

There is no claim available to an individual for maintenance against an unmarried ex-partner.  This position changes, however, if the couple have a child together. In such cases, the financially weaker parent can apply for financial provision for a child, including periodical payments, a lump sum and settlement of property in which the child can live.

These types of claims are known as ‘Schedule 1 claims’, with reference to Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

It is a well-established principle that a child is entitled to be brought up in a manner consistent with the paying parent's lifestyle and resources. In cases involving successful footballers, this has typically produced very substantial awards from the court – think large houses in expensive areas, significant periodical payments, private school fees and lavish holidays.

Indeed, former England and Manchester City footballer Kyle Walker was the most recent high-profile footballer involved in a Schedule 1 claim in the un-anonymised reported case of Goodman v Walker [2024] EWFC 212.

In the second set of proceedings involving the two individuals, Mr Walker was ordered to provide a raft of support for his second child with Ms Goodman, including but not limited to £12,500 pcm in child maintenance, £12,000 for a new car for Ms Goodman’s nanny and a commitment to pay all nursery and school fees. However, His Honour Judge Hess did draw the line at Ms Goodman’s request for a £33,000 lump sum to install air conditioning and a £31,200 lump sum to install astroturf at her property.

Whilst well-drafted nuptial agreements can manage the risk of claims following the breakdown of marriages, no such protection is available to Schedule 1 claims for unmarried couples. It is therefore important that athletes at risk of Schedule 1 claims engage early in negotiations, make sensible offers and carefully structure orders that build in appropriate review mechanisms to reflect the realities of a professional sporting career.

In summary, the financial landscape following relationship breakdown can be complex for professional athletes – this is especially true given the frequently short-lived nature of their careers, their uncertain earnings and their elevated public profiles.

Whether dealing with spousal maintenance, structuring nuptial agreements, or navigating Schedule 1 claims, timely advice and careful planning are key to protecting both financial stability and future prospects. If you would like guidance on any of the issues covered in this article, our specialist family law team has extensive experience advising high-net-worth individuals, including professional athletes, and would be pleased to support you – please do get in touch to discuss how we can assist.