-
ARL Commission / NRL threatening bans The Australian Rugby League Commission (and associated NRL leadership) has threatened 10-year bans for players or agents who negotiate, sign, or agree (verbal or written) with a competition (like R360) that is not recognised by the ARLC as a national sporting federatio
-
What those bans cover
-
Players: any agreement to join an unrecognised league would trigger a ban of 10 years from participation in the NRL or any ARLC-sanctioned competitions. News.com.au
-
Agents: similar 10-year sanctions for NRL-accredited player agents who assist or advise players in these agreements. News.com.au
-
-
Potential legal issues Some legal commentators have said that imposing bans or sanctions of this kind might face legal challenges, especially under employment/contract law — e.g. whether such bans are a restraint of trade.
Replies
This will definitely make it a much harder decision now for Lomax. I reckon he will stay at Parra.
I think he is staying by the looks of it.
The declaration of intent & optics are noble.
But I reckon the ARLC already knows it's a restraint of trade if it were to be challenged. According to an experienced employment, contract lawyer who understands these things that I spoke with.
They'll almost certainly lose if it’s ever tested in court. NRL are already giving themselves an out with this "ban" with exemptions for some. Case by case. It’d be naïve to assume a US–UK–Saudi consortium wouldn’t take it on. The game has lost plenty on restraint of trade grounds before. Buckley v Tutty (1971), Adamson v NSWRL (1991), Terry Hill v NSWRL (1995).
Doubt the RLPA will back them either if they want to insert contract clauses against players interests.
The ARLC could reject contracts and make good on its threats. Carefully. Let's see. This could get tricky.
The NRL makes up it's own mind about who can be offered a contract. We saw that years ago with the Izzy saga and no real reason was given for not approving that contract.
Longfin, yes. True.
The ALRC said Izzy failed the character test with his anti-gay, non-inclusive social media comments.
Is R360 a character test fail? How hard did Izzy challenge the decision?
I'd say the R360 group would be far more motivated and resourced if it takes off and if needs a court win.
Restraint of trade and non-compete are legal in Australia. They're often flimsy and super hard (sometimes impossible) to legally enforce.
But this idea that restraint of trade clauses are illegal in Australia aren't correct. Basically every employer will have non compete clauses in your contract. They're also nearly never ever enforced.
Can the NRL refuse to register these players in the future if they defect? They absolutely can. Perfectly legal. Their league, their rules.
Will they damage their own product by stopping great players from actually coming back? History says no. They'll bend at the knee and let them back if they are good players and likely to enhance the game.
The NRL had to make a stand and typically the stronger the response the weaker the position (ie if you're not actually tough you're going to try and sound very tough). It's all bluster. Sports careers are fleeting and if I was offered a payday like some are talking about I'd take it in a bloody shot.
Yeah true. Lee Hangipitalis was on SEN saying they can't do it, then brought up why just R360 not Union or AFL even?
Thats why I was doubtful, but they've done it and I'm all for it. More likely players will try to sue the NRL to let them in but as you said there are deals where the NRL refuse to register. However they have also registered some that are sketchy.
They play by their own rules as all codes do. I am fascinated how this plays out. I wonder too if some players sign for 2027 and stay for 2026 will it be like in Origin during SL where SL signed players didn't get picked. That you can get away with as that's subjective.
Yeah people are confusing "won't hold up in court" with "illegal".
Non compete has a high legal threshold so it's really hard to enforce. So these rules may be impotent. But they're definitely not illegal.
At best these rules act as a deterrent. At worst they're not worth the paper they're written on.
If I was a player this wouldn't change my mind for a minute. It's a barking chihuahua.
The thing that could help the NRL is them putting a number on it. Instead of banned for life it's 10 years.
Like most punters, I like V'landy's tough 'talk'. Scare campaign. Optics. But the Devil is in the Details. And Point 3 of the NRL statement shows this is NOT a hard-fast 10 Year ban on R360 rebels. NOT a blanket rule. It's case-by-case. Discretionary.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next