The Legal Implications of ‘Rebel’ Leagues – R360: A Case Study.

Athletes have various sources of information and place reliance on several stakeholders to provide advice and counsel regarding the content of their playing agreements. Such reliance is not unfounded and is akin to the business judgment rule found in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).[1] As is the case with the Corporations Act, it is incumbent upon athletes to inform themselves to a reasonably appropriate extent. Whilst this is the expectation, from this writer’s experience the level of inquiry conducted by athletes falls considerably short of what could be considered reasonably appropriate.

Given the nature of playing contracts, there is considerable time required to read and comprehend playing agreements, which are generally in excess of 20-30 pages with various annexures and schedules. This can result in athletes seeking external sources of information, whether it be from teammates, player unions, managers or media to provide more instantaneous information, in a more easily digestible mode of communication.

Such an example of this is the emergence of R360 and the unprecedented level of interest it has garnered in Australia, providing a much needed shot in the arm for a game that was arguably once the preeminent football code in this country. Whilst many of the details and specifics regarding this “rebel” competition have been cloaked in secrecy, the last week has seen numerous publications regarding player eligibility for national duties and the ownership of Intellectual Property (IP), amongst various other aspects.

The existence of such qualified information muddies the waters for athletes as to what is fact or fiction and what rights and obligations are imposed upon them under any playing contract. The R360 competition is one such example where the reliance on information extraneous to the agreements may result in potential players believing the existence of terms that have no contractual basis, two specific areas of risk being:

Ownership of Intellectual Property

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) can be generally classified as rights that grant the creator legal protection and exclusive ownership. In Australia, there are four recognised types of IPRs capable of registration: trade marks, patents, design rights and plant breeder’s rights. There are also other rights such as trade secrets. circuit layouts and copyright which may be protected automatically.

In a sporting context, the main IPR is generally image rights. This includes things like an athlete’s name, likeness, image, signature, logo or other distinguishing characteristics. It encompasses anything that relates to the athlete’s personality and ownership of such image rights are incredibly valuable to athletes, teams and governing bodies alike.

Various publications regarding R360 have speculated that players will own their Intellectual Property (IP).[2]  Should this be the case, it would be a watershed moment for rugby players and have potentially broader implications for professional athletes. Despite the benefits that players would derive from the ownership of their IP, given the value it is also unlikely that this is the case. What is more likely the case, is that these contracts will have large carve outs for the competition and team, with the residual remaining the property of the player. The agreement will likely have a definition of image rights or IP that will be comprehensive, this will presumably sit in a definitions section of the agreement. Then in the operative terms will be a provision that says something to the effect of:

“The Image Rights of the Player are the sole and exclusive property of the Competition and the Team and may not be exploited by the Player without the prior written consent of the Competition and/or the Team.”

For those advising athletes it is pivotal to understand the substance and content of the agreement. Failure to do so can give rise to claims of negligence or, in certain circumstances, breach of fiduciary obligations. For athletes the right advice and understanding of what you are entitled to exploit and monetise can change the benefit to be derived from an agreement exponentially.

Eligibility

Several of the major national unions have condemned the existence of R360 and have issued statements to the effect that any player who joins R360 will be ineligible for national selection.[3]

Not since the days of the Super League and World Series Cricket have such issues of whether competitions can rightfully restrict players from participating in rival competitions been considered and litigated.[4] In both cases, albeit for differing reasons and under separate legislative protocols, such exclusionary provisions were deemed invalid.

In Australia, it is necessary to consider the anti-competitive sanctions in the context of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Specifically, section 45 prohibits contracts, arrangements or understandings that have or are likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in a market.[5] Similarly, section 46 prohibits the misuse of market power to substantially lessen competition in a market.[6]

For players it might not be a fait accompli that signing with R360 prevents them playing for a national team. Whilst it would likely require judicial determination, given the likely interpretation that the unions are operating in a market, under the Competition and Consumer Act,[7] it may be held to be a breach of the Act. If it is determined that these restrictions are anti-competitive, the governing union could be liable to significant sanctions and fines of up to $50,000,000.[8]

Ensuring athletes are informed

In an age where professional sport is changing and established competitions and structures are being challenged by upstart or “rebel” competitions who attract players with the allure of higher salaries, better load management and other additional benefits, athletes should not be chastised for maximising their careers.

With such financial stakes, there is a heightened importance on ensuring athletes know what they are getting and what they are giving away or obligated to do in return. There is a reliance on those advising them to ensure that the advice given is based on objective fact and not on speculation or hearsay.

Whilst surrounding circumstances, pre contractual negotiations and conduct can lead to inferences of certain rights and obligations, the words of the agreements cannot be ignored and it is incumbent upon athletes and their advisors to known and understand what they are signing.

At BlackBay Lawyers we provide the understanding of the intricacies of professional sport that can only be gained through experience, developed from over a decade competing professionally. We combine this lived experience with the legal knowledge and commercial acumen to ensure any athlete we advise understands their agreements, in simple terms and not the legalese that is commonplace in agreements, enabling the athlete to truly understand what they are signing.

The content in this Article is intended only to provide a summary and general overview on matters of interest. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor does it constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon as such. You should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.

The solicitors at BlackBay Lawyers can provide specialised and detailed advice for athletes and their advisors. If you require advice, please feel free to contact BlackBay Lawyers on (02) 8005 3077 or via www.blackbaylawyers.com.au for a confidential discussion with one of our solicitors.

[1] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 180.

[2] Iain Payten, Michael Chammas and Dan Walsh, ‘RA set to block Wallabies if they switch to R360 as rebel competition sets launch date’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online, 1 October 2025) < https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/rebel-r360-competition-presents-contracts-kick-off-date-to-nrl-players-20251001-p5mz79.html>.

[3] Nathan Williamson, ‘Rugby Australia joins seven fellow national unions in firm R360 stance’, Rugby.com.au (online, 8 October 2025) < https://www.rugby.com.au/news/rugby-australia-joins-seven-fellow-national-unions-in-firm-r360-stance-2025107>; Tom Decent, ‘Former Wallabies insider linked with R360 role as major unions threaten bans’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online, 8 October 2025) < https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/extreme-caution-major-rugby-nations-unite-to-ban-players-who-sign-with-r360-20251007-p5n0q4.html>.

[4] Greig v Insole [1978] WLR 302; News Ltd v Australia Rugby Football Leage Ltd (No 2) (Superleague) [1996] FCA 1256.

[5] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 45.

[6] Ibid, s 46.

[7] Ibid, s 4E.

[8] Ibid s 76.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Michael Wells joined BlackBay Lawyers having retired from a professional rugby career spanning over a decade. He brings the meticulous attention to detail and results driven approach that is required in elite sport to his legal practice.

Prior to joining BlackBay, Michael worked as a Lawyer for Ashburton Services, the legal team servicing the entire investment portfolio of Tattarang and the Minderoo Foundation. This role allows Michael to leverage the knowledge gained across a diverse range of legal matters to accommodate various client matters including: commercial matters, corporate law and regulatory advice, property and employment.