Player eligibility to play for sporting teams

15 October 2009

An athlete could be forgiven for thinking that the eligibility rules in sport don't seem to apply the law of the land, and that these rules sit outside those that apply to non-athletes. A string of cases seem to support this proposition. They also seem to suggest that artificial rules that any sporting competition brings to the table seem to be enforceable by the Courts.

Even then, if a particular sporting organisation chooses to change the rules, sometimes on what appears to be a whim, the Courts have upheld the rules despite their apparent ad hoc application to the athletes.

The question becomes whether these eligibility rules can amount to a restraint of trade.

In the New South Wales Supreme Court case, two Pacific Islanders, Fuifui Moi Moi and Taniela Tuiaki, argued that the Rugby League International Federation (RLIF) eligibility rules, which sidelined them from playing Tonga's first game in the 2008 World Cup, were a restraint of trade.

Initially an injunction was sought preventing the RLIF from stopping Moi Moi and Tuiaki from playing for Tonga, based on an eligibility rule which states that players are granted only one application change every two years. This was an option both Moi Moi and Tuiaki had already exercised when previously playing for New Zealand. The injunction was not allowed. This meant Moi Moi and Tuiaki could not play in Tonga's opening match against Ireland in Sydney.

The argument that the RLIF eligibility rules constituted a restraint of trade was rejected by the Court. The Court did say, however, that because the finals or semi-finals would be two years after both men had last played for Tonga, if Tonga makes the semi-finals or finals then Moi Moi and Tuiaki may be able to play. By then they would have passed the two-year limitation period.

Importantly, if the players were still being paid by their current teams, whether or not they played for Tonga in their match against Ireland, the Court does appear to be holding up the law of the land consistently in line with similar previous cases.

The fact is, certain restraints are justifiable as long as they can be seen to serve legitimate, legally acceptable purposes.

In a case where an athlete may be prevented from earning a living from their trade, it is more likely the rules such as those of the RLIF in the Moi Moi and Tuiaki case will be held by a Court to be a restraint of trade, and unenforceable. It is a different question where the athlete is still able to earn income from other sources.

Nigel Inglis | Associate
Mullins Lawyers
t +61 7 3224 0364
f +61 7 3224 0333
ninglis@mullinslaw.com.au