Contracts, do they mean anything anymore? - By Mary

Often when I introduce myself, I call myself a 24 year old lawyer who is passionate about Rugby League. I thought it might be time to do a post which combines my knowledge about the law with my interest in Rugby League.

Contracts are widely used in all areas of the community and form the legal foundation for transactions across the world. Contract law is based on a Latin principle which when translated means, 'agreements must be kept'. This doesn't seem to apply to NRL contracts.

I wonder if I received a call from a NRL club asking my legal opinion about a company or person with whom they had a legally binging contract who was not able to meet their end of the bargain or who decided half way through that contract that they wanted to work for someone else or were not interest in finishing the job? I can tell you that the NRL club would seek to uphold that contract and if that wasn't possible, they would seek a remedy in a court of law. 

However, individuals currently involved in the NRL have made a mockery of the idea that 'agreements must be kept'. 

Raelene Castle, CEO of the Bulldogs has commented that 'professional athletes live in a false world'.

This is absolutely true. In an environment where players are often working towards their eventual goal of playing for a club, the process starts at a young age through their involvement with trainers and managers.

Throughout their time as sportsmen, these gentlemen are told what to eat, how to train, when to train and depend on their coach, their trainers and importantly their managers to make decisions for them.

This often means that, among other things, players do not really understand their obligations under a contract. This is reflected in a number of issues the NRL have had over the last couple of years with players walking out mid-contract. This is not good enough.

Players need to become commercially aware - aware, not proficient - and at least have an understanding of the obligations under the contract they are entering into. Contracts are legally binding documents. Unfortunately, in the NRL they are often not treated this way. 

Imagine in business if a contracted employee wanted to renege on his pact and go to a competitor? Such a dispute has the potential to end up in court with the ultimate decision being to see the enforcement of the contract entered into. The employer might choose to put the employee on 'gardening leave', but the employee remains under contract. 

The players that have deserted clubs mid contract and not honoured their obligations suggest that NRL players are above other people who have entered into contracts. This is simply not the case. 

While clubs often seem to be at the mercy of players and their decisions, I often imagine a situation where a club makes a player enforce their contract. This could see them playing NSW Cup or sitting on the side lines for the rest of the season, but it would send a strong message - that contracts are there to be enforced. Ultimately however, the club loses as it continues to play a player not contributing to the on field performance of the team.

I am unsure what the solution is - but for starters, this notion of players not having the ability to be commercially responsible needs to be dismissed. If this is the case, then players need to be educated. They need to understand that a contract is a legally binding document and a document which needs to be honoured, just like other employment contracts.

Love,

@LadiesWhoLeague