Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Coxy, post: 2121401, member: 1764"] That's the thing, the contracts really only protect clubs from having players poached by other NRL clubs. The clauses need to be written to be more inclusive of the other rival sports. It wouldn't be too hard for the NRL to prove that Super 14, ESL, French Rugby etc are all similar competitions and thus their clubs are direct competitors. The thing is the law really protects only commercial in confidence and intellectual property from being moved from workplace to workplace. ie, stuff you do for company X can not be used by you for Company Y which you are now working for, unless you are the copyright owner of it and bring it to each of the companies. It's more complicated than that but that's the gist. What does this mean for sport? Not much, since the products being moved around are the players and their inherent skills. You can't reasonably claim that because you assisted the player in developing those skills that you OWN that player and his skills. It's tough. But the NRL have to have clauses like this in place and players have to agree to them. If they do, and sign the contract, then it's harder for them to argue that it's unfair in court. Just as it may be hard for the NRL to argue now that French Rugby is a "like competitor" for them and thus forbidding $BW playing there without permission. Ugh, I hate the law. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)