September/ October 2025: Australian Sports Law Update

Like many sports, the world of sports law is also fast paced, so we’ve summarised some important updates over the last month or so that we think those involved in sport in Australia should be aware of, so that you can stay ahead of the game.

Fanatics LLC v Fanfirm Pty Limited 

Fanatics LLC v Fanfirm Pty Limited is an intriguing ‘David vs Goliath’ court battle between two sports merchandise businesses.  It may now go another round after Fanatics LLC sought special leave to appeal to the Australian High Court.  

Fanatics LLC (Fanatics) is a US sports merchandising giant which was valued at over USD 30 billion in its latest funding round.  It has partnerships with all the major professional leagues in the US, but it is a truly global sports business which runs the retail and merchandising operations of many of the leading sporting codes and clubs around the world.  In 2023, Fanatics entered into a 10-year partnership with the AFL. 

Compared to Fanatics, FanFirm Pty Ltd (FanFirm) is a relatively small Australian company which since 1997 has sold travel packages and supporter merchandise for sporting events using the Fanatics name.  In 2008, FanFirm registered the word ‘Fanatics’ and a Fanatics logo in Australia for a range of goods and services including clothing and retail services.  Soon after, Fanatics registered its own Fanatics logo in Australia for ‘online retail services’, a class not covered by the FanFirm registration. 

For a number of years, the two parties co-existed peacefully in the Australian market. This changed in around 2020 when the Fanatics presence began to increase significantly in Australia through partnerships with various Australian sports clubs and brands. 

In 2024, FanFirm commenced proceedings in the Federal Court claiming FanFirm had infringed its registered trademarks and sought cancellation of Fanatics’ registered trademarks.  Justice Rofe ultimately found that Fanatics had infringed the Fanfirm trademarks and ordered the cancellation of the Fanatics registrations.  This was for two key reasons: FanFirm were the first to use and register a Fanatics trademark in Australia and Fanatics were aware of this when they changed their name from Football Fanatics to Fanatics (so that the defence of honest concurrent use was not available).  See full judgment here: FanFirm Pty Limited v Fanatics, LLC [2024] FCA 764 (17 July 2024). 

Fanatics appealed the primary judge’s decision to the Full Federal Court, but with limited success.  They were able to overturn some aspects of Rofe J’s findings about the scope of their infringing conduct.  As a result, FanFirm is not able to prevent Fanatics from operating the Fanatics website in Australia provided that Fanatics only sells third party branded merchandise (as opposed to Fanatics branded products).  However, Fanatics were unsuccessful in appealing the other findings, including the decision that their trademark should be cancelled.  See Fanatics, LLC v FanFirm Pty Limited [2025] FCAFC 87 (9 July 2025). 

On 23 September 2025, Fanatics lodged a special leave application to appeal to the High Court.  In considering the application, the High Court is required to have regard to (i) whether the proceedings involve a question of law that is of public importance or requires a High Court decision to resolve differences of opinion between different courts as to the state of the law, and (ii) whether the interests of the administration of justice require the High Court to hear the appeal.  We will await the outcome of the special leave application with interest. 

ACMA investigation into Marty Sheargold comments on Matildas 

On 11 September 2025, the ACMA released its investigation report into alleged breaches of the Commercial Radio Code of Practice (Code) by Triple M and various other radio stations owned by Southern Cross Austereo (SCA).  The investigation related to disparaging comments made by radio host, Marty Sheargold, about the Matildas and women’s sport more generally.  Shortly after the comments were made, SCA announced that they had mutually agreed to part ways with Mr Sheargold.  The full investigation report can be found here.  

In February 2025, Triple M aired a segment of a program called ‘What’s on the Back Page’ which was in the format of an interactive discussion about sport, sports news, sports gossip, and sports comedy.  During the segment, an update was provided on the Matildas defeat to the United States in the SheBelieves Cup tournament.  During the update, Mr Sheargold made several offensive comments about the Matildas that expressed a level of contempt and disdain for women’s sport and women more generally. 

Following the airing of this segment, the ACMA received a large number of complaints.  The common theme amongst them was that Mr Sheargold had made misogynistic and sexist comments while discussing the Matildas. 

The ACMA considered whether there had been a breach of clause 2.2 of the Code which relates to decency, and states: ‘Program content must not offend generally accepted standards of decency (for example, through the use of unjustified language), having regard to the demographic characteristics of the audience of the relevant Program.’ 

To assess the breach, the ACMA considered: 

1. What would the ordinary reasonable listener have understood the material to convey?

According to the ACMA, the ordinary reasonable listener would have understood the discussion to be occurring at the time of a contemporary soccer tournament.  Specifically, listeners would have understood the discussion regarding the Matildas poor performance was at time light-hearted and jocular.

2. What are the demographic characteristics of the audience?

The decency provision requires the ACMA to have regard to the demographic characteristics of the audience which were concluded not to differ greatly from a regular cross section of the Australian community.

3. In light of the above, did the material offend against any generally accepted standards of decency?

Accepted community standards will be those of the average person who can be summed up as moderate, and ‘not given to thoughtless emotional reaction’ nor ‘given to pedantic analysis’.  Members of the community should accept that some material they find coarse or offensive would not be similarly judged by others. 

While the decency provisions do not preclude discussion or expression of opinion on women’s sport, the ACMA determined that the demeaning and offensive language used by Mr Sheargold went beyond what can be considered generally acceptable standards of decency in contemporary Australia.  As a result, the ACMA found there had been a breach of clause 2.2 of the Code and is currently considering what enforcement action to take against SCA.  Enforcement action may include staff training, a formal warning or additional licence conditions. 

R360 – Sporting Disruptors and Restraint of Trade

R360 is the latest ‘sporting disruptor’.  It is a new global rugby union competition which is intended to launch in October next year to revolutionise the sport.  It is set to include eight men's teams and four women's teams which will compete in a condensed season format, with matches being played in grand prix style events in iconic cities around the world.  It is reported that R360 has significant financial backing and lucrative contracts are being offered to rugby union and rugby league players to entice them to join the new competition. 

In early October, Rugby Australia and seven other leading national governing bodies for rugby union issued a joint statement ‘urging extreme caution’ against players joining R360.  The statement confirmed that these national unions would be advising players that ‘participation in R360 would make them ineligible for international selection’. 

Shortly after the release of the rugby union statement, the NRL announced that any player who negotiates or enters into any form of agreement with a competition not recognised by the NRL (which would include R360) will be banned from playing in the NRL for 10 years.  There would be the same 10-year ban from NRL-related activities for a player agent who advises a player in connection with an offer or agreement to play in a ‘non-recognised’ competition, such as R360. 

These announcements by Rugby Australia and the NRL have resulted in media commentary about whether these restrictions would withstand a restraint of trade challenge by a player or, in the case of the NRL ban, an agent.  

The basis for the doctrine of restraint of trade is that as a matter of public policy a person should not be restricted in their ability to earn a living by a restriction which goes beyond what is reasonably necessary to achieve some legitimate and desirable aim.  

There is a line of Australian sporting cases on restraints of trade dating back to the 1970s.  Until recently, each case had been decided in favour of the restrained player.  In the most recent case (De Belin v Australian Rugby League Commission Limited [2019] FCA 688), the player was unsuccessful.  The Federal Court found that the NRL’s ‘no-fault stand-down rule’ was not an unlawful restraint of trade.  The De Belin case is worth reading as it provides a contemporary summary of the restraint of trade principles in a sports context. 

Restraint of trade cases in sport often turn on whether the restraint is proportionate i.e. does it go beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate aim?  Courts will often consider whether there is a less restrictive restraint which could have offered adequate protection. 

In the De Belin case, the Federal Court accepted that the NRL had legitimate interests to protect, being its interests in retaining sponsors, broadcasters and fans and securing the financial viability of the game.  The court found that the repercussions of the criminal charges against multiple NRL players during the notorious 2018/19 off-season posed an immediate and significant danger to these legitimate interests.  The ‘no-fault stand-down rule’ was held to be proportionate in that nothing short of its urgent implementation would be sufficient to address the threat to the NRL’s legitimate interests.

Whether or not the restrictions announced in response to the R360 competition would withstand a restraint of trade challenge remains to be seen. 

Hockey SA: Under 18’s celebration gone wrong?

In September 2025, Hockey SA withdrew penalties imposed against its U-18 Men’s Hockey team for breaches of Hockey SA policies. 

Earlier in July 2025, Hockey SA’s U-18 men’s team competed in the Hockey Australia U-18’s National Championships held in Perth where the team won a silver medal and celebrated their results. Following these celebrations, a complaint was reportedly made to Hockey SA that alcohol was consumed in a team environment by players aged both over and under 18 (the legal drinking age in Australia). Hockey SA’s governing body reportedly notified all players and staff who participated in the National Championships that they had breached Hockey SA policies. The matter was reportedly referred to Sports Integrity Australia, with players and officials informed that they were required to carry out community service and undertake training on integrity and conduct expectations. However, it was later reported that the requirement to carry out community service was retracted following feedback from the individuals involved regarding the investigation into the celebrations and the sanctions imposed.

Hockey SA has policies in place such as the Alcohol Management Policy which manages alcohol regulations in accordance with the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 and the Code of Practice. These provisions prohibit the service of alcohol to minors and set out mechanisms for Hockey SA to handle non-compliance with the policy. Hockey Australia also has a Code of Conduct for organisations, staff and players which provides expected behaviours from all relevant people. This includes not engaging in behaviour that is ‘drunk and disorderly’ or ‘unlawful or unsafe’.

The Hockey SA example demonstrates the potential real world difficulties sports organisations may encounter when attempting to enforce policies aimed at safeguarding their participants. Whilst in the case of Hockey SA it may ultimately have been appropriate to withdraw the requirements for community service, in other cases that might not be a self-evident conclusion. What is essential is that adequate investigations are carried out in each case with a focus on protecting vulnerable participants, including minors. 

Match Fixing offences in Australian football 

In the last few months, Australia has seen a number of individuals charged and/or sanctioned for match-fixing offences related to football. Match-fixing or engaging in and facilitating conduct that corrupts the betting outcome of an event is a criminal offence in certain states and territories in Australia. For example, the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) section 193N states that ‘A person who engages in conduct that corrupts a betting outcome of an event – knowing or being reckless as to whether the conduct corrupts a betting outcome of the event, and with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage, or causing a financial disadvantage, in connection with any betting on the event, is guilty of an offence’. The maximum penalty for which is 10 years imprisonment. In accordance with sections 193O-Q, it is also an offence to facilitate, conceal or use corrupt conduct information for betting purposes which, each carry and maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. 

In September 2025, two former Macarthur FC players were sentenced to a two year conditional release order, and ordered to pay $10,000 in pecuniary penalties, for their involvement in a betting ring allegedly targeting Australian football. The players were reportedly paid $10,000 each to influence overseas bets by intentionally getting yellow carded. 

Earlier, in August 2025, former Western United player Riku Danzaki and his friend Yuta Hirayama pleaded guilty to charges related to a scheme in which the pair bet on Danzaki receiving yellow cards. The scheme was uncovered when betting agencies detected suspicious bets and reported them to the police. The relevant offences under sections 195C to 195F of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) carry a maximum prison sentence of up to 10 years. The pair were convicted on 22 August 2025 and received a $5000 fine each, with Magistrate Nick Goodenough reportedly stating ‘this type of offending undermines the integrity of sport, and it undermines the legal betting markets’. 

Finally, also in August 2025, two Australian men (who were employees of an offshore investment group) were reportedly charged after allegedly posing as player agents and approaching a Gold Coast soccer player ‘in a coordinated effort to procure match-fixing behaviour in exchange for payment’. According to the relevant reports, the matter was referred to authorities by Football Australia and there was no suggestion of any wrongdoing by the player nor that any game was fixed or compromised. 

These cases demonstrate the challenge that coordinated match-fixing poses to football, but also all sports in Australia (and indeed internationally). While the police can effectively work across Australian borders, this kind of cooperation becomes more complicated when overseas markets and black markets - where larger volumes of bets are being placed - are involved. As part of efforts to combat these threats, (i) Australia has signed the Macolin Convention, which aims for the global cooperation of public authorities, sports organisations, and betting operators to prevent and detect the manipulation of sports competitions and (ii) in October 2025, Sports Integrity Australia announced the establishment of a new national task force to proactively protect the integrity of major sporting events hosted in Australia from the threat of match-fixing, stating that ‘the task force will focus on prevention, deterrence and disruption initiatives across the many major events hosted in Australia in the lead up to Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, starting with the 2026 AFC Women’s Asian Cup, which Australia will host in March 2026’. 

This article was written with the assistance of Tia Khan.