November/ December 2025: Australian Sports Law Update

Like many sports, the world of sports law is also fast paced.  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. 

New NRL Anti-Tampering Rules

The NRL has recently advised clubs and accredited player agents that new anti-tampering rules will come into effect on 1 February 2026. The new rules were created in conjunction with the Rugby League Players Association as part of the latest round of CBA negotiations which concluded in 2024.

Tampering (or ‘tapping up’) is an attempt to encourage a contracted player to move to a new club. Under the rules of most sports leagues, such attempts are only allowed under certain circumstances (such as at specific times). Where an attempt to encourage a player to move is made other than in those prescribed circumstances, this is known as tampering and is a breach of league rules. 

Anti-tampering rules exist to protect the integrity and stability of player contracts. There is usually an exception to tampering where the player’s current club has agreed that the player may seek interest from and/or negotiate with other clubs. 

Under the current NRL rules, it is understood that contracted players may only be approached in the final year of their contracts. For example, if a player’s contract expires on 31 October 2026, they may be approached any time after 1 November 2025 (but not before then). 

When the new rules come into force on 1 February, there will be a broader definition of tampering so that it includes ‘any expression of interest - public or private – made to anyone involved or related to player contracting or through the media, aimed at securing or providing a player’s services during periods when the NRL Rules prohibit player negotiations’. 

Last year, there were controversial circumstances surrounding Lachlan Galvin’s departure from West Tigers. It is interesting to reflect on whether things may have played out differently had the new anti-tampering rules been in place at the time.  The facts of the Galvin case were as follows: Galvin was only 18 when he made his first-grade debut for the Tigers in 2024. He was one of the NRL’s most promising young players and was contracted to the Tigers until 31 October 2026. Under the NRL’s anti-tampering rules, he could not be approached about joining a new club until 1 November 2025. However, there were suggestions that other NRL clubs had started to indirectly express an interest in Galvin a long time in advance of this date, and that this resulted in Galvin rejecting a lucrative long-term offer to extend his contract with the Tigers beyond 2026. This led to Galvin being dropped from the Tigers first team, plenty of adverse public comment about Galvin from Tigers players and fans, allegations of workplace bullying and ongoing speculation about whether Galvin would be released early and, if so, which club he would join next. Galvin was ultimately released in May 2025 and joined the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs. The story became known as the ‘Lachie Galvin saga’ and dominated the NRL news cycle for a significant period. 

The new anti-tampering rules will apply to clubs, players and accredited agents. Penalties for breaching them include fines, salary cap penalties and deregistration for the most serious cases. 

Anti-tampering rules are notoriously hard to enforce. Even with a broad definition of tampering, it is usually difficult for investigations to uncover the level of evidence required to prove a breach, particularly when the attempt to entice a player is made indirectly as part of a private conversation with no written record. 

In some sports (particularly soccer), there is also the fact that the player’s current club may lose motivation for pursuing an anti-tampering complaint when the player makes it clear that they want to leave, and there is the prospect of receiving a significant transfer fee. A good example of this is the tampering incident involving Virgil van Dijk and Premier League clubs Southampton and Liverpool. Van Dijk had signed a six year contract with Southampton in 2016. In 2017, Southampton made a formal complaint to the Premier League that Liverpool had ‘tapped up’ Van Dijk in breach of Premier League rules. It is understood that evidence of the alleged tampering was ultimately never provided to the Premier League’s investigators.  In 2018, Southampton agreed to release Van Dijk to Liverpool for a record transfer fee of £75 million. 

For the above reasons, there are relatively few cases (outside of the major US sports) of significant sanctions being handed down for breaches of anti-tampering rules. This may change in Australia if the NRL remains determined to avoid the next ‘Lachie Galvin saga’. 

University of Queensland to become ITA Academic Centre for anti-doping

The University of Queensland (UQ) has been selected as Oceania’s first International Testing Agency (ITA) Academic Centre, focused on improving anti-doping education and operations in the region. The UQ Academic Centre is one of two in the world, the first being the Shanghai University of Sport, established in 2022. 

The partnership between the ITA and UQ aims to foster closer interactions between the two institutions through knowledge exchanges and integrating anti-doping expertise into UQ’s curricula. The UQ Academic Centre will give students and staff access to ITA’s international anti-doping training and certification programmes, in order to prepare the next generation of anti-doping officials and clean sport educators. 

The Academic Centre was announced at a pertinent time as the ITA has confirmed it will independently manage the anti-doping programme for the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games. The collaboration, together with the support of Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) will provide Australia and the Oceania region with lasting tools to maintain clean sport. As Dr Valérie Fourneyron, chair of the ITA Foundation Board said when announcing the partnership, “education and professional training are essential in the fight against doping.” 

This comes at a time where Australia’s position in the anti-doping landscape has become integral in the Oceania region. For example, in September of this year, SIA hosted Pacific delegates from 17 countries to attend a forum on anti-doping and sports integrity. The programme delivered information and advice to enhance compliance with the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport and strengthen national anti-doping frameworks, with a particular focus on supporting Small Island Developing States - see here for more information. Last month, SIA’s deputy CEO was appointed to the UNESCO Anti-Doping Approval Committee to oversee the strategic distribution of resources to strengthen global anti-doping efforts. Read more here.

As the 2032 Brisbane Olympics approach, it is clear that Australia will play a vital role in promoting clean sport and regulating anti-doping operations in the region. 

Illawarra Basketball Club Pty Ltd v National Basketball League Pty Ltd - When an Arbitration Clause Halts Local Proceedings

On 21 November 2025, the Supreme Court of New South Wales ordered a stay of preliminary discovery proceedings due to a contract clause requiring disputes to be resolved in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The full decision is available here.

Background

The National Basketball League (NBLCO) is the governing body responsible for operating Australia’s National Basketball League. Two of its member clubs, the Illawarra Hawks and South East Melbourne Phoenix, each hold licence agreements and revenue sharing agreements with NBLCO. 

A dispute arose between the clubs and NBLCO in 2025, in the context of which the clubs sought preliminary discovery of documents from NBLCO under rule 5.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). 

However, the licence agreements contained a ‘Grievance Procedure’ which featured an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved through the CAS. The relevant clause stated: ‘The parties agree that the [Grievance Procedure] in clause 14.1 shall be followed and that the decision of CAS shall be final and binding. It is further agreed that no party will institute or maintain proceedings regarding a Grievance or any other matter regarding this Agreement or their participation in the NBL in any court or tribunal other than CAS’. 

Accordingly, NBLCO sought a stay of the preliminary discovery proceedings, invoking s 7(2) International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (Act), article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law), and/or the court’s inherent jurisdiction. 

Court Decision

The Court first recalled that: “Section 7(2) of the Act provides that where “proceedings instituted by a party to an arbitration agreement … against another party to the agreement are pending in a court” and the “proceedings involve the determination of a matter that, in pursuance of the agreement, is capable of settlement by arbitration”, then the Court “shall” stay the proceedings “or so much of the proceedings as involves the determination of the matter” on the application of a party and refer the parties to arbitration. In other words, where the Court identifies a “matter” that is the subject of a valid arbitration agreement and is capable of being resolved by arbitration, a stay is mandatory: see eg Elecnor Australia Pty Ltd v Clough Projects Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 610 at [91] (Stevenson J) (Elecnor).

The Court therefore went on to consider: (i) the nature of an application for preliminary discovery; (ii) whether preliminary discovery was the subject of the arbitration agreement; and (iii) whether preliminary discovery was a matter capable of settlement by arbitration. Recalling ‘orthodox principles governing the interpretation of arbitration agreements, about which there is no dispute’, Justice Penden ultimately declined to find that an application for preliminary discovery ‘[fell] within the scope of the arbitration agreement’. He then went on to hold, based primarily on the nature of preliminary discovery, which is not ‘a procedure known to, or available in, CAS, that he was ‘not satisfied that the proceedings involve the determination of a “matter…capable of settlement by arbitration”’. His findings applied equally to the arguments under Section 7(2) of the Act and Article 8 of the Model Law.

However, the Court then went on to consider whether ‘the inherent or general statutory power to stay [ought to] be exercised’ in the particular circumstances. Justice Penden first noted that ‘the existence of an inherent power to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration is not uncontroversial’ and that he had therefore sought further submissions from the Parties on the issue. He accepted NBLCO’s submission that the Court has a broad statutory power to stay any proceedings before it pursuant to Section 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and noted that ‘[a]s I have concluded that the application for preliminary discovery does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, it is not necessary to traverse the question of whether there exists an inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration. What matters for present purposes is whether these proceedings are in breach of the covenant not to sue, and whether the court should stay the proceedings on that basis, which it clearly has power to do’. 

Having considered the Parties’ positions, and the relevant contractual terms, Justice Penden ultimately found that:

43. The first sentence of cl 14.3 contains an agreement to follow the process set out in cl 14.2 (the clause refers to cl 14.1, which the parties agreed ought to be taken as a reference to cl 14.2) to obtain a “resolution”, and that “the decision of CAS shall be final and binding”. But properly construed, the second sentence of cl 14.3 is not merely, as the clubs submitted, “the other side of the coin” and just a promise to not litigate disputes that must be arbitrated. It goes further. Both parties promise to not “institute or maintain proceedings regarding a Grievance or any other matter regarding [the licence agreement] or their participation in the NBL in any court or tribunal other than CAS”. The wording is important:
44. The language in the second sentence goes beyond “resolution” of a “Grievance” or “other matter” that is dealt with in the first sentence and cll 14.1 and 14.2; the promise is not to institute or maintain proceedings “regarding … any other matter regarding … their participation in the NBL”.
45. The reference to the second sentence being a “further” agreement reinforces that it was intended by way of addition and not mere emphasis.
46. Therefore, cl 14.3 makes clear that the parties have agreed to resolve all issues only through private dispute resolution and not in a court. Part of that bargain is that the parties are precluded from accessing court procedures, even if they are not available in CAS. Here, it is “unlikely” that the parties “intended that different disputes should be resolved before different tribunals, or that the appropriate tribunal should be determined by fine shades of difference in the legal character of individual issues, or by the ingenuity of lawyers in developing points of argument”: Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 160 at 165 (Gleeson CJ). 

47. I accept that the preliminary discovery application is “any other matter” regarding the clubs’ involvement in the NBL, and that such an application amounts to instituting proceedings. Therefore, this application falls within the scope of the covenant not to sue in cl 14.3. 

    (emphasis added in underline)

For that reason, and noting also that ‘the absence of arbitral power to order preliminary discovery does not revive or preserve a right that has otherwise been expressly relinquished by a covenant not to sue’, Justice Penden considered it appropriate to stay the proceedings.

Takeaway

Any party to a contract that contains an exclusive agreement to arbitrate should expect that this agreement will apply and be enforced not only to substantive but also preliminary matters. This latest decision reinforces that where two parties have decided to submit their dispute to arbitration, as is very commonly the case in sport, such choice should be respected and – if need be – enforced. 

Team news
Our Australian Sports Law team has achieved a Band 1 ranking in Chambers, reflecting the exceptional expertise and dedication that sets us apart in this field. A special congratulations to Rich Hawkins, recognised individually with a Band 1 ranking and Brianna Quinn, recognised individually with a Band 2 ranking in sports law.