“I think the battle lines have been drawn publicly and everyone knows where the unions stand,” says sports lawyer Ben Cisneros of Morgan Sports Law.
“The main thing everybody is seeking is a clearer understanding about what the competition looks like and what the future holds.
“If players are going to be entering into new contracts with clubs within this new entity, there are going to need to be a number of assurances that they’ll want to have about the viability of the competition, whether indeed it is going to happen, the opportunity to play and be paid and of course to have assurances around matters such as player welfare issues around anti-doping etc.
“I think all parties are right to be raising those questions, including the unions. They’ve identified that there is a lack of detail out there.”
A ban on players representing their country and playing for R360 is one clear detail, but, could that be challenged?
“What the European courts have said is that if you’re going to have rules about whether new competitions are going to be sanctioned and whether players can participate in them while remaining part of the eco-system, they have to be clear, objective, transparent, proportionate, and non-discriminatory,” said Cisneros.
“That’s something the lawyers will be scrutinising and whether any potential competition law issue could be justified is another thorny question.
“Recent judgements have suggested a tightening up and applying a more orthodox approach to sport from a competition law perspective.
“So if the rules or the lack of rules is found to be an issue from a competition law perspective then it might be quite difficult for the governing bodies to justify bans.
“It wouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility that rugby might be headed for legal action.”
A comment below Mitchell’s LinkedIn post suggested the same.
Mitchell responded with a winking emoji.
