It's not just the fact that Souths have lacked an adequately contrasting away design. The way they've used their home/away is often idiotic as well. Wearing white shorts agains the Roosters is stupid, wearing the black one against the Panthers is equally stoopid. The sponsors dictating which design to wear is more stoopider. And the fact they no longer have the sponsor excuse to fall back on, while still adhering to this unncecessary scheme, is ground breaking levels of stoopididity.
If one club receives an exemption to the rule requiring an adequately contasting away design, regardless of who it is, then it gives a precedent for another club to argue that they don't require one either if similar circumstances arise. I would hope that some of the voluntary dinosaurs around here wouldn't be too happy to watch Parra vs Warriors, Roosters vs Melbourne, Brisbane vs Manly running around in their home jerseys against each other ("but it's ok - their shorts and logos contrast").
Most (team-oriented and close proximity) sporting bodies around the world mandate and enforce rules on this matter, for the practicality of the players, officials, and spectators. Yet the NRL has made an exemption that implitictly claims that the red and green hoops are sacred enough ignore the intention of their own rules, while simultaneously implying that sponsors can dictate which version of the sacred cloth to wear, regardless of whether it is suitable to do so.