Why Semi Radradra's Parramatta Eels contract may mean little in court of sport
Date
July 1, 2016 - 6:00PM
Darren Kane - Sports Lawyer
For a fleeting 36-hour period last week I was swanning around Fiji Suva to be precise. The journey from airport to hotel, in a rust-bucket Mercedes taxi equipped with a debatable ability to come to a complete stop on command, shall remain scalded into my cerebral cortex for years.
So I'm told, Semi Radradra arrived at the same airport, the previous day. I know this because one of his fellow jet-setters told me, thus, it must be true. So, in considering the high likelihood that Suva's cabal of cab drivers are a reasonably tight bunch I interrogated my chauffeur, Basil, as to the location of Radradra's secret underground lair. Whether Basil was running interference for Semi or not, I don't know, but Basil had more intel about how to find Batman.
Conversely, Basil was a font of apoplexy on discussing the upward-spiralling price of the root stock of the kava plant, a consequence of the havoc wreaked by Cyclone Winston. Which was a problem, as it's a moderately desperate situation, putting a driver incandescent with rage behind the wheel of a 1992 Merc when its only certain method of stopping is ploughing into a wall of granite.
One suspects there's an element of the same desperation in this week's "messaging", that the Parramatta Eels might entertain releasing Radradra from the remainder of his NRL contract. Provided, of course, that Semi pays the club roughly $700,000 comprising the salary that Radradra would otherwise earn from the Eels between now and the end of 2017, plus $200,000 to compensate the Eels for the "damage" its brand will suffer if the club is forced to bid Radradra adieu.
It's a long bow to draw for Parramatta to contend that Radradra's prospective departure to chase Gallic riches might dent the Eels "brand". In order to inflict damage on something it's first necessary to establish that same thing actually exists. Given the lingering stench that hangs over the Eels, resulting from years of orchestrated salary cap jiggery-pokery, the incessant recriminatory back-stabbing and political skulduggery and players fraternising with members of society who are apparently persona non grata, it's no certainty that Radradra's upping sticks would, indeed could, inflict materially greater pain. Such matters cannot be assessed as if occurring in a vacuum.
But that issue notwithstanding, a contract is a contract, not a mere suggestion. Absent the important protections offered to parties to binding contracts, professional sports in the 21st century could not survive. Therefore if Radradra attempts, at some point in the not-too-distant future, to high-tail it to a chateau in south-west France, what exactly should whatever's left of the Parramatta management decide to do?
The starting point is that this could be a hypothetical question. According to information published on the Australian website of the French Consulate-General, professional sportspeople applying for the necessary visa, to live and ply their trade in France, must submit a national criminal history record check and other related information (the corresponding Fijian website is unclear). If Radradra is convicted of the serious assault charges laid on Thursday night and in connection with the apprehended domestic violence order obtained by his estranged partner, musing about Radradra playing in France will become an arid exercise. If his passport is not suspended as a condition of bail, remember that Australia and France have an extradition treaty in place (Fiji has extradition legislation, but no treaty with Australia).
Nasty stuff. Those matters aside, Radradra is an Eels employee. By reference to the NRL's standard playing contract, which each player signs, Radradra has promised to always act in the best interests of the NRL and Parramatta. Further and this is important if a French sojourn is on the cards Radradra has promised to not participate in any football match in any football code, without the Eels' and NRL's say-so. No Latvian rugby league, no Icelandic soccer, no French rugby.
Yet as is so often the case in professional sport, the sanctity of contract often means little. So again, what if Radradra, or any Eels player, tries to jump ship and head to European rugby?
The starting point is that Parramatta would have to make a crucial decision. There is a concept in law known as repudiation. Essentially, in any contract (an employment contract, or not) if a party conducts themselves in a way, which evinces an intention to no longer be bound by the contract they entered into or if that party behaves as if to indicate they'll perform the contract only if and when it suits them the "innocent" party can accept the repudiation, terminate the contract and sue for damages. If an NRL player abandoned his club, the club could arguably proceed without affording the player any hearing before termination.
In the alternative, the innocent party may elect to affirm the contract and exercise their contractual rights (provided they also undertake to meet their contractual obligations).
Deciding which path to take necessitates an evaluation of many factors. Nobody wants to employ a person who is disgruntled to the point he'd happily shift countries to dodge a freely-made contractual promise. The courts won't force someone to work for you, although they might stop the employee working for someone else. Thus, dropping the termination guillotine and then chasing any damages can be an attractive option. Embracing the contract and enforcing your end of the bargain is more problematic.
The Sonny Bill Williams case is often cited as the precedent in these matters. But Williams' scurrying to Toulon in 2008 is different to the hypothetical of Radradra pitching tent where Le Tricolour flies. When Williams departed for France he had nearly five years left on his playing contract. Moreover, he owned valuable real estate and other assets in Australia.
This property was open to attack by the Canterbury Bulldogs and the NRL if Williams breached the injunctions handed down by the Supreme Court restraining Williams from playing French rugby. Although Williams had given the same promises that Radradra and every NRL player makes, Radradra's asset position in Australia is radically different. No doubt Radradra would tell you that's the club's fault.
Quite the conundrum, but one suspects that the Eels might be best to cut and run, should the opportunity present itself. Damage to the "brand"? Please
Darren Kane is a Sydney sports lawyer
