The careers of two footballers were derailed yesterday. Israel Folau’s $4 million contract was torn up and Jack de Belin failed in his attempt to overturn the NRL stand-down ban.
The legal fees in both cases were crippling and have to be paid by the players.
My original opinions that both actions were misconceived were proven right, and although there are further legal options available to both players, I don’t think the odds are in their favour. Further financial damage is guaranteed.
Let’s talk about both cases.
Israel Folau
This is another example of how the law and religious beliefs do not mix. The guy is a true believer and I am sure other people of his persuasion feel obliged to tell the world that according to the scriptures our civilisation is on the way to rack and ruin. I get that and hear it from the Jehovah’s Witnesses who knock on my door.
But here’s the catch: having signed a $4 million contract with the Rugby Australia, who advised him the following:
- To tell us via social media that unless we repent our sins, hell will await us?
- To leave Rugby Australia with no alternative but to try to mollify its sponsors by taking action against him?
- To keep telling us this is freedom of speech and not a contract problem?
- To pay a ridiculous amount in legal fees in a fruitless attempt to have the code of conduct decision overturned?
If he did this off his own bat, he made a huge mistake. If he received advice and acted upon it, he should change his advisers. They will destroy what is left of his career and his financial future.
The whole appeal was misconceived and had no chance.
Advice: take the punishment, shut up and try to continue your sporting career elsewhere.
Israel Folau (Anthony Au-Yeung/Getty Images)
Jack de Belin
Israel Folau’s excuse was his faith calling on him tell the world they must repent or else. Jack had no excuse. He was charged with a terrible crime and rightly or wrongly the rugby league community thought something must be done.
The NRL responded by passing a rule standing him down on full pay until his trial in about 12 months.
What loss did he suffer? His advisers tried to tell the Federal Court that his reputation has suffered by the stand down. This is correct, but he is subject to a terrible charge. Surely that affected his reputation more.
The NRL had to do something to tell their stakeholders they have the interests of the game at heart, so they decided that they wouldn’t let Jack play while he is awaiting his trial. Their argument is reasonable. Jack’s argument is as weak as water.
He lost and had to pay the other side’s legal costs as well.
Again, I need to ask: did these proceedings have a more than a 50 per cent chance of succeeding? My feeling is no given there was a pending charge and he was still being paid.
So many hundreds of thousands of dollars later and where is Jack? He’s in the same place as he was at the start.
Advice: pay the lawyers and start preparing for your criminal trial.
Illawarra Flame
Roar Rookie
You hear a lot about 'freedom of speech' in these cases but hardly anything about responsibility. Folou signed a contract, for big bucks, with Rugby Australia. It contained certain clauses about his public profile and his responsibilities around this. As in the Debelin case the courts will decide that employers also have rights and that these rights are enforceable. 'Freedom of Speech' is not an infinite right. It has to be seen in the context of a persons' employment situation and many other factors.
Womblat
Guest
Absolutely true, but a truly dangerous precedent. Picture this: two weeks out from the GF, and Latrell or Cameron or Fifita or Haas or some other kingpin player gets accused of a crime by someone who later withdraws their accusation (after they've been suspended from the GF of course, which their team lost without them). Far fetched? I've seen worse.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
It wouldn't be much fun
mushi
Roar Guru
What as opposed to your incredibly well articulated position of No! In what regard would the NRL laugh at it as a total waste of time to avoid the uncertainty of a third party judgment. Surely in a closed system of codependence a proactive joint solution would have suited the NRL also. On the peripheral issues you literally asked for my view which would obviously be based on my views of the issues. If you believe other issues are central then raise them. I merely highlighted the negotiable concerns put forward by reasonable people here and in court. A negotiated approach should always be the first option in a symbiotic relationship like this where where you have a virtual monopoly and monopsony interacting. But hey maybe three millennia of human behavior is a poor guide
mushi
Roar Guru
Can you be a homsexual female atheist catholic priest?
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
No one is stopping him. No one is stopping the ARU from terminating his contract either. If the coach of the team posts racist comments on line , which he is allowed to do, then he will also be sacked. You can't say anything you want and expect no adverse effects.
Paul
Roar Guru
now you're talking generalist nothings. Your approach would be laughed at by the NRL as a total waste of their time which it is. I'm sure the NRL would happily listen to any specific ideas about how best to redress all player issues, but the points you make are at best peripheral to the issues.
mushi
Roar Guru
No it isn't. Equating homosexuality with paedophilia belies not only your hatred, but also lack of cognitive ability. If you don't understand the basic element of informed consent then you lack the intelligence to contribute to society.
mushi
Roar Guru
Engaged in discussions, talked through their wants/needs. Come up with a formula for players that will be off contract, talk about TPA insurance, bonus payments etc. Give them a path way to a negotiated outcome rather than the thumb up the date approach you seem fond of. Guaranteed outcome no. But far better than wait for them to go nuclear and then react. Well that's how diplomacy has worked for 3 millennia...
Paul
Roar Guru
again Mushi, I can't see how they could have positively affected what were a series of unrelated events. Please tell me what pro-active action they could have taken
mushi
Roar Guru
Really? They had a veritable age from when the alarmist "offseason from hell" started to the rule. The media pressure on the NRL to act was relentless, the RLPA had ample opportunity to positively affect the outcome but squandered it.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Presumably hard line Muslims think you and I and Folau will all be off to hell but I prefer to worry about when Turbo comes back and plays for Manly.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Mushi, it's always a choice. Please don't go down that 'born that way ' path. See above.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Telling people to repent from sins for the good of their eternal soul is not only entirely reasonable but we (and people like Folau) have an obligation to do so. The soul and your deeds on earth last forever. The planet has a limited lifespan, no matter what you do. Which takes precedence? The temporary or the eternal? No doubt good environmental care and responsibility is part of good stewardship but doesn't outweigh the worth of a soul. BTW, tread with caution around this 'they are born this way and can't help it' notion, it's flawed. They do have a choice, absolutely. And if you do a bit of open-minded research you'll find that this very 'they can't help their sexuality' argument is being used - at this moment and for several years -in America and UK (and elsewhere) to kickstart a world-wide acceptance of paedophilia (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html). Sooo I hope you realise that if society wants to continue this concept 'it's the way they were born' in 12-15 years or so your government is quite likely to issue an apology and historic eradication of criminal offences for all paedophiles. You ready to help usher that into the world??
Paul
Roar Guru
mushi, in this instance, how could the RLPA attempt any kind of negotiation when all the were originally getting from Greenburg and co were lots of affronted words? They were then presented with a "rule", that wasn't even drafted and agreed when JdB was stood down. The NRL effectively ignored the RLPA and went straight for the player, leaving Prendergast and co in limbo. They could try and negotiate all they liked but I'd guarantee the NRL would not budge, hence the need to either take some form of industrial action (and that would not have been supported by the players around this issue), or seek answers from the Courts. Once they have the findings, they can use those as a basis for discussions with the NRL, but that will only lay out in the future when the CBA comes up for renewal. As it stands, the NRL presented the RLPA with a fait accompli and there's little that can be done about it.
mushi
Roar Guru
Maybe I'm an outlier here I support the NFSD but JDB doesn't have to take responsibility for the criminal activity. This is to provide the NRL with the ability to protect the game whilst justice runs it's course.
mushi
Roar Guru
They definitely could have Paul. In fact it is their reason for existence. The best outcome for the players, both individually and as a group, was to engage and attempt to deliver a negotiated outcome. Then things like rep bonuses, how do contract renewals get treated etc, would all have been addressed. If all the RLPA is doing is waiting for the NRL press release then everyone should be fired tomorrow as they are just expensive brokers for external legal representation. Remember player's aren't oppressed factory workers, each CBA round is about a cut of the pie. Everyone has an interest in an amicably negotiated outcome.
keith hurst
Roar Pro
I think that the RLPA offered moral support but doubt that they would have the financial resources or the will to use other players money to support De Belin.
Paul
Roar Guru
Perhaps your explanation is right Mushi, but I'm not sure the RLPA could have done a lot till they saw what the NRL would do. In saying that, they've been underwhelming in their open support around this issue.
mushi
Roar Guru
Yes they need to get it right but if I'm not mistaken reports suggested the RLPA were pretty unresponsive during the offseason believing it was a Greenberg problem. Now their surprised the NRL has used its powers under the code of conduct to make it a joint problem. The RLPA had ample opportunity to be involved but hubris led them to this outcome. Does an adversarial approach from this point get the best outcome for players as a whole or would it be more about the RLPA saving face?