Will British and Irish Lions sue Rugby Australia over player eligibility row?
If you were to list the top moments from each of the last five British and Irish Lions tours then you’d almost certainly find that at least one entry didn’t happen on the pitch.
In 2021 it was South African coach Rassie Erasmus breaking down the flaws in refereeing calls, and in 2017 it was the sight of then-British and Irish Lions coach Warren Gatland wearing a clown nose to mock his New Zealand doubters.
Days before the 2025 tour officially starts on Saturday, it may have already found its off-field moment, with British and Irish Lions chief executive Ben Calveley warning that their Wallaby hosts could be in breach of contract if they do not field their best players in the warm-up games.
“The agreement is very clear – it says that Test players have to be released to play in fixtures leading into that series,” he said. “That is our expectation.”
Australia head coach Joe Schmidt wants to lessen the chances of his best players getting injured, which is understandable, and is set to hold back those stars from playing for their clubs – such as the Queensland Reds and Waratahs – in tour matches against the British and Irish Lions before the first Test next month in Brisbane.
British and Irish Lions on legal collision course?
But has his call set the British and Irish Lions and Rugby Australia on a legal collision course, and what could the tourists do about it?
“If the formal tour agreement includes a specific clause governing which Test players must be released to participate in fixtures leading up to the series, then the Lions would likely have grounds for a breach of contract claim,” William Bowyer, associate in the sports and entertainment team at Lawrence Stephens, tells Morning Wire.
The two parties would be keen to not see the matter escalate, with the ideal scenario for the tourists being the best teams – with their Australia players taking part – facing the Lions.
“Should matters escalate legally, the Lions would likely be eager to obtain the unusual remedy of a mandatory injunction, which would order that the Australian players are released to play,” Richard Coopey, partner at Grosvenor Law, adds. “It may be that the mere threat of litigation brings the parties to a compromise, as the Lions would no doubt prefer to battle the Australians on the pitch rather than in the courtroom.”
Unconventional
The British and Irish Lions has never been a conventional rugby brand, but it has become a powerful enough commercial juggernaut and its managers will believe they’ll be able to compel Australia to play their best team. But is that enough?
“If matters were to proceed in England,” Coopey continues, “the Lions may be able to show that the contract does indeed require the release but the question for the court would then be how to remedy that breach.
“However, it may prove challenging for the Lions to show a clear financial loss for which they should be compensated with cash [because the matches are sold out and TV deals complete].”
Bowyer, though, says time is of the essence: “With major commercial stakes – from broadcast rights to sponsorship and ticketing – both parties are under pressure to find a swift, negotiated resolution, while leveraging their respective contractual positions.”