Keeping Them Honest: The State of Player-Agent Regulation in Australian Sport
With the commercialisation of professional sport in Australia skyrocketing, player agents now sit at the centre of this burgeoning economy. They negotiate million-dollar contracts, manage sponsorship deals, and guide the personal and professional lives of young men and women barely out of high school. This powerful influence, albeit increasingly crucial, also raises complex legal and ethical questions. How do we ensure transparency and integrity in a market where impressionable youth are enticed by newfound wealth? Despite the existence of accreditation systems, Australia’s approach to regulating player agents is somewhat fragmented and reactive. The industry should therefore be wary of exposing athletes to risk and undermining confidence in a system intended to protect them.
A Patchwork Framework
A player agent acts as an intermediary between athletes and clubs, negotiating contracts and endorsements. Most major Australian sports have developed their own accreditation systems. For instance, the AFL Players’ Association oversees the AFL Agent Accreditation Board, while the Australian Cricketers’ Association manages the Player Agent Accreditation Scheme.[1] Similar programs exist in the NRL, soccer, and rugby union.
That said, there is no overarching national legislation governing agent conduct. Instead, regulation is confined within respective sporting codes, supplemented only by general legal principles. These include the application of fiduciary duties, contract principles, and the ACL prohibition on misleading or deceptive conduct.[2] This fragmented structure generates inconsistency across codes, whether in necessary qualifications, fee rules, disciplinary procedures, and appeal mechanisms.
The consequences are evident in periodic controversies where agents have been deregistered or suspended for misconduct, often after disputes over commissions or client-poaching.[3] Such cases underscore how reactive, rather than preventive, these frameworks tend to be.
Competing Interests and Conflicted Loyalties
At the heart of every principal-agent relationship is a tension between representation and profit. This is a core consideration for the regulatory framework. Agents are meant to act in their clients’ best interests, but they often also earn a percentage of negotiated deals. This financial alignment can create conflicts. An agent might favour short-term, high-value contracts or push athletes toward certain clubs or sponsors to maximise their personal commission.
Accreditation codes attempt to manage these conflicts through mandatory disclosure, caps on fees, and ethical guidelines. Yet enforcement remains uneven across the sector. The NRL publishes a register of accredited agents and disciplinary outcomes,[4] while the AFL system is broadly confidential, limiting transparency and public accountability. Moreover, sports governing bodies often license and discipline agents themselves, blurring the line between regulator and stakeholder. This is an arrangement prone to perceived or actual conflicts of interest.
Integrity, Vulnerability, and the Law
Beyond the potential for conflicted interests, player representation raises issues of welfare and vulnerability. Young athletes, particularly from culturally diverse or lower-income backgrounds, may lack the financial literacy to assess deals placed before them. Agents owe fiduciary duties to act loyally and avoid conflicts, but those obligations only go so far if players are unaware of their interests or are unable to enforce their rights.
Various commentators have both warned of risks around financial exploitation and misleading conduct in athlete representation.[5] Mismanaged funds, inflated commissions, and aggressive recruitment practices have attracted particular scrutiny. Despite these warnings, enforcement is typically entrusted to the sporting bodies themselves. Left to their own devices, these organisations may prioritise stability and reputation over accountability.
Learning from Overseas: The FIFA Example
Looking overseas, global football has moved toward a more unified approach. In 2023, FIFA reintroduced worldwide agent licensing, capped agent commissions, and mandated the publication of fees for transparency.[6] Although controversial, the framework establishes universal minimum standards and allows cross-border monitoring of agent conduct.
Australia’s fragmented model can learn much from this. As sports become increasingly international and agents expand their work across multiple codes and jurisdictions, the absence of a single regulatory baseline complicates compliance and weakens deterrence. For players moving between domestic competitions or signing with overseas clubs, protection depends on which code or league, and which rules, happen to apply.
Reform and the Road Ahead
A more coherent system is warranted. One possibility is a national co-regulatory model overseen by Sport Integrity Australia, combining sport-specific expertise with government oversight. This could standardise accreditation, make disciplinary procedures transparent, and separate agent licensing from enforcement to avoid conflicts of interest.
Another priority is education. Equipping athletes with legal and financial awareness can empower them to make the decisions that are in their best interests and reduce the burden on regulatory bodies. Professional associations and universities could collaborate on mandatory training programs for new athletes. Finally, reciprocal accreditation across codes would reflect the modern reality of multi-sport careers and cross-border representation.
Conclusion
Player-agent regulation sits at the intersection of law, ethics, and commerce. While sporting bodies have taken significant steps to formalise accreditation, the system remains a patchwork of somewhat inconsistent standards and limited oversight. A nationally consistent model would better safeguard both the integrity of Australian sport and the welfare of those who play it.
References:
[1] AFL Players’ Association, Agent Accreditation Regulations (2022); Australian Cricketers’ Association, ACA Player Agent Accreditation Scheme (2012).
[2] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (‘Australian Consumer Law’) s 18.
[3] See, eg, Michael Chammas, ‘Agent to the superstars Isaac Moses deregistered by NRL’, The Sydney Morning Herald, (online, 5 February 2021) <https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/agent-to-the-superstars-isaac-moses-deregistered-by-nrl-20210204-p56zqb.html>
[4] National Rugby League, Accredited Player Agent Scheme (2024); see also, eg, National Rugby League, ‘NRL Statement – Player Agents’ (Media Release, 18 December 2019) <https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/12/18/nrl-statement---player-agents/>
[5] Bryan Couch, ‘How Agent Competition and Corruption Affects Sports and the Athlete-Agent Relationship and What Can Be Done to Control It’ (2000) 10 Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law 111; Claire Frederickson, ‘Protecting Athletes from Financial Exploitation’, Intellex Forensics (Web Page).
[6] Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Football Agent Regulations (2023).
[7] Cover Photo by Maxim Hopman on Unsplash