Cross-border disputes in sport: What the Lions v Rugby Australia clash teaches rights-holders

Written by James Harris, Solicitor in our Dispute Resolution team as he looks at the cross-border disputes between the British Lions and Rugby Australia.

With the 2025 British & Irish Lions tour well underway, the headlines have not been confined to the rugby pitch. In the run-up to the first Test, tensions flared between the Lions and Rugby Australia over the availability of top Wallabies players for key warm-up matches.

British & Irish Lions CEO Ben Calveley stated publicly that the tour agreement between the two parties required Rugby Australia to release its best players not just for the three Test matches, but also for vital pre-Test fixtures. Rugby Australia resisted, citing player welfare concerns and an existing fixture against Fiji. The Lions responded with the threat of legal action in the English courts.

Although a compromise appears to have been reached, the dispute has already sparked public debate, and offers a timely lesson for rights-holders, event organisers and legal teams working in elite sport.

The commercial stakes

The Lions tour is one of rugby’s most iconic events, played every four years and attracting a global fan base, extensive broadcast revenues, and major sponsor involvement. Warm-up matches, particularly those involving full-strength opposition, are essential to maintaining commercial value and competitive credibility.

That’s why player release isn’t just a sporting concern. It’s a contractual obligation that sits at the heart of the tour’s financial model. When that obligation is challenged or delayed, the consequences can be significant.

What might the contract say?

Although the full text of the Lions-Rugby Australia agreement remains private, public statements suggest the inclusion of:

• A player-release clause, explicitly requiring Rugby Australia to make available its top Test players for both warm-up and Test matches.
• Good-faith and cooperation provisions, obliging both sides to work together to maximise the success of the tour.

If these clauses are present and clearly worded, then Rugby Australia’s refusal, or even delay, in releasing players could be a breach of contract.

What could the Lions have done?

Had the dispute escalated further, the Lions’ options would have depended on the governing law and jurisdiction of the contract. There would be several options available to the Lions under English law. The most urgent and impactful of these would have been to apply to the High Court for injunctive relief.

Mandatory injunction

This is the most direct route: the Lions could have sought a court order requiring Rugby Australia to release specific players by a specific date. However, mandatory injunctions are not granted lightly. The Lions would need to show:

• The contract was clear and unambiguous
• Damages would not be an adequate remedy (i.e. the value of performance is irreplaceable)
• There is a serious issue to be tried
• The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction

The court would also consider the feasibility of enforcement. A mandatory injunction may be less attractive where the performance is overseas and difficult to monitor.

Prohibitory injunction

Alternatively, the Lions could have asked the court to prohibit Rugby Australia from doing something inconsistent with the agreement, such as fielding those players in other matches on conflicting dates.

Damages

If performance is no longer possible or practical, let’s say the match has passed, the Lions could pursue a traditional breach of contract claim for damages. This would involve assessing lost revenue, reduced sponsorship value, and other financial harm.

However, litigation over damages would be retrospective, slow, and potentially difficult to quantify. In the context of an active tour, it is unlikely to deliver the swift solution that commercial partners expect.

Arbitration

If the contract includes an arbitration clause, this may be the preferred route for resolving disputes. Arbitration clauses are often included in sports contracts and some sports agreements now include expedited procedures that allow for urgent interim relief. However, there’s little public evidence that this contract included such a mechanism, and even if it did, the tight timelines might have limited its usefulness.

Commercial pressure

Ultimately, as often happens in sport, the resolution was likely driven more by commercial and reputational pressure than by formal legal action. The Lions’ decision to go public with their concerns sent a clear message to fans, sponsors and stakeholders. The implied threat of litigation, combined with the reputational risk to Rugby Australia, may have been sufficient to bring both parties back to the table.

Jurisdictional and enforcement considerations

Even if the Lions succeeded in securing an English court order, enforcement would not be straightforward. The order would need to be recognised in Australia, where Rugby Australia is based and where the players would be located. This adds another layer of complexity for any UK-based rights-holder seeking to enforce performance abroad.

Lessons for governing bodies and rights-holders

This dispute may have fizzled out before reaching the courtroom, but the lessons are clear:

• Clarity is key. Contracts must spell out exactly who must be released, when, and for how long.
• Anticipate conflict. Include provisions for fast dispute resolution and consider using performance bonds or staged payments to incentivise compliance.
• Be prepared to act early. Injunctions are only effective if pursued quickly and before the breach occurs or becomes irreversible.
• Align legal and PR strategy. The Lions’ carefully timed public statements applied commercial pressure while laying legal groundwork. In sport, litigation and reputation are closely entwined.
• Draft for enforcement. If performance depends on cooperation from an overseas party, make sure the contract’s remedies are enforceable in that jurisdiction, or provide financial disincentives for non-compliance.

Final thoughts

In elite sport, performance can’t always be measured in points and tries. For the rights-holders and commercial partners behind a major event like the Lions tour, performance includes delivering on contractual promises, like player availability, that underpin the entire operation.

We advise governing bodies, clubs and sponsors on navigating the legal and commercial risks in international sport. Whether it’s structuring watertight agreements or responding to a breach under pressure, we help our clients protect the value of their sporting assets.