Can the Giants dismiss Shane Mumford for his out-of-hours conduct?

In the latest instalment of “professional sports stars behaving badly”, a video has surfaced of ex-GWS Giants and Sydney Swans player Shane Mumford snorting a line of powder. The incident allegedly occurred in 2015 when Mumford was still a player for the Giants, the club at which he currently works as an assistant coach. The timing is not great for Mumford who had been considering coming out of retirement to play for the Giants next season. There are also potential employment law ramifications as although the conduct occurred outside of the workplace, in certain circumstances employers may have a right to discipline employees, including termination, for their out of hours conduct.

It has consistently been held by the Courts that an employer may terminate the employment of an employee because of their out-of-hours conduct provided that there is a relevant connection between the conduct and the employment relationship. The following matters will be considered when determining if there is a relevant connection:

Whether the conduct, viewed objectively, is likely to cause serious damage to the relationship between the employee and employer;
Whether the conduct damages the employer’s interests; or
Whether the conduct is incompatible with the employee’s duty as an employee.

In Mumford’s case, the strongest argument that there is a relevant connection between the conduct and the employment relationship is that the likely drug use in the video is conduct that damages both the reputation and financial interests of the Giants as the employer. Anything that reflects poorly on an individual, generally also reflects poorly on their employer (rightly or wrongly) especially when the employer is well known to the general public. Also working against Mumford is that the more senior an employee involved, or the higher their own public profile, more often than not, the more closely scrutinised their out of hours behaviour will be.

In addition, sports clubs are increasingly positioning themselves as family friendly and are very wary of the impact that negative press can have on their ability to attract and retain sponsors. Just ask the Canterbury Bulldogs after they lost their major sponsor Jaycar after their Mad Monday celebrations this year. Indeed, the Giants released a statement in which they stated the club “views Shane’s actions as completely counter to the club’s values.” There is potential that Mumford’s actions could damage the financial interests of the Giants as his employer.

However, the reality is that it is generally difficult for employers to lawfully dismiss an employee for their out of hours conduct. This is because the employer has very little control over how an employee spends their own time outside of work. One or more of the three factors outlined above must be satisfied, and the conduct must be of such gravity that it amounts to a repudiation of the employment contract by the employee.

In all likelihood, I do not think the Giants will dismiss Mumford as an employee as working in his favour is that the video is over 3 years old. Another reality is that although there may be grounds to terminate, the Giants can simply choose not to do so. Given his value (and potential value as a player next year) to the Giants, I would not be surprised to see “Big Mummy” don the orange and charcoal again next season.

Category: News & Commentary | LEAVE A COMMENT

April 20

Rugby Australia’s inclusion policy vs. Folau’s freedom of speech

Earlier this month, high profile rugby star Israel Folau posted some highly offensive comments on Instagram stating that gay people were headed to “HELL… Unless they repent of their sins and turn to God”. It’s brought up the traditional questions about the right to free speech, vs. the rights of inclusion, as well as our expectations of sports stars who we laud as “role models in the community” until their off-field behaviour gets them into strife, or they go rogue with unsavoury opinions on social media.

Of interest to me has been the hypocrisy of spouting a commitment to LGBTQI inclusion but being unwilling to back it. Rugby Australia was rightly quick to distance itself from Folau the day after his comments were published on Instagram, stating that “Folau’s personal beliefs do not reflect the views of Rugby Australia. Rugby supports all forms of inclusion, whether its sexuality, race, or gender, which is set out in our Inclusion Policy (2014).” Some suggested such a response was merely to placate its largest corporate sponsor Qantas.

From that point on there were two clear paths that Rugby Australia could have been taken. Option A was to go down the freedom of speech avenue and let Folau deal with the consequences. Continue to distance themselves, let Folau cop any heat for his homophobia and leave it to more progressive Christians to challenge his views publicly. Or Option B – take a stance, and assess whether Folau’s statement was in breach of its Inclusion Policy, it’s social media policy, and any employment contract clauses. If Folau’s statements were in breach, then deal out the consequences. In doing so, show that its commitment to fostering inclusion and diversity in its organisation and the wider rugby community is more important than upsetting one of its stars. Follow the path it took last year when it pledged its support for marriage equality and the LGBTQI community.

If solely judged by the Court of Public Opinion, Rugby Australia would have probably come out fairly unscathed had they taken Option A. Media pundits, sporting commentators and fans appear determined to protect what they believe is our fundamental human right to free speech, arguing that Folau’s right to express his religious belief shouldn’t have been undermined by Rugby Australia’s concerns about upsetting sponsors. Whilst initially expressing their disappointment, I think it’d be unlikely that Qantas would have made any further public statements on the matter, given Alan Jones’ questioning of why the airline maintained a partnership with Emirates Airlines, which is based in the UAE, where homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment.

Instead Rugby Australia managed to get itself into quite a pickle, in its attempt to appease everyone. After meeting with Folau to discuss social media policy, CEO Raelene Castle emerged stating “I think Israel has acknowledged that maybe he could have put a positive spin on that same message and done it in a more respectful way”, and “Rugby Australia has got a policy of inclusion and using social media with respect”. Castle suggested it was just the first conversation, and more conversations with Folau would be had. She was however also quick to alleviate fears that Folau might be leaving rugby, stating “we would really like him to stay in rugby, that’s hugely important to us”. The overall impression was that Folau had been given a slap on the wrist and he’ll think twice next time, but that Rugby Australia was determined to hold onto its golden boy.

Yeah nah, Folau said. Rather than retracting his comments, he doubled down publishing an article quoting Bible passages to justify his remarks. He made it clear he would not easily give up his position and would walk away from his contract if necessary. He argued Castle mis-represented his position in her comments to the media and did so to appease other people.

Castle then appeared to back down and call an end to the matter, conceding there would be no sanctions: “In his article, Israel clearly articulated his religious beliefs and why his faith is important to him and has provided context behind his social media comment. In his own words, Israel said that he did not intend to upset people intentionally or bring hurt to the game. We accept Israel’s position.”

Rugby Australia has attempted to placate everyone, but in doing so has managed to leave both sides of the divide pissed off. Those that believe Folau has a right to his opinions and to speak opening about his faith feel he shouldn’t have had to explain his actions to Rugby bosses. Some felt the game was letting down a decent man who had a right to express his religious beliefs without being gagged by his employer based on commercial considerations.

And on the other side it’s upset those who believe Rugby Australia’s response only compounds the hurtful message Folau made and leaves LGBTQI youngsters feeling unwelcome by a sporting organisation where such intolerance continues to exist. Some questioned whether Rugby Australia’s inclusion policy was worth the paper its written on.

Many questions remain unanswered – What would Rugby Australia do next time a player says something so offensive publicly? Is it ok if its faith-based? Is it ok to post hurtful comments as long as the player claims there was no intent to harm? Is it only ok if it’s said by a top player who does not seem particularly concerned about his future with rugby? Is it an inclusion policy with exclusion clauses?

If you’re going to have an inclusion policy or a code of conduct, be prepared to walk the talk. Have a good hard think when implementing these policies about the type of behaviour which would breach the policy, and what repercussions would follow. Rugby Australia proclaims its support for Pride in Sport initiatives and the creation of “inclusive spaces though the reduction of homophobia, stigma and discrimination.” It seems rather hypocritical to then to fail to reprimand one of its most prominent players when they seek to demonise a vulnerable minority group.

If Rugby Australia took action to sanction Folau, many would be outraged claiming Folau’s right to freedom of speech had been infringed upon and his employer has no right to censor him. However, freedom of speech is significantly qualified by exceptions. One of these exceptions can include a contract of employment which limits our freedom of speech to ensure we abide by the ethics, values and morals of our employers. Back in 2015 when SBS presenter Scott McIntyre found himself out of a job for breaching SBS’s Code of Conduct and Social Media policy after tweeting some offensive remarks about the ANZACs, Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson said “Decrying McIntyre’s dismissal as a free speech violation and censorship is absurd – McIntyre was free to tweet his bile before he worked for SBS, while he worked for SBS and now that he no longer works for SBS. SBS simply decided it didn’t want to be associated with him. No one is guaranteed a job. Employers are not compelled to put up with behaviour that harms their public reputation.”

Enforcing code of conducts, or policies around inclusion and diversity is a tricky business. They can be ambiguous and open to interpretation, if not well defined and communicated. Particularly when they attempt to capture behaviour outside of work. Rugby Australia’s Inclusion Policy attempts to do just though stating “There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this”. Rugby Australia has avoided engaging with their Inclusion Policy this time in fear of losing their code-hopping superstar, but it may make it even more tricky for them to enforce next time future off-field behaviour comes into conflict with the values that the organisation purports to support.

Category: News & Commentary | LEAVE A COMMENT

December 12

Professional sports contracts: Are they worth the paper they are written on?

As a matter of principle, professional sports contracts, whether it be in the NRL, AFL, A-League or Suncorp Super Netball, are more or less the same as other employment contracts. The athlete is the employee and the club that they play for is the employer. Both types of contracts set out the terms and conditions that will govern the relationship between the contracting parties and includes terms relating to salary, KPIs, length of the contract and termination of the contract. In reality though, the practicalities surrounding sports contracts are vastly different, especially regarding their termination.

A prime example of this is the news recently that Jarryd Hayne effected the end of his contract with the Gold Coast Titans to return to Sydney to fulfil his current “lifelong dream” to play for the Parramatta Eels. This isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last, that NRL players have effectively walked out on their clubs with many in the past unable to resist the lure of a well-paid gig in overseas rugby union (I’m looking at you Sonny Bill Williams and Semi Radrara). Hayne himself is a repeat offender having previously walked out on the Eels in 2014 to pursue his then “lifelong dream” to play in the NFL. Standard NRL player contracts do not generally contain an out clause so it has become somewhat common for a player seeking to move to reach a “mutual agreement” with their club whereby the contract is terminated, and the player free to go elsewhere.

The issue isn’t just confined to rugby league either. The AFL has seen a large number of players in the recent trade period, such as Jake Lever, Charlie Cameron and Josh Schache, effectively pushing through their own trade to move back to the state in which they grew up. This so called “go-home factor” has seen players like Charlie Cameron, previously of the Adelaide Crows, requesting a “compassionate” release from his contract so he could be closer to his family and friends. Cameron got his wish, he is now back in QLD and will line up for the Brisbane Lions in 2018.

This contrasts significantly with an ordinary employment context, where an employee is rarely able to up and leave with their employer highly unlikely to reach a “mutual agreement” regarding a release. Ordinary employers certainly would not allow a mutual termination because of a “go-home factor”. If an employee was adamant on leaving, their employer would insist they provide notice under their contract of employment. For particularly skilled and highly valued employees (which would be a fair description of professional athletes), their contracts generally provide long notice periods in which their employer can place them on gardening leave as well as enforce restraints of trade that prevent them from working for competitors.

From the perspective of the clubs, I often wonder why they rarely play hard ball with their players and try to prevent them from leaving. Clubs rarely insist on the performance of the player’s contract (with the Sonny Bill situation being a notable exception) despite investing significant resources in them in the form of money, development and draft picks. Nor do clubs attempt to enforce restraint of trade provisions after they have left. Clearly, clubs would much rather cut their losses and run than have a $1.2 million a year player such as Jarryd Hayne, or a number 2 draft pick such as Josh Schache, sulking in reserve grade when they could let them go, and use that money and salary cap space to recruit someone who wants to be there.

However, it would seem the pendulum has swung too far towards player power with clubs seemingly unable to ensure that their players, many of whom are extremely well paid, honour their contracts. Professional sporting clubs need to consider whether a hard-line approach should be adopted because it is clear that if the status quo remains, professional sporting contracts will continue to be worth less than the paper than are written on.

Category: News & Commentary | 1 Comment

December 14

Three strikes and you’re out – is it possible to ban sports talk in the workplace?

A recent opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald raised the issue of sport conversation in the workplace, emphasising its ability to exclude as sport can be significant within a culture, but not necessarily for all individuals. While this may be true, it is difficult to argue that sport should – and more importantly can – be extricated from everyday life.

An iconic scene from cult British comedy The IT Crowd, jokes about the struggles of being the person at work who doesn’t know about football. In my view the scene really highlights both sides of this argument. The person with no interest in football is forced to gain knowledge in order to be able to engage in conversation with colleagues. On the other hand, the football fan thinks he is being friendly and connecting in light conversation.

The language of sport

Sport has long infiltrated the way we speak. Colloquial language has adapted sporting analogies into every day speech, to the point where it is likely that most people never realise their origins in sport. ‘Jump the gun’ stems from the starting signal for races, while ‘hit your stride’, ‘hands down’ and ‘down to the wire’ can be traced back to horse racing. To ‘run interference’ is actually a technical play in American Football and ‘saved by the bell’ originates from boxing.

It’s true that workplace culture has shifted to collaboration more than competition, and competition is the most inherent characteristic of sport. But to say that this is a significant problem with sport influenced language – which is used subconsciously – in the workplace not only overlooks how sport has become so ingrained in language as to be inseparable, but also the image of teamwork that sport and sport influenced language can instill and inspire.

The market for sport is growing

Geography is no longer a barrier, with sport reporting and fan following going beyond what is available domestically. There is a plethora of homegrown competitions and events available for consumption, like NRL, AFL, Big Bash League, A-League and W-League, ANZ Championship and V8 Supercars. But the market for sport has grown even more in recent years to include overseas competitions such as the Super Bowl, EPL, World Series and NFL.

It is easy to understand how, with so many different options for consumption, people can begin to feel ‘left out’ when conversations on these topics arise in the workplace. Even the most avid sportsman can’t be across every type and competition available. Amidst all this, employers have the unenviable job of maintaining an inclusive atmosphere in what can be a very diverse workplace. This is not a small task, and workplace policy plays a significant role in managing employee behaviour and professional interaction.

But is it really possible to control behaviour as far as appropriate conversation topics, and where do you then draw the line?

Perhaps it is possible to limit discussion of local competitions that run for a regular and lengthy season. It must be difficult to work in Melbourne where AFL is a way of life as much as it is a sport. When there are multiple games on each weekend for a number of months, the opportunity for prolonged and regular discussion is significantly increased. On the other hand, major event sporting, such as the Olympics, World Cups and the Melbourne Cup, can often gather the attention of larger groups – even those who wouldn’t generally consider themselves sports fans. There is no logical way that you can put a partial ban on sport conversation without including all types.

Diverse society has diverse interests

The question then becomes even more complex. If sport is banned, there are many other areas of interest and discussion that can be considered as equally exclusionary. In the last 20 years, television viewing options have become more diverse. Digital TV has opened up new channels for free-to-air and web streaming like Netflix has revolutionised the ability to ‘binge watch’ whole seasons in one sitting.

For those who don’t watch a lot of TV, or who are late to join a cult show following, water cooler discussion about the latest revelation on Game of Thrones can be just as daunting – particularly when they start spouting phrases like ‘Winter is Coming’ and ‘Hold the Door’ that to a non-viewer have no real connotation. In many ways, TV as a conversation topic is even more divisive than sport in the workplace as it is somewhat time-sensitive: seasons and series are finite, story lines vary from year to year and the attention span of viewers moves on quickly. Unintentional ‘spoilers’ can also sour interpersonal relationships.

When you spend roughly a third of your life working, it is important to enjoy what you do. A big part of that is building connections with your colleagues, which in turn strengthens collaboration and teamwork. The foundations for these connections are light conversation and anecdotes, which are frequently provided by recent events. Sport is the one of the best options for these moments, it is rarely as polarising as politics, and even the most contradictory opinions can be joked about. The real problem in banning sport conversation in the workplace, is that, rather than create unity it will merely create more opportunity for people to feel excluded. It is impossible to say one person’s interest is forbidden when another’s isn’t. Workplaces are moving towards being more flexible, connected and informal, and placing bans on some or all non-work related topics is a step in the wrong direction.

Category: News & Commentary | LEAVE A COMMENT

May 4

Out of work conduct: when is dismissal justified?

We see it all the time in professional sports: athletes losing their contracts over poor decisions made away from the game. Take for example, Todd Carney who was spectacularly sacked from the Cronulla Sharks, without procedural fairness, following the ‘bubbler’ incident, or Nick D’Arcy who was kicked off the Australian swimming team bound for the Beijing Olympics after he punched former swimmer, Simon Cowley, in the face, breaking his jaw. The reason that is almost always given by the clubs and sporting bodies to justify the athlete’s termination is that they ‘brought the sport into disrepute’ or that they breached the team’s code of conduct.

Due to the tremendous amount of attention that is received when a professional athlete puts a foot wrong and then the subsequent disciplinary action that inevitably follows, it is not unusual for employers to similarly think that they are entitled to take action against an employee when they exhibit out of work behaviour that they do not agree with. Whilst this is normally behaviour which would be considered criminal and which the police are involved in, it also increasingly includes posts on social media which could be damaging to a colleague or the business as a whole. So then, when can an employer dismiss an employee for conduct that occurred away from work?

The key for employers to remember is that they have very little control over how an employee chooses to spend their time away from work. They cannot dictate what an employee can or cannot do unless there is a sufficient connection to the person’s work and likewise, it is very difficult for an employer to terminate an employee’s employment (which will subsequently not be found by the Fair Work Commission to be unfair) for out of work conduct.

In Deeth v Milly Hill Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 6422, an employer was found to have unfairly dismissed an apprentice butcher after he had been arrested for being an accessory after the fact to murder. The employer produced evidence that customers would boycott the small butchery and other employees would resign if it continued to employ the apprentice. However, the Fair Work Commission found that the employer had a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to the arrest and should have carried out a reasonable investigation prior to terminating.

This case makes it clear that employers must be extremely careful when terminating an employee for out of work conduct. Further, employers must still ensure that a fair process is carried out, no matter how serious the alleged out of work conduct is. Just one of the factors that the Fair Work Commission must have regard to when determining an unfair dismissal is whether the employer had a valid reason for dismissal. The other factors which are considered are all relevant to whether a procedurally fair process was implemented and whether the employee was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to termination.

However, there will be times when an employer can consider termination (following, of course, a procedurally fair process), including when the behaviour:

Damages the reputation or commercial interests of the employer (for example, by very specifically referring to the company on social media in a damaging or disparaging way);
Is incompatible with the employee’s duties that they perform for the employer (for example, if a truck driver had their licence suspended or cancelled for high range drink driving);
Occurs at an extension of a work related event or occurs in the presence of colleagues (for example, if a person becomes intoxicated at a work event and after it has ended, an employee sexually harasses a colleague).

In Kolodjashnij v J Boag and Son Brewing Pty Ltd [2010] FWAFB 3258, Fair Work Australia (as it was then called) found that an employee who had been terminated after being charged with driving his personal vehicle whilst three times over the legal blood alcohol limit, was not unfair. Importantly in this case, the employer, who was a manufacturer of alcohol, had a policy that stated that if an employee was charged with drink driving, their employment would be automatically terminated because of the negative impact it would have on the business, which was located in a small town. In this case, the employee was aware of the impact a drink driving charge would have. Further, the employer took time to make the decision and allowed the employee to respond to the allegations which were made against him, ensuring that the process was fair.

What is important for a business to ensure when it comes up against an employee who has acted poorly outside of work is to consider the impact that it actually has on the business. Whilst the employer might find the conduct to be morally or ethically wrong, this will not be enough to terminate the employee’s employment. The conduct must be sufficiently related to the employee’s job so as to impact the business’ reputation and/or render the employee incapable of carrying out their duties.

Category: News & Commentary | LEAVE A COMMENT

March 8

International Women’s Day – A Time to Reflect on Women in Sport

International Women’s Day falls on the 8th of March each year and was created at the turn of the twentieth century to bring attention to and promote issues of equal rights in employment and suffrage for women. We have come a long way since then, with women being given the right to vote in all Australian states by 1908, the right to control reproduction with the introduction of the contraceptive pill by 1961 and being granted equal pay for equal work with the decision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1969. The introduction of anti-discrimination legislation on both a state and federal level throughout the 70s and 80s made it unlawful to discriminate against a person based on their sex. However, despite these accomplishments, we still have many issues which are unique to women and where women are still at a significant disadvantage when compared with their male counterparts.

This year, the United Nations will celebrate International Women’s Day with the theme ‘Planet 50 by 2030: Step It Up for Gender Equality’, which aims to ensure that all girls have free and quality education by 2030 and that all forms of discrimination and violence against women end. Organisations across Australia and the rest of the world will be holding events to recognise the achievements of women and the steps that we can take towards eliminating all types of gender bias and discrimination.

Women in Sport

2016 is also the year of the Rio Olympics. Given that a large amount of attention will be given to sport and in particular, women’s sport this year, I will take the opportunity afforded by the occasion to shine a light on the injustices and struggles that our sportswomen face on a daily basis: from their reduced salaries to their inferior travel arrangements and their struggle to remain elite athletes whilst working or studying full time.

In June last year, the Matildas, Australia’s national football team, progressed to the World Cup quarter finals, making history to become the first Australian team, men or women’s, to win a knockout stage match at a World Cup. Whilst the success of the women did receive media attention, it was not in any way comparable to the attention the men received in 2014 when they failed to progress past the group stages. The Matildas built on their World Cup success, qualifying for the Rio Olympics last night and ending a 12-year drought which saw them miss out on the past two Olympic games.

What is even more remarkable about the Matildas success is that the majority of the players have to work full time or part time jobs to support themselves outside of football, as the amount of money they are paid for being elite athletes does not cover their living expenses. The ones that aren’t working are studying so that once their football careers are over, they will have the skills to find other work, knowing that what they make during their football careers will not support them once they hang up their boots, unlike many of their male counterparts.

2015 was also a spectacular year for other women’s sports, with the Diamonds, Australia’s national netball team, taking out the Netball World Cup, the Southern Stars taking out the Ashes in cricket and Michelle Payne winning the Melbourne Cup, making her the first woman to ever do so. In addition, the NRL has established the Jillaroos, Australia’s national rugby league team, the AFL announced that a women’s AFL competition will start in 2017 and the women’s rugby sevens will debut later this year at the Rio Olympics.

However, 2015 was also a trying time for women’s sport, with the Women’s National Basketball League and the W-League being cut from the ABC’s programming, following reduced funding from the Federal Government. In addition, the Matildas went on strike, refusing to participate in a tour of the USA in response to stalled pay negotiations with Football Federation Australia. It was revealed that at the time, women were earning just $21,000 a year despite being recognised as one of the best players in Australia and playing for their country on the international stage. In comparison, the national minimum wage for a full time worker is $34,159 per year. Stories emerged that some women’s players were cleaning toilets and lining up to receive CentreLink payments just so they could keep playing for their country. Teresa Polias, captain of Sydney FC W-League team and member of the Matildas said:

“We’re not asking for millions of dollars. We’re asking for minimum wage, to sustain our lives off the pitch to do well on it. It’s as simple as that.”

According to reports following the Matildas’ pay dispute, they were offered a two tiered deal with a minimum wage of $34,000. In comparison, the Socceroos, the men’s national football team, do not receive a guaranteed income from Football Federal Australia, but receive performance based bonuses, as well as salaries from their professional clubs. As an example, Tim Cahill, arguably one of the best men’s football players that Australia has ever produced, was earning approximately $27,000 per day playing for Chinese club, Shanghai Shenhua, more than what the Matildas were earning in a year. Whilst this is not intended to take away from the men’s achievements in any way whatsoever, it is a clear reflection of how sports people are valued based on their gender, rather than their achievements.

Supporting Elite Women Athletes

Whilst there is still an extremely long way to go before equality is achieved between men and women athletes, progress is being made by women athletes who are standing up and voicing their opinions on the issue and by institutions willing to invest in and support women’s sport. A good example of where pay equality has been achieved, is tennis, where men and women receive equal prize money in all four Grand Slams. This was a result of relentless campaigning by female tennis players, dating as far back as the 70s when Billie Jean King, winner of 39 Grand Slam titles started advocating for sexual equality in tennis. This was followed up in the 2000s when Venus and Serena Williams, two of the modern game’s most successful players, took the charge against pay inequality.

Earlier this year, Federal Sports Minister Sussan Ley and Australian Sports Commission chairman John Wylie wrote to a number of sporting bodies setting out their expectations in relation to travel arrangements for international sporting events. The letter read:

“In 2016, we can think of no defensible reason why male and female athletes should travel in different classes or stay in different standard accommodation when attending major international sporting events. The ASC is now proposing to make gender-neutral travel policies for senior major championships a condition of investment by the ASC in sport.”

This came on the back of criticism received by Basketball Australia in 2012 when it was revealed that the women’s basketball team, the Opals, travelled in economy class to the London Olympics whilst the men’s team, the Boomers, travelled in business class. By making it a requirement that men and women receive equal treatment when travelling overseas in order to qualify for government funding, it will hopefully go a long way toward ensuring that women are not treated differently than their male counterparts when attending overseas competitions. Over time, hopefully this will translate to equality in all facets of life as a sports person.

Following the Matildas’ World Cup success, PCC Lawyers, where I work as an employment solicitor, sat down to discuss what we could do to help support women in sport. Being a relatively small, boutique firm, we obviously don’t have the power of the Westfield’s and Hyundai’s of the world, however, were nonetheless determined to find a way that we could show our support of elite women competing in their chosen sports. Given that we are a female dominated workplace located in Sydney and all keenly follow football (or soccer as we call it), it seemed a good fit to forge a relationship with the Sydney FC Women’s W-League team. Thus begun our sponsorship of the women’s team, which saw our logo and name displayed on the women’s shirts and shorts and around the stadium at their home matches, in exchange for our support of the women.

What we learned from our sponsorship of the Sydney FC W-League team is that women’s sport is in need of businesses recognising the investment opportunity afforded by sponsoring and supporting women in sport. Relentless campaigning by athletes of both sexes will only get us so far. It won’t be until the people behind official sporting bodies, government departments and businesses recognise that there is no reason why, in 2016, there is such a level of disparity between the genders, when we have been able to make so many advancements in other areas that affect women.

Hopefully, in the not so distant future, we will be able to look back on the unfairness and inequality that is faced by women athletes in the same way we look back at the time before 1908 when women were given the right to vote: with disbelief that it ever occurred and relief that it has now been remedied.

And so, with International Women’s Day now upon us, PCC Lawyers announces that, in our continued support of women in sport, we are offering pro-bono legal services to assist female athletes in their sporting endeavours. This applies to elite athletes who may be representing their country or state all the way down to junior and amateur girls and women who may be playing for recreation in local competitions. We aim, in whatever small way we can, to ensure women and girls are not kept from competing in their chosen sport because of financial pressures.

If you would like to enquire about whether we can assist you or know of someone who might need legal assistance in their sporting pursuits, please feel free to email info@pcclawyers.com.au or contact (02) 8436 2500.

Category: News & Commentary | 2 Comments