KPA Lawyers | Melbourne


Sports And Entertainment Law

FOR ATHLETES, AGENTS AND COACHES

Player, Agent and Coaching Contracts

For athletes, agents and coaches

For clubs and sporting organisations

Sponsorship, Endorsement and Image Rights

For athletes, agents and coaches

For clubs and sporting organisations

Disciplinary Tribunals and Integrity Proceedings

For athletes, agents and coaches

For clubs and sporting organisations

Sports Governance and Constitutional Advice

What we do

Sports Disputes and Litigation

For athletes, agents and coaches

For clubs and sporting organisations

Broadcasting and Media Rights

What we do

Event Hosting and Major Events

What we do

Sports M&A and Corporate Transactions

What we do

Sports Employment, Industrial Relations and Athlete Visas

For athletes, agents and coaches

For clubs and sporting organisations

Career Transition and Post-Career Support

What we do

Frequently Asked Questions


While both the NBA and the AFL rely on a salary cap to keep their competitions balanced, the way each league applies it is different.

The NBA operates a “soft” cap which lets clubs spend beyond the salary cap through a set of defined exceptions. Rather than prohibiting it outright, the league discourages overspending economically. Where a club exceeds the salary cap, it triggers a steep, escalating tax which increases with each repeat offence, while also restricting the club’s freedom to trade players. The 2023 Collective Bargaining Agreement tightened this further by introducing two “apron” thresholds that function as a quasi-hard cap. A club spending above the “second apron” faces heavier restrictions, in that the club can no longer combine salaries in trades, loses access to the taxpayer mid-level exception, and has a future first-round pick frozen, in addition to having to pay the overspend tax. 

The AFL takes a much simpler approach. Its cap, referred to as the Total Player Payments, is a hard limit that clubs cannot exceed, paired with a salary floor that sets a minimum spend. Where an AFL club is found in breach of the salary cap, the club can expect a direct sanction, which can include fines and/or a removal of draft picks.

NBA contracts are typically guaranteed, either fully, or for the most part. So, if a player is cut mid-contract, he remains owed the guaranteed balance of his salary. That balance reflects only the guaranteed portion, rather than the full amount he would have earned across the life of the contract.

When an NBA club releases a “guaranteed player”, it can use the “stretch provision” to spread the remaining money owed across future seasons for salary-cap purposes, easing the immediate hit to its cap. The waived player, meanwhile, is placed on “waivers” for 48 hours. If another club claims him, that club assumes his existing contract and the player is considered to have been “claimed”; if no club takes on the contract, the player “clears waivers”, becoming an unrestricted free agent who is free to sign with any team. An unrestricted free agent has much greater scope to negotiate a new deal than a claimed player, who simply inherits his old contract terms.

Contract extensions in the NBA are highly regulated, with maximum salaries being broadly tied to years of service, i.e. 25, 30 and 35 per cent of the cap. The CBA provides for rookie scale extensions and higher “designated player” deals for those who meet set performance criteria.

The AFL works very differently. There is no in-season buyout or waiver market. A contracted player has no freedom of movement unless they are released by the club. 

The movement of players can only occur through two controlled methods:

  • specified trade periods; and
  • free agency that is also controlled. 

Free agents are either restricted (the club can match a rival offer) or unrestricted (the player moves freely), set by years of service and pay. Everything must fit within the hard cap. Australian law treats these as ordinary commercial contracts read alongside the CBA with disputes usually resolved inside the league’s dispute resolution framework.

An AFL player is free to exploit their name, image and likeness, though this does not extend to using the intellectual property of the AFL or a club. Players are also heavily restricted in entering into arrangements with a club’s sponsors or affiliates. These restrictions exist to maintain the integrity of the hard cap, and any such arrangement is assessed by the AFL and must be considered at its market value. Players are also unable to enter into arrangements with protected sponsors of the AFL or the club at all, other than deals relating to footwear. As part of the CBA, players also assign their image and likeness to the AFL, allowing the league to exploit it for the benefit of the game.

By contrast, the United States recognises an enforceable right of publicity (which varies state by state), and player representatives have developed sophisticated group-licensing programs. As such, it is not unusual for high-profile athletes in the NBA to take steps to protect and exploit their image through trademark or other strategies.

A basic principle of Australian law is that no one owns the spectacle of a sporting event. The High Court settled this long ago in Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479, holding that there is no property in the mere sight of a contest. What leagues can control, however, is access to the ground and the copyright in the footage their cameras produce. Leagues therefore commercialise media rights not by claiming to own the game itself, but in two practical ways: 

  • by controlling physical access to the venue (through ticketing and accreditation) and by owning copyright in the broadcast; and
  • footage they produce, which is protected under the Copyright Act 1968. On that base they package and license broadcast and streaming rights.

Layered over this is the anti-siphoning regime in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Because certain events national significance, a statutory anti-siphoning list (historically the AFL and NRL Grand Finals, major cricket, the Olympic and Commonwealth Games and the Melbourne Cup) keeps them available on free-to-air before any exclusive subscription showing.

The key recent change, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Act 2024, commenced in December 2024 and modernised the scheme in two ways:

  • extending protection into the digital world, so that free-to-air broadcasters get first call on rights for their streaming services, which had previously let streaming-only rights slip to subscription platforms; and 
  • adding a “prominence” framework requiring regulated smart TVs to make local free-to-air apps easy to find. Resulting in leagues now selling their rights freely 

Enforcement in the AFL rests in contract. Through playing contracts and the CBA, players agree to be bound by AFL rules and the relevant anti-doping code, and to take disputes to set tribunals and arbitration.

For performance-enhancing drugs, Australia follows the World Anti-Doping Code, administered by WADA. It is run domestically by Sport Integrity Australia, set up in 2020 to consolidate the former anti-doping authority. Anti-doping cases are heard by the National Sports Tribunal, with appeals and further arbitration to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Essendon supplements saga is the leading local example.

Illicit or recreational drug use is handled separately, under the AFL’s health-led Illicit Drugs Policy. The policy was overhauled in 2026 and replaced the old three-strikes model with compulsory hair testing, structured health interventions, and public suspensions where use is established, while still focusing on player welfare. General misconduct (conduct unbecoming or harmful to the game) is dealt with through the league’s own tribunals, which must give procedural fairness, with courts retaining a supervisory role where natural justice is denied.

Why KPA Lawyers for Sports And Entertainment Law

KPA Lawyers | Melbourne
KPA Lawyers | Melbourne
KPA Lawyers | Melbourne
KPA Lawyers | Melbourne

Client Stories

What our clients say

We used KPA for our property settlement and could not be happier.The team were professional and efficient, and genuinely cared about our outcome every step of the way.

Sarah & Mark T.Property settlement, Sandringham

The KPA team guided us through a complex commercial lease negotiation with genuine confidence and expertise. I would highly recommend them to any business looking for reliable,knowledgeable legal support.

James L.Commercial leasing, Melbourne CBD

After a difficult family separation, KPA handled every aspect of my matter with real sensitivity and skill. They took the time to understand what mattered most to me and delivered an outcome I am truly grateful for.

Michelle K.Family law, Mornington Peninsula

Firstly, I wanted to say that our team at Invescasa has been very impressed with the support and service you have provided thus far. As our business grows, we seek to partner with highly experienced conveyancing professionals who can help us deliver exceptional service, advice, and outcomes for our clients. We believe you could be a valuable part of that process

CEO, InvescasaProperty Law

Our Team

The Sports And Entertainment Law TEAM

Ray Purcell

MANAGING PARTNER

Ray is the Director and Principal of KPA Lawyers, bringing nearly 40 years of experience across litigation, mergers...