The Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) has come out strongly amid the threat of R360, pledging to ban players who commit to the fledgling rugby competition with 10-year bans.
A host of NRL stars, including Zac Lomax and Ryan Papenhuyzen, have been linked with defection to the as-yet non-existent franchise league.
In an effort to ward off the potential threat, the game's bosses came together on Wednesday to determine sanctions for players who jump ship and the agents who facilitate it.
MORE: Everything you need to know about R360
They concluded players who sign an agreement with any "competition, league, or organisation not recognised by the ... ARLC as a national sporting federation", will be issued with 10-year bans, while agents will face a similar fate.
“The Commission has a clear duty to act in the best interests of Rugby League and its fans—and we will take all necessary steps to protect the future of the game," ARLC boss Peter V'Landys said.
“Unfortunately, there will always be organisations that seek to pirate our game for potential financial gain. They don’t invest in pathways or the development of players —they simply exploit the hard work of others, putting players at risk of financial loss while profiting themselves.”
NRL CEO Andrew Abdo also weighed in:
“This policy reflects the united stance of the Commission and NRL clubs.
“We will not allow unrecognised competitions to undermine the integrity, professionalism, and future of rugby league.”
Significantly, the ARLC statement confirmed any suspensions could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Despite the apparently strong stance, prominent and former West Tigers club chairman Lee Hagipantelis has revealed the NRL could face legal issues if they attempt to impose such significant bans.
“It’s an interesting one,” Hagipantelis explained on SEN radio.
“The NRL can attempt to impose some sanctions to preclude a player from returning, but I have no doubt that they would face some significant legal hurdles under Australian employment and contract law.
“Any restriction on a person’s ability to work or trade is void unless it can be established that it’s in the genuinely reasonable commercial interest of the party and public interest.
“The courts take a very liberal view over people’s entitlement to work for an employer of their choice, [they] do not look favourably on any unfair restraints.”