Who Owns the Athlete Relationship? Understanding the Complexities in Australian Sports Law
Updated: Sep 10
The question of who “owns” the athlete relationship is one of the most contested issues in Australian sports law. This topic arises more frequently than many anticipate. One week, I might be advising an agent on how to protect their client base. The next, I could be acting for an agency trying to retain that base. Both sides have legitimate positions, which is why this issue remains unresolved.
The Agent’s Position
An agent’s career is built on long-term relationship investment. It starts with identifying talent early, often before the athlete has any commercial value. This process involves years of outreach, follow-ups, and presence. Many of these efforts do not yield immediate results, if they yield results at all.
Over time, the relationship builds. Trust develops, and opportunities follow. A client base forms. This client base is not merely a list of contacts; it is the product of sustained personal effort. The athlete’s loyalty is usually tied to the individual agent, not the agency brand.
When an agent moves, the relationship often moves with them. From the agent’s perspective, they are not taking something owned by the agency; they are continuing a relationship they built.
The Agency’s Position
Agencies do not see it that way, and their position is commercially understandable. They invest in the agent and carry the costs during the early stages. They provide infrastructure, branding, systems, and credibility.
Without that platform, many agents would not have the same access or opportunities. From the agency’s perspective, allowing an agent to leave with a developed client base undermines that investment. This is why non-solicitation clauses and restraint of trade provisions are commonly used in agency agreements.
Historically, those clauses have provided some protection under Australian employment law.
Where the Model Starts to Break
There are two practical issues that often undermine the agency's position.
First, the athlete relationship is usually personal. If the athlete’s only meaningful interaction has been with the agent, the agency may not have a strong independent claim to that relationship. Even if the contract is enforceable, the commercial reality is that the athlete may still choose to follow the agent.
Second, the impact on the agent is often underestimated. An agent without clients is effectively starting over. Unlike other professions, their value is not just knowledge; it is access and trust built over time. Removing that can be commercially devastating. This is where the traditional “agency owns the client” model starts to look overly simplistic.
The Structural Problem in Sports Agencies
Most agencies still operate under the assumption that all clients belong to the agency. This approach works during the early stages of an agent’s career when the agency assumes most of the risk. However, it becomes more complicated once the agent becomes commercially valuable. By that stage, the client base may be heavily tied to the agent’s personal efforts.
The issue is that this conversation usually happens at the point of exit. That is the worst possible time to resolve it. Positions are already entrenched, and relationships are strained.
What a Better Structure Looks Like
The solution is not complicated, but it needs to be addressed at the start of the relationship. Well-structured agency agreements can include:
Clear definitions of client ownership.
Trailing commission arrangements for clients developed by the agent.
Buy-out mechanisms for client books upon departure.
Shared revenue models that reflect contributions over time.
Express obligations requiring athletes to contract with the agency, not just the individual agent.
Agencies should also build direct relationships with athletes wherever possible. If the only connection runs through the agent, the agency is exposed. This is both a legal issue and a business strategy issue.
Why This Matters in Australian Sports Law
This tension spans multiple legal areas:
Employment law
Restraint of trade
Commercial contracting
Fiduciary obligations
It is not a simple issue, and the consequences of getting it wrong can be significant. Agents risk losing the value they have built. Agencies risk losing both talent and clients. Athletes can find themselves caught in the middle of disputes about representation.
The agencies and agents who address this early tend to retain both people and clients. Those who do not often revisit the same dispute repeatedly.
How Aus Sports Law Can Assist
At Aus Sports Law, we advise across all sides of this issue. We assist:
Agents seeking to protect their client relationships
Agencies structuring enforceable and commercially fair agreements
Athletes wanting clarity on who represents them and how those relationships operate
If you are dealing with an agent or agency transition, it is worth getting this right upfront rather than trying to fix it on the way out.
Navigating these complexities is crucial for success in the competitive landscape of sports. By understanding the dynamics of athlete relationships, we can better position ourselves for future success.
For more insights on how to manage these relationships effectively, click here.
