Who Owns the Athlete? The Agent vs Agency Tension

The question of who “owns” the athlete relationship is one of the most contested issues in Australian sports law.

It comes up more often than most people expect. One week you are advising an agent trying to protect their client base. The next, you are acting for an agency trying to retain it. Both sides have a legitimate position. That is exactly 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 commercial value. It involves years of outreach, follow-ups, and presence. Many of those efforts do not convert immediately, if at all.

Over time, the relationship builds. Trust develops. Opportunities follow. A client base forms.

That client base is not a simple 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 invested in the agent. They carried the cost during the early stages. They provided infrastructure, branding, systems, and credibility.

Without that platform, many agents would not have had 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 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 follow the agent.

Second, the impact on the agent is often underestimated. An agent without clients is effectively starting again. 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 with a default position that all clients belong to the agency.

That works at the early stage of an agent’s career, when the agency is taking most of the risk.

It becomes more difficult 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 on departure;

• shared revenue models that reflect contribution over time; and

• 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 sits across multiple legal areas:

• employment law;

• restraint of trade;

• commercial contracting; and

• 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 be 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.

• agents seeking to protect their client relationships;

• agencies structuring enforceable and commercially fair agreements; and

• 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.