There was no victory for News Ltd, or the ARL, yesterday. There was no victory for the game of rugby league or the spectators. No David. No Goliath. News Ltd would like to portray itself as the champion of competition, freedom of trade and server of the consumer. The ARL would like to portray itself as upholder of the best traditions of the game in the interests of players and spectators alike. Their conduct shows the contrary.
News Ltd’s motive was greed. It wanted a spectacle for its pay television network and went out to buy or expropriate the ARL’s infrastructure. Yesterday’s judgment makes it clear that News Ltd is still liable in damages for inducing people to breach contracts and other civil wrongs arising from its attack on the ARL.
The ARL has also behaved badly. It never once, in the interests of the cohesion of the game, the desires of spectators and the long-term livelihood of the players, sought compromise or accommodation. Rather it drew up the drawbridge. It may well have been within its legal rights to seek damages and restraining orders. In the end, though, it was just lucky to get the comprehensive orders in the initial action and has ended up with an order for yet-to-be-assessed damages. Whatever money it gets will by a pyrrhic victory. Most of it will go on lawyer or losses sustained through the debilitating effect of the legal fight on the game.
Nor can the lawyers be blamed. Indeed, Bob Ellicott, QC, for the ARL, very commendably urged the parties to conciliate. It was to no avail.
Even now there is talk of a High Court appeal. All that can do is wreck another season, pour more money down the sink and still not get a satisfactory solution. The law and the courts usually do not provide satisfactory solutions to parties in dispute. The law and legal advisers can provide a context in which disputants can work out their own solution, but if they continue to fight and ask for court-imposed solutions, the result will inevitably be unsatisfactory, especially in a complex situation like this.
Some Australian rules fans, of course, will be taking great joy in this. But the issues are broader than that.
There now needs to be some pride-swallowing and some serious peace talks for the long-term interests of the players and the game. It will be impossible to run two competitions at first-grade level. One will inevitably become second-class, but it will be a slow and hurtful process. There will be a shambles of player-poaching and divided spectator loyalties.
There must be a comprehensive first-grade Australian rugby league competition in 1997. That competition must be the base from which the best possible Australian rugby league team can be picked for international competition. Sensible co-operative arrangements must be made for the raising and spending of television, sponsorship and gate revenues. Attention must be given to the development of the game, especially among young players, and the improvement of stadiums.
There is not a great deal of time for that to happen lest another season be lost. It would be absolute folly for either side to waste any of it in an appeal to the High Court.