Resources: Blog

Social media, sporting clubs and athletes


Doing It For The 'Gram

Since it arrived in Australia, Uber has been under fire for its disruption of the transport industry and its complicated relationship with its drivers.

Social media has long been a platform through which athletes can engage with their fans and “build their brand”.

For professional athletes, their status as public figures make them instantly recognisable and immediately associated with their sport and their club. Even a non-professional athlete’s use of social media can impact the club or sport’s relationships with sponsors and the public. Given this linked recognition, posts on social media will inevitably be seen as a reflection of the club or sport.

In the employment context, most employers have introduced specific social media policies, procedures and training to address the use of social media by employees. These measures usually include some advice to employees about the acceptable use of social media and the consequences for breaching a social media policy.

Recent case law has seen courts and tribunals form the view that the online behaviour of employees does have the potential to cause damage to the employer’s interests or the employment relationship. For this reason, the courts have supported an employer’s right to regulate the out-of-hours conduct of employees (including the use of social media) where that can impact on the employer’s interests.

For example, in Pearson v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 446, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) considered an unfair dismissal claim by an employee who was dismissed, amongst other things, for his refusal to sign an acknowledgement that he read and understood the employer’s social media policy after he received one-on-one training in the policy. The employee refused to sign on the basis that the policy would constrain his activities outside of work hours – which in his view the employer had no right to do.

The FWC was satisfied that the employer’s direction to the employee to sign the acknowledgment was not unlawful or unreasonable. It commented: “Gone is the time (if it ever existed) where an employee might claim posts on social media are intended to be for private consumption only.” The FWC also noted it would be impractical for a social media policy, which served to protect the reputation of the business, to operate “at work” only and held that “clearly there are some obligations employees accept as part of their employment relationship that have application whether they are at work or involved in activities outside of working hours.”

The recent well-publicised matter between Rugby Australia and Israel Folau demonstrates the importance of sporting organisations having clear social media policies in place and providing training to players in the acceptable use of social media.

While Folau was previously warned about his social media use, it is reported that there were no clauses in the standard player contract relating specifically to the use of social media. Reports have also suggested that specific social media training was not provided to Folau to further guide him in what was acceptable and what was not acceptable in relation to his use of social media.

Sporting organisations – with professional or non-professional athletes - must adopt and have in place a social media policy and must provide training to players on the policy and appropriate social media use. If these measures are properly implemented, this would leave little room for doubt about player obligations, the consequences for breaching the policy and their club or sport’s expectations of them.

Workplace Law has a social media “do’s, don’ts and legal obligations” training module specifically designed for players and sporting clubs – please contact Shane Koelmeyer if you would like to know more or to arrange for us to conduct that training session for your players and club.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation September 2020

The Queensland Government recently passed legislation amending the Criminal Code Act 1899 (the Code) to criminalise wage theft by employers in Queensland.‍The Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Wage Theft) Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill) was introduced to the Queensland Parliament in response to a Report released in 2018 by the Queensland Parliamentary Education, Employment and Small Business Committee following an inquiry into wage theft in Queensland. The Report identified critical issues in wage theft as well as deliberate action taken by employers to frustrate employees’ attempts to recover entitlements.


Managing employees with disabilities

Managing employees with disabilities

Managing underperformance is a difficult process and employers should always bear in mind that personal or other extenuating circumstances may be impacting a particular employee’s performance.


“All reasonable steps” and vicarious liability

You're a liability

Federal and State anti-discrimination legislation makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against or harass a person in their employment. The legislation also places liability on employers for the discriminatory conduct of their employees.


Court fines PCBU $60,000 for failing to re-assess the risks associated with changing site conditions

Set and forget

Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have a positive obligation to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others.


Employee fails in bid to have safety-related dismissal found to be unfair

Garbage in, garbage out

A dismissed employee can lodge an unfair dismissal claim alleging that their dismissal was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Employees will often claim that the dismissal was all three: harsh, unjust and unreasonable.


Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.