Interesting if True

[Neils]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/13901707/premiership-rugby-gagging-players-draconian-code-of-conduct/amp/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebaramp&__twitter_impression=true

Yes it is The Sun but thought it worth posting.

[hopwood]

Wow.
That is VERY CONTROLLING BEHAVIOUR.

[mike909]

That's rather paranoid from the Prem - if players feel they can't speak out about player welfare issues....

One source said: "It's madness, it's like a kind of Chinese-style government censorship.

"Players are angry and fed-up they could get in trouble for speaking out on how things have been dealt with during Covid

[Montague Withnail]

I have never signed an employment contract, as an employee or employer, that didn't have a clause prohibiting the employee from making public statements about the employer. It would be unthinkable not too, and a very asymmetric situation open to huge risk and abuse. As the employer, you certainly can't make information about your employees public, and in any case you have more to lose and automatically less public sympathy.

[mike909]

Such contracts would not include (least not legally) clauses that meant you couldn't speak out about H&S issues or illegality by the employer?

[Montague Withnail]

Such contracts would not include (least not legally) clauses that meant you couldn't speak out about H&S issues or illegality by the employer?

They wouldn't stop you from raising them with the appropriate authorities (I'm pretty sure any contract that did would be invalid) but they would stop you going to the media with them. Why would a person acting in good faith raise issues like that with the media instead of the proper authorities anyway?

[mike909]

Such contracts would not include (least not legally) clauses that meant you couldn't speak out about H&S issues or illegality by the employer?

They wouldn't stop you from raising them with the appropriate authorities (I'm pretty sure any contract that did would be invalid) but they would stop you going to the media with them. Why would a person acting in good faith raise issues like that with the media instead of the proper authorities anyway?

When the proper authorities were perhaps not giving one about - in this case - player safety. I take your point - it's correct from a legal POV, but when the Premiership itself is (allegedly) colluding with employers (which I took at the point from the article) to endanger players - then I might be tempted to talk to the press. A bit like ex-players are doing now about brain injury.

[Montague Withnail]

I know what you're saying. This is a more complex environment than most businesses - where there is no amount of harm that is really acceptable in law. Rugby accepts harm, legally, and so there is clearly a debate to be had about where that line should be drawn and how. I still don't think it is the right approach for players to have that debate in the media. Retired players yes, but not active ones. If players are concerned - and they have every right to be - then I recommend they organise. Gain wide support for change amongst themselves, along with some detail about what that change should look like, and then have that conversation fairly but firmly with their employers through their elected representatives. Make them see that they are serious, industrial action should be an absolute last resort but it is there as an option if players feel it is really needed. All these things are their legal rights, no contract can take them away.

One-off players taking grievances to the media, that just does damage to everyone, is exploited for the media's own selfish purposes, and it rarely produces constructive outcomes.

[Mellie]

I have never signed an employment contract, as an employee or employer, that didn't have a clause prohibiting the employee from making public statements about the employer.

Players are not employed by Premier Rugby.

It would be reasonable to have clauses for clubs in Premier Rugby competition rules though to protect its reputation, which could be enforced by the clubs employment contracts. However the tone of the article was suggesting a more draconian gagging order, which is probably not reasonable.

[Montague Withnail]

I have never signed an employment contract, as an employee or employer, that didn't have a clause prohibiting the employee from making public statements about the employer.

Players are not employed by Premier Rugby.

It would be reasonable to have clauses for clubs in Premier Rugby competition rules though to protect its reputation, which could be enforced by the clubs employment contracts. However the tone of the article was suggesting a more draconian gagging order, which is probably not reasonable.

That's the whole point about the media isn't it? "Rugby players have signed standard confidentiality clauses like everyone else" is not an article. "Rugby players subject to draconian gagging order" is. And that's another good reason why employers don't want their people talking to the media.