Why the Zac Lomax contract dilemma matters for HR professionals

While the standoff between Zac Lomax and the Parramatta Eels has captured headlines across the sporting world, the dispute is also drawing attention from HR professionals looking beyond the field to the broader contractual lessons the case raises.

In a high-stakes move, the Parramatta Eels took their marquee player Zac Lomax to the Supreme Court of NSW to enforce the terms of his release from a $700,000-a-year contract, following his November departure in a failed attempt to join the breakaway rugby venture R360.

When the launch of R360 was postponed, Lomax sought to return to the National Rugby League (NRL), but his release contained a clear clause preventing him from signing with another NRL club without the Eels’ written consent until 31 October 2028.

Later, when Lomax attempted a move to NRL powerhouse Melbourne Storm for the 2026 season, the Eels blocked the transfer, arguing that Lomax and his team were fully aware he needed the club’s approval before negotiating with a rival NRL side.

However, with court proceedings originally scheduled to begin on 2 March and run for a seven-day hearing, last-minute legal negotiations between the parties resulted in the court case not proceeding.

Under the terms of the settlement, Lomax will be prevented from signing with or playing for any NRL club without the Eels’ written approval until 2028.

Although the dispute dominated headlines in the sporting world, it has also offered HR and management professionals an unexpected opportunity to glean valuable lessons from this high-profile saga.

Michael Wells, associate at BlackBay Lawyers and former professional rugby union player, highlighted that a key lesson for HR teams from this case is appreciating the critical importance of thorough, professional advice during contract negotiations.

“I think the value of appropriate advice cannot be overstated, using this as a bit of a case study. From all accounts the potential financial reward for Lomax leaving the NRL and going to R360, as rumoured, was significant,” he stated.

“But there is more to advice than just noting the bottom line. The nature of R360 was that it carried some inherent risks and those needed to be identified and communicated, so that any decision by Lomax was from an informed position.”

Reflecting on the high-stakes world of professional sports, Wells cautioned that failing to clearly identify and communicate contractual risks can lead to poorly informed decisions made without fully weighing potential consequences.

“Given the high stakes of professional sporting decisions and high-value individuals, failing to adequately identify risks and communicating them to a client will inevitably result in decisions that aren’t fully informed and may be made without considering and balancing such risks,” he noted.

To effectively manage high-stakes employment agreements and minimise the risk of costly litigation, Wells advised that HR and management teams implement clear, unambiguous contracts that act as a vital safety net, defining each party’s rights and obligations while reducing both the likelihood and impact of potential disputes.

“The certainty of a contract will always provide a safe haven, of some sort, for HR and management teams,” he said.

“Having clear and unambiguous contractual terms, which are agreed between the parties, that specify the rights and obligations of each party, will always provide an arguable case and reduce the likelihood of litigation.

“Should such litigation result, an airtight contract does mitigate the risk of any proceedings.”

Wells also emphasised that maintaining clear lines of authority, delegated responsibilities, and specific internal policies can prevent misunderstandings and reduce the risk of inadvertent actions creating legal liability.

“Internally, it is important to have clear lines of authority, delegated responsibility and specific policies to account for all circumstances,” he outlined.

“This can avoid inadvertent or innocent representations being misconstrued and potentially increasing or creating some legal liability.”