Hi brother,you are not wrong and I'll briefly explain.
The NRL is a corporation run by the independent 'Australian Rugby League Commission'. Under the obligations and guidelines of the 'Australian Sports Commission's Governance Principles',the NRL is subject to the Corporations Act 2001 for commerce and Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW) for administration. Important features of both Acts is limited liability,which means that the shareholders,directors,employees are not personally liable for the debts that the institution owes to the creditors and it's charter,for compliance and obligations,enforceable under common law of all members.
Whilst Common law rigorously scrutinizes private arrangements when they prevent or inhibit freedom of employment,the courts ironically evaluate different conclusions in the term 'employment' and 'trading' under the Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW). The Act represents the NRL as an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity,having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.The charter of an Incorporated Sporting Association forms the structure within which the sport entity (institution) operates which includes rules contained in the Constitution,Regulations and By-laws.
For Fair Trading,the constitution (or model constitution) for incorporated associations validates the conclusions for arguments under common law based on it's interpretation of 'business' restraints.NRL's constitution like any registered sporting organization are left to do largely as they wish as long as restrains are not maliciously intended,deemed illegal under common law and reasonable in the public's interest.Public interest includes any detriment such as high prices imposed or shortage of service that eventuate.
In challenging the NRL's constitution in the Supreme court,Counsels encounter the court's findings in favor of freedom of 'employment',whilst at the same time blessing is forwarded to it's 'trading' activities.In this particular case involving Lewis,the constitution argues that the restraint imposed is to aid the safe and proper development of sporting talent for the survival of the club and image of the game.Without the NRL's forthcoming blessing,if the club was to establish a precedent by successfully overturning this by-law and Lewis is injured or incurs liability,the NRL can as per it's constitution penalize the club monetarily and/or through other means,it can also disqualify or deregister the club from the competition for a nominated period of time.
It can be argued at the commission (not court) that Section 4 (Player and Players' Equipment) or Section 15 (Misconduct) of the Laws of the Game are silent on this issue and clearly do not consider the club's behavior to be "in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game". In light that the NRL have always been tolerant in it's allowance of injured players to take or remain on the field and past disregard or strict enforcement of the 'head-bin' rule,which has been in force since 1987,it would be brave for the NRL to disqualify or deregister the club from the competition for a nominated period of time.If in the unlikely event the NRL follows this course of action,then the club are entitled to demand under common law that either duress was imposed upon the player or intention of harm can be substantiated.
