Commercial

The news that AC Milan would play a league fixture in Perth was met with predictable fanfare. A club with more than a century of footballing heritage, travelling to the other side of the world to showcase its brand is an enticing prospect like any other. But in the shadows of glossy press releases and precise marketing lies a more complicated narrative – one that reflects the insidious factors driving modern sport – and opens up a complex web of legal and regulatory issues.

The Globalisation of Football

In recent years, professional football has evolved far beyond its origins as the trivial pastime of the working class and into a billion-dollar enterprise. Underpinned by an elaborate commercial Ecosystem, it is as much an entertainment industry and instrument of geopolitics as it is a sport.

The modern football club is no longer a local institution but a multinational business. Like most European clubs, AC Milan is owned by global investment firms with complex cross-border structures. Their primary assets are no longer players or stadiums but sponsorships, licensing deals, and broadcasting rights. The push to play in global arenas – from Riyadh to Melbourne to Miami – is less about sporting competition and more about market expansion.

But all this expansion and globalisation comes at a cost, especially from a legal perspective. Navigating broadcasting rights, sponsorship obligations, and player agreements becomes an increasingly difficult task when different legal and regulatory frameworks are engaged. Even a friendly match becomes a small legal operation in itself, with complex contracts covering everything from player injury to visa approvals.

With this, the lines of jurisdictional responsibility are increasingly becoming blurred. When a European club plays in Australia, who ultimately governs the event—the host state, Football Australia, or FIFA? And if disputes arise—say, over a breached sponsorship term or a late payment from a local promoter—what law applies?

A Jurisdictional Grey Area

Every professional football competition operates within a tightly regulated hierarchy:

• FIFA governs the global game.
• UEFA oversees continental competitions; and
• National associations like the FIGC (Italy) administer domestic leagues.

Under FIFA Statutes and UEFA Regulations, national leagues are expected to take place within their own territory, with each match subject to the domestic association’s disciplinary and regulatory framework. By moving the fixture to Perth, Serie A tests the boundary of this territorial model.

The Italian Football Federation has granted permission, but that consent alone is not enough. UEFA, FIFA, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), and Football Australia must also approve the fixture. At the time of writing, UEFA has given only conditional approval, describing the decision as an “exception, not a precedent”. FIFA, notably, has not yet codified clear criteria for overseas domestic matches.

The legal risk here is tangible. If the governing bodies cannot agree on jurisdiction, any disciplinary or contractual dispute arising from the match – a red-card appeal, a player injury claim, or a commercial breach – could trigger conflicting proceedings across multiple legal systems.

Integrity and Fairness

The architecture of competitive sport is predicated on integrity and fairness. Serie A, like most domestic competitions, assume an even distribution of home and away matches.

By exporting a “home” fixture to another continent, Milan effectively surrenders its home advantage. That in itself may not breach a written rule, but it unsettles the principle of fair competition, which underpins UEFA and FIFA Regulations.

Moreover, moving the game offshore disadvantages the domestic supporter base. Fans who purchased season memberships on the promise of attending all home matches now face exclusion from a fixture they have already paid for.

In both Italy and Australia, consumer law provides remedies for misleading or unfair conduct where services are not delivered as represented. The Australian Consumer Law (ACL), for instance, requires businesses to provide a refund or compensation when a service is substantially different from what was advertised. A season ticket that includes “all home matches at San Siro” could fall within that scope if one match is relocated to Perth.

Potential Contractual Disputes

Hundreds of interwoven contractual obligations hold together modern football. Many of these are drafted on the assumption that domestic competition equates to domestic territory. The relocation to Perth strains those assumptions on several grounds.

Player employment and welfare

Standard player contracts, governed by Italy’s employment law and collective bargaining agreements, oblige players to participate in official fixtures. Yet few, if any, contemplate long-haul international travel for a single domestic match.

The travel and recovery demands—roughly 40 hours round-trip and an 8-hour time difference—may trigger concerns under workplace health and safety obligations.

If a player sustains an injury linked to fatigue or travel conditions, questions are likely to arise about the club’s duty of care and insurance coverage.

Broadcasting Rights

Media-rights contracts are the financial backbone of domestic competition, sold on a territorial basis. Moving a match to Australia introduces conflicts over territorial exclusivity – the foundation of those deals.

If a broadcaster holds exclusive rights to Serie A within Italy, but the match is hosted and televised in Australia, does that infringe the rights of local or regional partners?

Without renegotiation, broadcasters could claim breach or seek injunctive relief, as seen in the Spanish Courts, where La Liga’s attempt to stage a fixture in Miami was challenged by Spain’s footballers’ union and broadcasters.

Sponsorship Deals

Sponsors, too, have legitimate legal concerns. Contracts are often priced based on expected exposure in specific geographic markets. A regional sponsor banking on signage at San Siro may see reduced value in a match broadcast from Perth. Conversely, international sponsors may seek additional activation rights in the Australian market.

Without careful renegotiation, this shift can create conflicting obligations, potential breaches, or demands for compensation under “material change” or “force majeure” clauses.

The Potential for Precedent  

For Serie A, the Perth experiment is commercially attractive. It expands global reach, opens new sponsorship opportunities, and demonstrates innovation at a time when domestic attendances and broadcasting revenues are stagnating.

However, legal precedent is rarely neutral. Once a single competitive fixture is held offshore, other leagues may follow suit. Each relocation dilutes the concept of a domestic league. And without harmonised international rules, the risk of cross-border disputes increases significantly.

UEFA’s statement accompanying its conditional approval was telling: “Such events may be authorised on a case-by-case basis, provided that the integrity of the competition is not compromised.” That caveat underscores the fragility of this experiment – it survives only at the discretion of multiple regulators, each with veto power.

A Glimpse into the Future

The AC Milan fixture is not novel; it is part of a broader evolution where domestic sport is being re-engineered for global consumption. The Premier League, La Liga and the NFL have all flirted with overseas fixtures. What distinguishes Milan’s Perth match is that it affects league standings, player statistics, and potential qualification for European competition.

If successful, it will mark a new chapter in the internationalisation of domestic leagues. If mishandled, it could trigger disputes spanning continents and erode public confidence in fair competition.