| dc.description.abstract | During the 1990s, rugby union formation in the Republic of South Africa developed
rapidly from a system of strict amateurism to one of professionalism. Professional
participants in the sport received salaries for participation, and rugby became a
business like any other. As in all forms of business, rugby had to be regulated more
efficiently than had previously been the case. Tighter regulations were instituted by
governing bodies, and ultimately labour legislation became applicable to professional
rugby. A professional sportsman or woman participating in a team sport is generally
considered an employee. This means that the same principles that govern
employees in general should also apply to professional sportsmen and women. The
exact nature of the "player's contract", a term generally used to describe the contract
of employment between a professional sportsman or sportswoman and his or her
employer, deserves closer attention. It has been argued with much merit that the
"player's contract", while in essence a contract of employment, possesses certain sui
generis characteristics. The first aim of this article is to demonstrate how this
statement is in fact a substantial one. If it is concluded that the "player's contract" is
in fact a sui generis contract of employment, the most suitable remedy in case of
breach of contract must be determined. The second aim of this article is to indicate
why the remedy of specific performance, which is generally not granted in cases
where the defaulting party has to provide services of a personal nature, is the most
suitable remedy in case of breach of "player's contracts". To substantiate this
statement, recent applicable case law is investigated and discussed, particularly the
recent case of Vrystaat Cheetahs (Edms) Beperk v Mapoe. Suggestions are finally
offered as to how breach of "player's contracts" should be approached by South
African courts in future | en_US |
