The Tom Arscott Case - players' duties of confidentiality & the RFU's rules on leaking "inside information"
Published 15 March 2017 By: Phil Bonner
Confidential leaks and allegations of espionage have abounded in recent months in both sporting and political contexts. We’ve witnessed the furore surrounding alleged hacking relating to the US presidential election, the shadowy Fancy Bears gaining access to the databases of both the World Anti-Doping Agency and the United States Anti-Doping Agency, and even cases of cyber-espionage in Major League Baseball. And now, allegations of espionage or, at the very least, “loose lips”, have arisen in the context of Rugby Union.
This article examines the Tom Arscott case and the issues arising out of it. Whilst Sale Sharks’ sacking of Tom Arscott for allegedly leaking information to his elder brother Luke does not, admittedly, have the same geo-political ramifications as the incidents above, it does shine a spotlight on a number of issues.
The first half of the article looks at the obligations of confidentiality that an employee owes to his employer, the categories of “business information” that commonly arise, and the measures that employers can take to protect information provided to employees during the course of their employment. Specifically:
- A summary of events leading to the sacking of Arscott;
- Players (employees) duties of confidentiality towards their team (employer);
- Enforcement rights of an employer;
The second half the moves on to examine the RFU’s investigation into the incident, looking at:
- The RFU’s key findings;
- The duties of connected persons to report suspicious incidents;
- Why did Sale Sharks make a complaint to the RFU under Regulation 17 (which sets out the RFU’s rules on anti-corruption and betting)?
- What does the RFU’s decision reveal about the scope of Regulation 17?
Get access to this article and all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport
Already a member?
Articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts
This work was written for and first published on LawInSport.com (unless otherwise stated) and the copyright is owned by LawInSport Ltd. Permission is granted to make digital or hard copies of this work (or part, or abstracts, of it) for personal use provided copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and provided that all copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page (which should include the URL, company name (LawInSport), article title, author name, date of the publication and date of use) of any copies made. Copyright for components of this work owned by parties other than LawInSport must be honoured.
- Tags: Disciplinary | Employment | Governance | Regulation | Rugby | Rugby Football Union (RFU) | United Kingdom (UK)
- Cyber-Espionage Hits Major League Baseball: A review of the Cardinals & Chris Correa case
- Bullying and discrimination in elite sport: lessons for sports bodies from the Shane Sutton case
- Protecting the integrity of the Rugby World Cup - Ben Rutherford, Senior Legal Counsel and Integrity Unit Manager at World Rugby - Episode 36
- Who shoulders the blame? An analysis of vicarious liability in the sports industry