Chris Fagan's Whiteboard Exposed: The Legal Remedies Australian Sports Clubs Can Use

An Essendon supporter who was allowed access to Brisbane Lions' facilities in the lead-up to their 3 May 2026 AFL match photographed a whiteboard displaying the Lions' detailed opposition analysis — and posted it to social media. The whiteboard labelled Zach Merrett "selfish," rated Ben McKay as "low confidence," and referenced the personal life of Jaxon Prior, who had spent five years at Brisbane before crossing to the Bombers. Lions head coach Chris Fagan called the act "illegal" and said the person had "decided to make a hero of themselves." The incident has since prompted Brisbane to install frosted glass at their headquarters. But what do Australian laws actually say about this kind of breach — and what options do sports clubs have?

What Fagan Called "Illegal" — And Why He's Right

In Australian law, the concept of breach of confidence is well established. Where information is communicated in circumstances that reasonably imply an obligation of confidence, and that information is subsequently misused, the person who disclosed it can face legal consequences.

A professional sporting club's tactical analysis — players' psychological assessments, opponent weaknesses, game plans — is precisely the kind of information that attracts equitable protection. When an Essendon supporter entered Brisbane Lions' facility and photographed confidential preparation materials, three potential legal causes of action arose:

1. Breach of confidence: Taking and distributing information that was clearly not intended for public disclosure.
2. Trespass: Depending on the terms under which the person was admitted to the facility, photographing restricted areas may constitute a condition of entry breach.
3. Defamation: Describing players in negative terms — "selfish," "low confidence" — and releasing those descriptions publicly could expose the original organisation to defamation claims from the players named, depending on context.

It is worth noting that the Lions themselves may also have obligations. Had the whiteboard contained private health information about players — as it may have if the "low confidence" annotation was linked to injury or mental health — obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) would also come into play.

Why Breach of Confidence Matters in Sport

The Australian Law Reform Commission has previously reviewed the scope of confidentiality protections in Australian law, noting that the equitable action for breach of confidence is a flexible and powerful tool — but one that requires the information to meet three criteria:

• The information must have the necessary quality of confidence (not already public knowledge)
• It must have been imparted in circumstances implying an obligation of confidence
• There must have been unauthorised use of the information to the detriment of the party who communicated it

In a professional AFL context, all three criteria appear to be met when tactical briefings are photographed and published. The information is clearly confidential (it relates to unreleased game strategy), was disclosed in a private setting (the club's facility), and was used in a way that could harm the club's competitive preparation.

What Sports Clubs Can Do Legally

If Brisbane Lions wanted to pursue a formal legal remedy, their options include:

Injunction: An urgent court order requiring the person — or the platform hosting the images — to remove the photographs and cease further dissemination. Given how quickly content spreads on social media, clubs often seek injunctions within hours of becoming aware of a leak.

Civil damages: If the club can demonstrate a quantifiable loss from the leak (for example, if the Bombers adjusted tactics that led directly to a different match outcome), a civil claim for breach of confidence could follow. In practice, proving causation in a sporting context is difficult.

Platform takedown requests: Under Australia's Online Safety Act 2021, clubs can contact the eSafety Commissioner for assistance in removing content that breaches platform community standards. The eSafety Commissioner's powers extend to removing seriously harmful content and ordering platform compliance.

Workplace investigation: If the person who took the photographs was a contractor, employee, or someone whose entry to the facility was facilitated by a club employee, internal disciplinary action may also apply.

Fagan indicated that Brisbane's response focused on the structural: frosted glass, stricter whiteboard procedures. This is a proportionate and practical approach for a club primarily focused on competitive performance rather than litigation.

The Jaxon Prior Dimension: Privacy, Not Just Tactics

One aspect of this leak went beyond tactical analysis. The whiteboard reportedly listed the personal relationship of Jaxon Prior — a current Essendon player who formerly played at Brisbane — as a "strength," implying it could be used as psychological leverage. Prior stated he laughed it off with Fagan on the field.

However, under Australia's Privacy Act 1988, personal information about individuals — including details about their relationships — is protected from unauthorised collection and disclosure. Whether the creation and subsequent leak of that whiteboard engaged obligations under the Privacy Act is a question of whether the Lions had privacy policies that should have prevented such sensitive information from being recorded in that form, and whether the club has an obligation to Prior as a former player.

What This Means for Sports Organisations

For Australian sporting clubs — at every level, from AFL to community sport — the Brisbane Lions case highlights a real gap in facilities security and information management. Best practice includes:

• Clear entry conditions: All guests, contractors, and visitors should sign entry agreements that include confidentiality clauses and restrictions on photography.
• Physical security: Tactical preparation rooms, whiteboards, and analysis areas should not be accessible to non-essential personnel.
• Information classification: Clubs should classify which documents, analysis, and data are confidential and restrict access accordingly.

ExpertZoom connects Australian sports organisations, clubs, and individual athletes with qualified legal professionals who specialise in sports law, confidentiality, and privacy compliance. For AFL clubs, NRL teams, or community sporting organisations wanting to understand their exposure after an incident like this — or to prevent one — speaking to a sports law specialist is the right starting point.

For further context on how Australian law applies to sports organisations and their digital information obligations, see our analysis of AFL data privacy rights.

Chris Fagan was right to call the leak "illegal." Whether Brisbane Lions pursues formal remedies or contents itself with frosted glass and stricter protocols, the legal framework to hold bad actors accountable clearly exists in Australia.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified Australian solicitor for advice specific to your situation.