Labor & Employment World Cup 2026: San Francisco Welcomes Team Australia

Kickoff: Getting to Know the Australian National Team 

The Australian national team (the Socceroos) arrives with a story defined by resilience. 

The Socceroos have qualified for the FIFA World Cup seven times, but that record only tells part of the story. Early campaigns and 15 attempts to qualify were defined by adversity, including a notoriously difficult 1966 qualifying run when they lost to North Korea after the entire team suffered from severe illness. Substitutes were not allowed in those days and so, despite severe gastric ailments, the team fought hard but ultimately lost their qualifying chance. It was 1974 before the team would finally qualify. 

More recently, the trajectory has shifted. In 2006, the Socceroos ended their 32-year World Cup absence to secure Australia’s first-ever finals win against Japan on home soil. Then again in 2022, the squad shocked the footballing world in Qatar, winning consecutive group-stage matches against Tunisia (1-0) and Denmark (1-0) to reach the Round of 16. The goal for 2026 is clear: build on that momentum and go further. 

Home Field Advantage: Introducing San Francisco, California

From the host city’s vantage point, the sense of progression demonstrated by the Socceroos feels familiar.

The San Francisco Bay Area is shaped by a similar pattern of reinvention and forward momentum. It sits at the center of the tech universe not by accident, but through a combination of historical, cultural, and geographic elements that reinforce each other in a way no other city has managed to replicate. It started with Stanford University in nearby Palo Alto, which became a pipeline for engineering talent and a culture that encouraged founders to commercialize ideas rather than just publish them. That spirit gave rise to many of the early names in tech, laying the foundation for what became Silicon Valley.

The concentration of venture capital and talent is unlike anywhere else. Ideas move quickly here, with founders, investors, and builders often just a short meeting away from one another. That proximity creates a feedback loop—talent attracts capital, and capital attracts talent—driving constant innovation. 

But the city’s identity goes beyond economics. San Francisco has long attracted those willing to challenge convention—from the Gold Rush to the rise of the tech industry. That sense of possibility shapes the environment that visitors, including the Socceroos and their fans, will encounter. 

The Rulebook: Worker Mobility and Restraints on Competition

Where the conversation becomes particularly interesting is in how the jurisdictions—San Francisco, and California more generally, and Australia—approach competition in the workplace.

California

In California, the approach is direct: worker mobility and protections for talent are prioritized. California has banned non-compete agreements since 1872, reinforcing a long-standing policy that employees should be free to move between jobs.

That philosophy expanded further with California’s introduction of a stay or pay law that took effect on January 1, 2026. Similar to laws restricting so-called training repayment agreement provisions (TRAPs), this law strictly limits contracts requiring employees to repay money—such as training costs, signing bonuses, or relocation expenses—if they leave a company before a defined period. For proponents of these measures, the practical effect of such contracts can be similar to a non-compete: even if an employee is legally free to leave, a large repayment obligation may “trap” the employee as effectively as a legal prohibition. 

The new law provides only narrow exceptions. One applies to tuition repayment for certain transferable credentials obtained from accredited institutions within the state. Employers are allowed to require such repayment only if the repayment obligation is: (1) set out in a separate, voluntary agreement; (2) the credential is portable beyond the identified company; (3) the amount is specified and capped at actual cost; (4) repayment is prorated with no acceleration; and (5) if the employee is terminated, repayment is only recoverable if the employee is terminated for misconduct. In practice, this exception is limited and does not extend to many common employer-funded programs, such as a continuing education certificate or a safety training course. If an employer wants to continue providing those opportunities to employees, it must understand that the amounts paid for them will not be recoverable if the employee leaves the company. 

A second, more flexible exception applies to certain payments made at the “outset of employment.” Employers that offer discretionary and unearned monetary payments at the outset of employment will be allowed to claw such money back if an employee leaves before a designated period of employment, provided specific requirements are met. These include:

• a stand-alone agreement outlining required terms;
• the new hire must be given at least five business days to consider the agreement;
• the candidate must be provided notice of the right to consult counsel;
• the repayment amount must be interest-free and prorated;
• the retention period must be two years or less;
• the repayment obligation can be enforced only if the employee resigns or is terminated for misconduct; and
• the employee must be allowed the opportunity to defer receipt of the money until the end of the retention period, thereby avoiding a repayment obligation entirely.

California’s framework ultimately asks whether a contractual arrangement—regardless of what it is called—functions to restrict worker mobility. If it does, California tends to disfavor it. Stay or pay clauses that amount to punitive exit costs rather than legitimate cost recovery are generally frowned upon.

Australia 

In Australia, the approach has traditionally been more flexible—but change is coming. Unlike California’s long-standing prohibition on non-competes, Australia has historically permitted post-employment restraints under certain conditions. That said, employers should take note: sweeping changes are on the horizon. 

The Federal Government has had their eye on post-employment restraints for some time now, and there are proposed reforms to worker restraints included in the 2025–26 Budget. These include banning:

• non-compete clauses for low and middle income workers;
• wage-fixing agreements; and
• no-poach agreements.

Therefore, employers should anticipate that restrictions are coming and will be tied to the high income threshold, which is currently AUD 183,100, with increases each year on July 1. The government has made it clear that non-compete clauses will be strictly banned for any workers falling below the high income threshold. The reforms will also ban wage-fixing and no-poach agreements between businesses.

While California has already drawn bright-line rules around worker mobility, Australia is in the midst of a transition—moving from a case-by-case system toward more defined statutory limits.

Until these reforms take effect, the current position remains that common law determines the enforceability of post-employment restraints in all states but New South Wales (NSW) where the Restraint of Trade Act 1976 applies. While enforcement of such clauses is sometimes possible, there are significant hurdles and injunctive proceedings can be costly with limited practical return as the restraint may expire before resolution.

Under the current regime, employers should also recognize that including a post-employment restriction in an employment agreement does not guarantee enforceability. Post-employment restraints must be reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. Courts assessing enforceability will consider: 

1. the geographic area of the restraint, and its length of time;
2. the types of activities sought to be restrained;
3. whether the restraint reasonably protects the employer’s legitimate business interests; and
4. whether the restraint is unduly injurious to the interests of the employee and the public.  

Courts are cautious not to restrict a person’s ability to earn a living, although they have demonstrated a willingness to protect an employer’s interests where there is clear evidence of a breach of reasonable provisions. However, this analysis becomes more challenging where restraints are applied uniformly rather than tailored to the role.

Employers should therefore avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, and keep their eye on developments as changes are expected to take effect some time in 2027. Until then, employers have a window to review existing employee agreements and tighten non-solicitation provisions in order to prepare for a more constrained—or more California-like—environment. 

On the Global Field: Closing Thoughts

As World Cup 2026 kicks off, the differences between systems may be on display—but so too are the similarities. California and Australia continue to chart different paths, yet both are converging around a common question: how to balance business protection with workforce mobility. For employers, navigating that balance is key—and, as on the pitch, success will favor those who understand the rules and adjust their approach in real time.