0
But what you are actually saying is that because they own a car, they can take legal action to prevent anyone else also owning a car. If I went to a court and asked for an injunction against you buying a motor, how far would I get?
You say they own the game - who sold it to them? Do they have a piece of paper proving ownership? Because it seems to me like it would get the same shrift as BHP and Rio claiming to 'own' iron ore production to seek an injunction against FMG being established.
As for what happened in Thailand, the Aus government got involved on political grounds. But exactly my point..they couldn't actually take real action, only get the TRU to use stand-over tactics on the local clubs. So instead of Apartheid and political ideology, the Aus government would play the regional heavy and tell a foreign government what their citizens should do just because RA are irked? Sounds like delusions of significance to me...even more so when the foreign rugby body would be the sponsor for the very team they are being asked to heavy. Is the Aus government really going to go to Singapore or China and effectively say "Look, Rugby Australia says you aren't allowed to have professional rugby in your country. Do something about it, or else"...?