The 2026 NRL season is almost upon us, after an offseason dominated by the Zac Lomax saga.
The wayward winger and his former club, Parramatta Eels, are currently locked in a legal battle as the NSW and Australia star attempts to secure a move to Melbourne Storm.
But the club is standing its ground and, as it stands, Lomax could be forced to sit on the sidelines in 2026.
GET YOU NRL FIX WITH ESPN
Stay across all the big NRL news — sign up to our weekly newsletters here!
SUBSCRIBE
So how did it come to this?
WHY DID ZAC LOMAX WANT OUT OF HIS PARRAMATTA CONTRACT?
Lomax was one of several NRL stars, alongside Ryan Papenhuyzen and Roger Tuivasa-Sheck, who were eyeing a move to rebel rugby league R360. With his heart set on a code switch, Lomax was granted a release from the final three years of his Eels contract after only switching from the Dragons ahead of the 2025 NRL season.
WHAT HAPPENED TO R360?
The rebel league, which has England World Cup winner Mike Tindall as its public face, revealed in December it had been forced to delay its start until 2028. That was largely down to the fact that they had not hit various targets, from the required number of players, coaches and general competition infrastructure, to trigger the funding that they needed to start in the second half of 2026.
While over 200 players were reported to have signed letters of intent to join R360, the competition did not have the backing of World Rugby, while virtually all of the Tier 1 unions, Argentina and Wales aside, had earlier last year signed a joint statement that would block any player aligned to R360 from playing Test rugby.
Zac Lomax wants to join Melbourne Storm, but the Eels are holding him to the terms of his release last year Brendon Thorne/Getty ImagesWHAT WERE THE TERMS OF LOMAX’S RELEASE?
The Eels allowed Lomax to walk on Nov. 16 after just one season, granting him an exit to “pursue opportunities outside the NRL”. At that stage, R360 looked like it might still get off the ground and Lomax would no longer be playing rugby league.
But that all changed when R360 pushed back its start date and Lomax was left searching for a new home. The problem now is that the Eels only agreed to the release with the stipulation that he would not be able to play for another NRL club until after Oct. 31 2028, without their permission.
DID LOMAX LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS IN RUGBY?
Yes. Lomax was reported to have travelled to Perth to meet with the Western Force, so too later the Brumbies in Canberra. ESPN understands both clubs were keen on taking a chance on the NSW Origin star, but that they needed a Rugby Australia top-up to do so.
Australia’s Super Rugby Pacific salary cap is just under half of the NRL’s, meaning player salaries do not compare well across the codes. The most an Australian player can earn in Super Rugby is around $250,000; the way the code keeps players like Joseph-Aukuso Suaalii, Max Jorgensen and Wallabies skipper Harry Wilson is with the help of Rugby Australia’s contracting pool.
It became clear early on that RA was reticent to provide a top-up for Lomax, and that was confirmed when Angus Crichton’s code switch from 2027 was unveiled by the governing body last week. RA had long been working on what it felt was a bigger prize than Lomax.
WHO WANTS TO BRING LOMAX BACK TO THE NRL?
Shortly after the rugby interest went cold, it was revealed that Melbourne Storm were keen to sign Lomax and, as such, entered into negotiations about a potential player swap with the Eels. The rumoured players were said to be Xavier Coates, Jack Howarth or Stefano Utoikamanu, but each of those individuals would have to agree to the swap, too.
All parties were reported to have met, with the Storm having offered the Eels a “transfer fee” of $200,000, instead of a player swap, in a bid to get Lomax to Melbourne. But with Lomax’s deal at the Eels reportedly worth around $700,000, it’s easy to see why Parramatta would not have accepted the Storm’s offer.
However, in a similar situation last year, Wests Tigers accepted a $150,000 payment from Canterbury for the release of Lachlan Galvin, though the youngster’s contract was reported to have been around the $300,000 mark, a much smaller deficit than the $500,000 figure at play in the Lomax deal.
Xavier Coates looms as the like-for-like replacement for Zac Lomax, but the Storm are unlikely to agree to that player swap Cameron Spencer/Getty ImagesWHY HAVE THE EELS TAKEN LOMAX TO COURT?
On Jan. 22 the Eels released a statement confirming they had launched legal action against Lomax, with the purpose to “enforce the release agreed in November 2025”.
The Eels said they had included the 2029 restriction in the terms of Lomax’s release to protect the club, including its members and fans, further stating: “It ensured the club would not lose a representative player to another NRL club without receiving adequate compensation/benefit during the period of Zac’s original contract. Zac agreed to that condition after receiving legal advice.”
The Eels also confirmed that they had met with the Storm in “good faith” but were not “able to come to an agreement that would represent sufficient value for our club, particularly in relation to our football program.”
Finally, the Eels stated that they remained open to discussions with any NRL club who might be able to offer “appropriate value” to Parramatta.
WHAT IS THE KEY LEGAL ISSUE AT PLAY?
According to Parramatta’s barrister Arthur Moses SC, the legal point to be contested will likely be the condition restraining Lomax from playing for other clubs, and whether it was valid and enforceable.
On Thursday it was reported that the Eels had secured emails from Lomax’s lawyer Ramy Qutami under subpoena, but they had not yet been granted similar documents from the winger’s agent: Clinton Schifcofske.
The hearing will take place on Feb. 12 and 13 in Sydney.
Coincidentally, the Eels and Storm meet in Round 1 of the 2026 NRL season.
WHAT HAS THE NRL HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE SITUATION?
While Australian Rugby League Commission chairman Peter V’Landys and his NRL chief executive counterpart Andrew Abdo came out swinging in the face of R360, threatening any players or agents involved in a switch with 10-year bans, they have largely watched the developing Lomax-Eels situation from the sidelines.
That was until a Sydney Morning Herald report suggested that the NRL was ready to step in if the Eels were unwilling to entertain any “reasonable offers” for Lomax.
The report also suggested that the Eels had the support of multiple other clubs in taking the hardline stance against Lomax.
Given Lomax is not currently a registered NRL player, the governing body would have no remit to rule on either Lomax or the Eels and instead may simply be left to play mediator.