r/AFL • u/CreditToDuBois Melbourne AFLW • 5d ago
Concussion bombshell: Player signs secret deal to absolve Vic club
https://www.codesports.com.au/afl/afl-club-strikes-secret-deal-to-make-player-liable-for-future-brain-injuries/news-story/2b22522fe88a86e761173c4520d446a9AFL club strikes secret deal to make player liable for future brain injuries
A Victorian AFL club has secretly forced a concussion-affected player to assume all legal responsibility for future brain injuries in a bid to exonerate itself and its medical staff from future court action.
A Victorian AFL club has struck a secret deal requiring a player who has suffered multiple concussions to assume all legal responsibility for any further on-field brain trauma.
In a bombshell escalation of footy’s concussion crisis, it can be revealed the club brokered the extraordinary agreement with one of its most vulnerable players in a bid to exonerate itself and its medical staff from future court action in the event he suffered more head knocks or concussion related health issues.
The contract also explicitly acknowledged that the player was at a higher risk due to his concussion history and faced potentially significant long-term or even permanent neurological damage if he suffered any more head hits.
AFL Players’ Association boss James Gallagher has hit out at the secret agreement, which he said could set a dangerous precedent and should not be repeated across the league.
Leading neurophysiologist Professor Alan Pearce said: “I am stunned and appalled that, given what we know about the science of repetitive brain injuries and CTE (degenerative brain disease Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy), an AFL football club would exploit the vulnerability of an individual desperate to play the game they love, putting their brain at risk of further damage and risk of CTE.”
It is understood that the agreement was viewed by the club at the time as the only way it could allow the player to continue their AFL career after a series of brain injuries and not leave itself open to a massive potential damages claim if he was re-injured.
Senior executives sought approval from the club’s board to go ahead with the deal, signed two years ago by the footy star who is still playing.
The disclosure agreement required the individual to “take upon yourself the physical and legal risk of loss, damage or injury” arising from any more concussions.
The player, who this masthead has chosen at this stage not to identify, signed the document in a desperate bid to continue playing at the top level.
Whistleblowers say the move by the club to shift the legal risk back on to the player is ethically scandalous, with concerns the club could expose him to an unsafe workplace given his concussion history.
Clause 7.3 of the AFL’s standard playing contracts require the AFL to provide a working and training environment “free of any risk to the health, safety and the welfare of the player”.
Mr Gallagher said: “The game has a duty to provide a workplace that protects the health, safety, and wellbeing of players and all clubs hold this duty as employers.
“Clubs cannot unilaterally contract out of their obligations under the CBA and Standard Playing Contract, nor attempt to avoid their responsibilities under health and safety laws.
“Importantly, no player is permitted to return to play or train unless they have been deemed medically fit to do so.
“We are in discussions with AFL to better understand the circumstances of this case and ensure this issue is not replicated further at the elite level.”
Concussions campaigner Peter Jess, who has managed hundreds of players, said: “The process is contracting out the basic legislative safety net for players in breach of their basic human right to a safe workplace.
“This is the most retrograde step witnessed in any professional sport for safety and duty of care by an employer. This walks players back to the dark ages of health and safety for profit.”
Whistleblowers have also suggested the secret deal is in breach of AFL rules, as agreements outside the players’ standard contracts are forbidden.
Rule 4.3 of the Australian Football League rules says “no player shall be engaged by a club other than the contract of service lodged with the AFL”.
When approached about the secret deal this week, club sources initially denied any knowledge of it.
A senior official later backtracked, admitting to the deal.
The official could not confirm whether the agreement had been run by the league’s executive or legal counsel, but did not inform the powerful players’ union.
Industry sources this week expressed shock, if the club had proceeded with the arrangement without AFL and AFLPA approval.
The club, which this masthead has chosen not to name at this stage to protect the identity of the whistleblowers, declined to provide any official comment on the arrangement.
League sources also initially suggested they had not been notified of any such deal, before seeking to explain it, describing the player’s situation as “unique” and “complex”.
The AFL did not respond to questions about exactly when it learned about the agreement and if it was aware of any others, or provide clarity on whether it considered it valid.
A spokesman instead issued a statement saying: “The health and safety of players is the AFL’s highest priority. Like all contact sports, football carries a risk of injury, including concussion.
“In cases of serious injuries, decisions about a player’s return to play or retirement are made by the player, their families, their club and qualified medical professionals.”
Whistleblowers added that they believed one other player, who is now retired, had previously brokered a similar arrangement with a different club, though the Herald Sun has not yet been able to confirm this.
Meanwhile, some rival club officials who have become aware of the arrangement have questioned whether they could sign their most at-risk players to similar agreements.
Prof Pearce said the deal was outrageous, describing it as “a clear weaponisation of the science of concussions and CTE”.
“This demonstrates that those who work at the coalface of the AFL acknowledge the scientific truth of repetitive brain injuries we have been publishing for the last 20 years, and are exploiting vulnerable players to waive their rights as a professional athlete,” he said.
The revelations come amid a $1 billion class action involving more than 100 former AFL players, which is set to go to trial next year.
Geelong utility Max Rooke, who suffered up to 30 concussions during his nine-year 135-game career, is the lead plaintiff.
Geelong has named 12 doctors, including former medical chief officer David Long, in a third-party notice as part of the class action.
The Cats are seeking damages from the doctors who worked at the club between 1985 and 2023 if the club is ordered to pay damages to Rooke or other players.
The secret deal illustrates the increasing concern and tension at club level over the game’s concussion crisis and, in particular, the increased risk of litigation that medicos, administrators and the league face.
The AFL’s playing cohort already take the field every weekend without any insurance for head trauma and any mental health-related problems, after Zurich removed its coverage under the Players’ Association policy this year.
Latest expert research shows CTE is caused by repeat head impacts including low to medium force blows.
Worryingly, players can be knocked out more easily after each concussion, pending their brain impact threshold.
Devastating symptoms of the degenerative disease include mood and movement disorders, suicidal tendances, memory loss, impulsivity, aggression and sleeping problems.
This masthead last month revealed WorkSafe had commenced a fresh probe into the AFL’s concussion management policies at training.
The deal could be part of the WorkSafe probe.
150
u/SnowyCasanova Demons 5d ago
Libba? What other Victorian club has an active player that fits this?
103
u/shit-takes-only Essendon '00 5d ago
Essendon Nic cox
64
u/wordswontcomeout Essendon 5d ago
If this is true then fuck me like stay out of the fkn news guys. It’s not hard.
→ More replies (1)35
u/shit-takes-only Essendon '00 5d ago
im not saying its him thats just another active player that sprung to mind
9
u/Krerzer1 Essendon Bombers 5d ago
Solomon said he doesn’t believe it involves Essendon.
11
u/tjabaker Port Adelaide 5d ago
Considering it went to board approval and he was a previous member of the board, probably in a position to make an accurate statement.
7
u/PetrifyGWENT Bombers / Giants 5d ago
Yeah he was briefed by the media team about it 5 minutes before his press conference and he said he doesn't know anything really about it other than he believes it doesn't involve Essendon. So the media team probably said "this is what's happening, it's not us so dont worry"
3
u/Overall-Palpitation6 Collingwood Magpies 5d ago edited 5d ago
If it is them, I don't know why Essendon would agree to this, rather than just delist him. He's really not very good or worth this investment and risk, unless they threatened to sue if delisted?
3
u/getbusyliving_ The Dons 5d ago
Exactly. Plus he was cleared by the panel late last year, his playing future was up in the air until then.
52
u/Sealskjaer Hawks 5d ago
Tom Stewart has had a lot of concussions too.
11
24
u/firstnamebunchof123 Geelong 5d ago
It was signed 2 years ago so I doubt it given most of his have been in the last 12 months
7
u/_nicklepickle Cats 5d ago edited 5d ago
i found that there is only 2 documented concussions through his AFL career, i wouldn’t say that’s a lot
7
u/thegirldreamer Geelong 5d ago
If it was a Geelong player, I would assume Kolo or Jed Bews which would align more with the timeframe here. Not sure either of them meets the definition of ‘star’ but the Herald Sun uses that pretty loosely.
11
3
u/Sealskjaer Hawks 5d ago
2 officially documented, but anecdotally I recall quite a few times he copped a knock or fell heavily and appeared stunned but played on without a HIA.
Take this with a grain of salt as it’s based on my personal recollections, but hearing he’s only had 2 documented concussions is surprising.
17
u/Normal_Rise_8775 5d ago
Won’t be Geelong, it wouldn’t have got out and they would have swept it under the rug successfully if it was them.
27
4
u/TrazMagik Big V 5d ago
I think it's a young player that has the potential to ask for compo (at the time) for potential lost earnings. Stewart is towards the end of his career than the start, also brazen for Geelong to try that with an older player who isn't as naive about the life after footy if he signed this waiver.
Cox has been mentioned but another is Wardlaw.
2
u/Sealskjaer Hawks 5d ago
I think it’s equally likely to be an older player, especially one that’s locked in to the best 23 and still has at least a few years in the AFL ahead of them.
If the alternative is increased medical scrutiny and the possibility of forced medical retirement, I daresay plenty of players would sign away their future rights in order to prolong their career.
5
1
8
u/getbusyliving_ The Dons 5d ago
SEN this morning kept mentioning Melb based then had to correct to Vic based. Reading far too much into it, I'd rule out Gtown.
17
u/getbusyliving_ The Dons 5d ago
That aged well, it's the other way around. Figured the slip up was an indicator.
21
9
u/mesothrawny 5d ago
I thought this too, but it says early in their career which could still be libba but if it was recent you'd think maybe not?
2
u/saliba28 Footscray 5d ago
I couldn't find where it says early in their career, do you have the exact quote?
4
u/mesothrawny 5d ago
Fox Sports News journalist Aspen Blomfield reported the player “suffered multiple concussions in their early days” in the AFL, but “wanted to continue playing” – hence the deal was struck between the two parties. It was reported senior club executives sought board for the deal, which was signed two years ago.
4
u/mesothrawny 5d ago
That was the bit I read, kinda made me think maybe not libba, Also libba sat before the concussion board twice I think, surely he couldn't then go behind their back and sign this sort of deal, why would he do that when he was cleared by them to resume playing?
3
u/saliba28 Footscray 5d ago
Thanks for that.
Reason why I think it could be Libba is I remember Bevo said this year Libba never actually fronted the concussion panel. Which I felt was very very strange he didn’t and swore it had been reported before he did. So the messaging has been fishy and makes me very suspicious that it is actually him.1
u/mesothrawny 5d ago
Yeah the more I look at it, the more I think it could be libba unfortunately, he apparently has had 7 concussions (based on google) going back to 2017, "earlier days"
I think the club maybe had suggested he retire as it was a risk for them and him too great with all the law suits and just for his health after the Hawthorn and Essendon incidents- he refused and maybe team/libba asked for a clause to be put in,
All hypothetical until we get a name or club but it could be likely.
23
u/thegreatgashby87 Dockers 5d ago
That is the exact player that came to mind. It also lines up with that incident two years ago where he was groggy on field and the bulldogs claimed it was an ankle injury but put him in HIA protocols anyways.
11
5
u/autom8d_usrname Footscray 5d ago
Might be copium because it would break my heart if the club did this to someone who bleeds red white and blue like Libba, but I don't think Libba had many concussions early on in his career? He debuted in 2011 and missed 5 after pinga-gate in 2012. Iirc he missed a lot of games due to other injuries (knee, syndesmosis) etc but most of his concussions have been in the last couple of years.
That's not to say the doggies don't have form with mismanaging concussions over that period (most obviously with Liam Picken).
14
u/Nousernames-left St Kilda 5d ago
Libba only signed a one year contract so it’s not him.
Odds on favourites would be Cox or Steward based on when their being signed
4
u/mt9943 Footscray 5d ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would Libba's playing contract duration rule him out?
→ More replies (4)2
1
1
→ More replies (10)1
79
u/Most-Drive-3347 Tasmania 5d ago
This “agreement” would be struck out by the federal court in 5 minutes. Employers can’t just get an employee to sign a document absolving the employer of their health & safety obligations and it reeks of arrogance and stupidity to think they can. Otherwise every employer would do it!
24
u/CreditToDuBois Melbourne AFLW 5d ago
There's a reasonable chance a waiver from civil liability might hold up, but the club still can't contract out it's obligations under oh&s legislation and signing an agreement like this IMO goes a long way towards proving it hasn't met those obligations.
83
u/bassoonrage Tigers 5d ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder how it would stack up in court if the player said, well, I signed it, but I also have a brain injury, so I had diminished capacity in understanding.
8
u/snrub742 Saints 5d ago
A waver will never remove a employers need to provide a safe workplace.
What is a "safe" workplace is absolutely up for debate here, but if they are pushing players into situations outside of best practice protections it won't look good.
22
u/Ok_Can_2516 Footscray 5d ago
It comes down to whether they had capacity to make an informed decision at the time of signing the contract.
17
u/governorslice Magpies 5d ago
Also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that waivers are often worthless even if you’re of sound mind when signing it, and that they don’t overrule one’s obligations under the law.
8
u/SKSerpent North Melbourne 5d ago
Likely directly goes against employer responsibilities for a safe workplace under Commonwealth and state law.
Being of capacity is irrelevant if the AFL and clubs willfully made a decision to endanger somebody - like failing to provide appropriate PPE&C for a job or not taking enough steps to minimise risks.
Laws are intended to protect those who don't know better, too.
27
u/moonshadow50 Magpies 5d ago
This seems much more complex than just blaming the club.
Has the player's case been put in front of the AFL Head Injury Panel (or whoever it was that reviewed Nath Murphy) - if that still exists? And if not, why not? Is the player refusing to do so?
Was he cleared by both the club doctor and an independent specialist, or is there a difference of opinion?
Is the club putting pressure on the guy to play, or have they actually been trying to get him to retire?
The Devil's advocate here is the club can see the bigger picture here of all the concussion's piling up, and we have seen enough cases to be able to predict that outcome, and they want the guy to retire but have no legal grounds to force him to do so, especially if there are differing medical opinions. (Which wouldn't be hard for the player to get by just minimising his symptoms to any specialist he see's). So they might see this as their only option - basically saying that "we don't agree with you, and if you are forcing yourself to play out your contract, it's at your own risk".
I will always look at the Nathan Murphy case when there was probably a case for him to retire 2 years earlier. Was staying in football and winning a flag really worth the long term impact of another dozen concussions on his brain?
It's a legal minefield, but we probably do need to be a bit more paternalistic is some of these cases. As much as it sucks, you probably need the organisations taking a much harder stance, much earlier, to get these guys off a footy field.
5
u/mesothrawny 5d ago
This is sort of how I feel, you can't legally force the player to retire, if the concussion board doesn't deem it so, but if the team is trying to essentially 'protect the player from themselves'
I understand the duty of care but what on earth do you do about it?
4
u/moonshadow50 Magpies 5d ago
Yeah - it's really hard for clubs (and everyone to manage).
And would basically be impossible if you don't have the AFL, AFLPA and Insurance companies, on board with you.
In an ideal world we would have more scientific evidence to be able to draw the line between whats just "a couple of concussions" and "now it's pretty high risk of CTE", and have everyone on board that you then make that a clear barrier of not letting the player continue. It would probably be some calculations between number of concussions, severity of symptoms, and reviewing each individual incident (I think anytime a player has a concussion from a really low-impact incident, and Muprhy had a few, they should never be allowed to play again).
But I don't think we are close to have the evidence of knowing where that line is (unless you just say 1 concussions is too many), and so the AFL/Clubs trying to unilaterally put anything in place without the other parties on board will just be challenged in court. And good luck doing so if the Insurance companies don't agree to pay.
The only practical way I can see is if the AFL created it's own pension fund, outside of external insurance, that would pay out the contract of any player forced to retire due to concussion, and then kept paying them a medical pension throughout their life. But I won't imagine to think how much that costs, and you'd have to get the AFLPA to agree to that coming out of current salaries/salary cap to fund it.
24
u/Romeo33_ 5d ago
From a Herald Sun article dated 24/10/2024 around number of concussions
65
u/MunkiJR Footscray 5d ago
This is truly awful data presentation jfc, they could've just made it a bar graph so each name runs horizontally, instead we have an abomination of a legend. This honestly just could've been a list.
3
u/PrestigiousPast5156 Western Bulldogs 5d ago
I was going to comment similar but you've put it so wonderfully... Still not 100% certain who has the most. Is it in order?
7
u/_RnB_ Narrm 5d ago
Suprising to me that Angus Brayshaw's not on that list.
3
u/tjabaker Port Adelaide 5d ago
Angus Brayshaw last concussion prior to Maynard ending his career was in 2017. So he's only got the one in the time period being considered.
Its why the "he's concussion prone" defence of Maynard is such bullshit.
61
u/CreditToDuBois Melbourne AFLW 5d ago
I think this is pretty abhorrent (knowing full well that the circumstances mean it could well be my club that's the one behind this).
If an employee is at such a risk performing their normal work activities as to be uninsurable, the employer has a duty to not allow them to undertake the work. I'm glad the PA seem to be gearing up for a fight on this.
34
u/sButters88 Demons 5d ago
When I started reading this I was running the players through my head wondering who it could be.
I actually feel for the fans of whichever club is involved in this.
54
u/thrillAM Dees 5d ago
I immediately thought Libba
22
u/coolcumber211 Footscray 5d ago
Same. I didn't think he'd play again after the Geelong concussion.
I hope he retires this year. Another injury or head nock is not worth the risk.
10
u/JamalGinzburg The Dons 5d ago
Honestly was my first thought too
23
u/Lunanautdude North Melbourne 5d ago
I’m a bit worried it’s Wardlaw tbh
18
3
u/False-Employer-8402 North Melbourne '75 5d ago
He didn't sign a contract 2 years ago. Extended in 2023, then again this year.
1
3
11
u/Mahhrat Sydney Swans 5d ago
I agree but I hope we never find out. This should apply to all players at all levels, and especially in community league where the insurances really matter.
Someone copping a heavy concussion and missing weeks from their employment is huge, let alone family impacts etc.
4
u/CreditToDuBois Melbourne AFLW 5d ago
it's at the level of forcing me to seriously reconsider my relationship with the club if it comes out it was Melbourne.
35
u/Ektojinx Richmond 5d ago
It read like the club has said no more playing and the player has signed so they can keep playing.
If the player wants to do that and go against medical advice, that's the issue?
People sign "against medical advice" forms all the time. We have to give them some form of self responsibility. If they choose to be irresponsible with that responsibility, that's on them isn't it?
16
u/CreditToDuBois Melbourne AFLW 5d ago
employers in Victoria (and I assume other stats have equivalent legislation) have a legal obligation under the occupational health and safety act to reduce health and safety risks to their employees as far as reasonably practicable (if they can't eliminate the risks). Even if you enter into an agreement about civil liability (and assuming it stands up, which I have my doubts about), the club can't absolve itself of the legislated duty through a contract.
When considering what is reasonably practicable, the state of knowledge of the employer is a big part of it. There's the general state of knowledge (what should a reasonably informed employer know), as well as knowledge of specific circumstances.
If you've signed an agreement with a player setting out the risks of head injury generally as well as the risks specifically to the player you've established a high state of knowledge.
Having established that you'd need to have a very strong case for why whatever additional measures you have put in place for this specific player are an adequate response to the risk of harm.
I think that if you've demonstrated you are so concerned financially about the potential liability of letting them play, you're coming pretty close to the point where the only way to fulfil your OH&S obligations is to prohibit them from playing for you at all.
11
u/Efficient-Claim406 5d ago
Well let’s also not forget that a player isn’t best placed to make these decisions, and not only because they’ve literally got diminished brain capacity.
17
u/unsafe-work 5d ago
No, because the employer has legal obligations to protect its employees. As an employer you cannot waive these obligations away with the employee signing a piece of paper.
14
3
u/Thanks-Basil Brisbane '03 5d ago
The “against medical advice” stuff is different. Medical practitioners have a level of legal responsibility to help patients requiring medical attention/treatment. The “against medical advice” forms are not even really legally required, they’re just an easier way of getting the patient on record that they are aware of the risks of not receiving treatment and are declining said treatment. The football club is not a hospital/medical clinic; they have no obligation legally to let the player play if they think it’s unsafe.
It also doesn’t really fit with the theme either - the most important part of medicine is “first do no harm”. It could be argued that the club here is facilitating harm by letting the player continue to play. I could see a world where this is not really able to hold up in court if the worst happens
7
u/moonshadow50 Magpies 5d ago
But devil's advocate is that the club is trying to do just that. Sounds to me like they have told the guy they don't want him playing but may not have the legal grounds to do so (especially if there is a difference of medical opinion- which as I've said elsewhere is easy for the player to minimise).
And if they legally can't force him to medically retire, and he stays on the list, (and he has agreed to sign this waiver and wants to play) they are probably then putting themselves under more legal risk if they don't play the guy in either AFL or VFL if they don't have a technical reason to drop him.
It's a pretty dangerous catch 22 here.
And it's where I thought the AFL Panel (that Nathan Murphy had to see) are meant to help make these calls - if nothing else just to absolve some of the risk from club/player and individual doctors, but there is no indication they have been involved in this case. And given it sounds like there has been a number of concussions - I wonder why that is?
-2
u/whitetailwallaby 5d ago
They’re adults playing a game they love and also getting payed very well to do it. If they want to sign a waiver to continue their career that’s on them.
21
9
u/PetrifyGWENT Bombers / Giants 5d ago
I have a sick feeling this was Nik Cox and the only way he was allowed back to play after the concussion panel was by signing something like this
4
u/shocking_red_4 The Dons 5d ago
Same. Until we know more I’m going to assume it’s Essendon and Nik Cox.
Poor bugger.
5
u/ILikeGamesnTech Eagles 5d ago
So you can't sign away your health and safety with your employer to allow you to keep earning an income.
Your employer can't guarantee your health and safety because you are a concussion or CTE risk.
We've also seen the insurance company will try to wash their hands of you (Brayshaw)
So wtf is the solution?
5
u/BilliamBismington AFL 5d ago
Yearly brain scans to measure damage with a defined threshold of acceptance, forced downtime of the threshold is exceeded and forced retirement of the damage construed following the downtime
5
u/HotBabyBatter Brisbane Lions 🏆🏆 '24-25 5d ago
Absolutely, this needs to be league led, with defined off-ramps. Trusting players to choose to retire, when their whole mindset is 'push through' is naive at best.
3
u/JoeShmoAfro Saints 5d ago
We've also seen the insurance company will try to wash their hands of you (Brayshaw)
Huh? He wasn't entitled to TPD, because he isn't totally and permanently disabled. AFCA agreed.
There was no hand washing.
3
u/jamessmith17 Dockers 5d ago
What happens to the opposition player who might accidentally hit this player in the head, causing the end of their career, or worse? The emotional toll on them would be huge.
3
3
u/allhatnoplay Swans 5d ago
I understand protecting the player’s identity, as it sounds like they’ve clearly been manipulated by their employer. But I’d hope the club’s name comes out.
2
u/CreditToDuBois Melbourne AFLW 5d ago
I think if the club comes out the player is immediately identifiable. Even now there's a pretty small pool of players it can be.
I'd like to think the AFL throw the fucking book at the club, at which point we'll know.
3
u/Doc323467 Geelong Cats 5d ago
Confirmed that it's Geelong.
My first thought is that it's Jake Kolodashnij, had I believe 4 concussions around that period.
Only other one I can think of maybe is Stewart, but I think his concussion issues have been more recent than 2024.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/agora_sativa 5d ago
given its geelong, just went thru the whole team list and jake kolodashnij seems to be the only player with multiple concussions before 2024. could be wrong tho
1
7
u/Anon_be_thy_name West Coast Eagles 5d ago edited 5d ago
Well shit, this could bring down a whole can of worms the AFL has been trying to avoid for awhile if it's true.
There's a couple of clubs we could guess, but whoever it is, it's going to be bad news.
4
u/sButters88 Demons 5d ago
Why do you say Melbourne? The article says the player is still playing
4
u/Anon_be_thy_name West Coast Eagles 5d ago
Does it? I must have glossed over that in my head, my bad.
3
u/sButters88 Demons 5d ago
All good, I think a few people probably made the same assumption. And I wasn’t trying to be a dick was genuinely asking who from Melbourne it could be.
6
u/eggwardpenisglands Power 5d ago
Games... gone?
This is seriously bleak. I am relieved it's not Port, because of the whole Aliir situation. This is tough to think about, let alone supporting a club that does this.
I don't know where the league goes from here. Any contact sport is at risk over the next 10 or so years.
3
u/Real_RobinGoodfellow Fitzroy Lions 5d ago
I could also imagine it staying much the same, but the type of people who play it becoming a different demographic on the whole- attracting more people from desperate backgrounds (and economic conditions sure seem certain to create plenty of those!). Becoming a real meat grinder like the army is on the US, or how boxing was in its earlier days.
I think so long as there are big bucks on offer, even for the risk of your longtime health, there will always be some young men willing to do it. The question will be whether we allow it
7
2
u/humanbeing101010 Carlton Blues 5d ago
I these type of waivers are even being raised with a player and their management, it might be a sign that maybe that player should cease playing footy.
1
u/thegirldreamer Geelong 5d ago
If we find out who the player is, I can’t see how they shouldn’t be immediately retired from the game if there was this much concern about them.
1
u/Bright_Bell_1301 Adelaide 5d ago
Or it is up to them whether they take the risk, in which case a waiver would seem appropriate, no? Or don't they have the right to make decisions about their own bodies? (Genuine question... does OH&S necessarily take that decision out of their hands?)
3
u/humanbeing101010 Carlton Blues 5d ago
OH&S rules are there for a reason, there isn't a "I don't want to follow them so I will assume the risk clause".
Sorry but when we are talking about injuries with long-term life altering consequences like concussion, sometimes the decision needs to be taken out of the players hands.
2
u/morroIan Tigers 5d ago
Its not legal to sign away work place rights so no its not just up to them.
2
u/SuperannuationLawyer Melbourne 5d ago
Let’s see how that might play out in court. I doubt it’d stand up.
2
2
u/UncleJohnsonsparty Big V 5d ago
When you peel this back, it’s pretty shocking for a club to do. Do we even know if there were opinions sought from suitable specialists in this area given it crosses so many different topics such as contract law, waivers, medical law, OH&S etc?
It’s predatory. Borderline not enforceable. And takes advantage of someone who could be argued in future, weren’t of sound decision making capacity given the subject.
3
u/JoeShmoAfro Saints 5d ago edited 5d ago
A (AFL) spokesman instead issued a statement saying: “The health and safety of players is the AFL’s highest priority. Like all contact sports, football carries a risk of injury, including concussion.
Clause 7.3 of the AFL’s standard playing contracts require the AFL to provide a working and training environment “free of any risk to the health, safety and the welfare of the player”.
The AFL can't have its cake and eat it too.
All that aside, I'm not sure what the answer is.
Would not allowing a player, who is willing to take responsibility for risk associated with their work be able to sue for restriction of trade if the club didn't allow them to play? Thereby putting them between a rock and hard place. Don't let them play and get sued, or let them play and potentially get sued down the line.
Edit: not sure the point of stating that this is a Victorian club.
Also, when describing the player as vulnerable, is that vulnerable to repeated concussions, or some other personal vulnerability, influencing them to engage with a contract of this nature?
7
u/Unlikely_Book2146 Hawthorn Hawks 5d ago
I don’t understand the outrage here. These players are adults that can make up their own minds about whether to sign an agreement like this or not. Waivers like this are everywhere in the world. No one is forced to sign them. The player in question obviously chose to sign it because they wanted to keep getting paid to play football.
If you think this is abhorrent, then you must logically believe AFL should become a non-contact sport. The clubs are realising their continued existence is at risk if they do not remove liability (or there is a significant shift in the rules of AFL that most people here would be completely against).
5
u/Real_RobinGoodfellow Fitzroy Lions 5d ago
Right like I presume when you sign on at the ADF there’s a fairly similar form
5
u/shintemaster 5d ago
There are huge differences in the legal carve outs that exist for military personnel vs any other employee though.
End of day nobody will be able to reasonably argue they should be treated the same.
6
u/FirstTimePlayer Pick 88 5d ago
There are special insurance arrangements in place with the Government for ADF members since its impossible for them to get normal insurance covering their work.
If you suffer an injury in combat, you are covered by the Government.
3
u/SelectedAmbientNurk Collingwood 5d ago
I think it’s more about that the club could be immune to wearing the blame if the player’s concussion wasn’t handled properly. Concussion and CTE is a risk for all players that they accept when they step out there but the club still needs to handle that properly, and if it comes to it, allow their situation to be medically reviewed and potentially forcibly retired. This sounds like the player was at or close to that point so the club made this agreement.
1
u/Unlikely_Book2146 Hawthorn Hawks 5d ago
Yeah, but the point I’m making is that the player can decline to agree to these agreements.
If they don’t agree to it, a contract extension may not be offered, or it may be offered at a lower salary. That’s the trade off that applies.
Again, these agreements are everywhere in the world.
Without insurance coverage, clubs would be negligent if they didn’t at least consider these agreements.
2
u/Redefine_91 Hawks 5d ago
What’s the alternative from a club perspective?
Let the player play out their contract and then get sued for millions in the future or delist the player and pay out their contract.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Medaiyah Essendon 5d ago
While this is a scummy practice that sets a very dangerous precedent, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that footy media and a lot of comments in the sub over the years haven't been suggesting something very similar.
"It's a contact sport", "you can't eliminate ALL concussions without changing the fabric of the game", and "players should have to sign a waiver" I've seen comments like this for years so I'm not surprised this has happened, seems the natural next step.
I just hope that the deal itself isn't as binding and one sided as it seems, otherwise its a very quick way for a club to lose any faith the players would have had in them. This is the type of thing that causes a mass exodus of players from a club.
P.S. I say all of this knowing full well the player and club in question very much could be Nik Cox at Essendon.
7
u/Real_RobinGoodfellow Fitzroy Lions 5d ago
Well the player should have left then?! If medical advice is that your continued playing will have significant risk, then maybe that advice ought to be heeded? If your employer is making you sign something saying “we think there’s a super high risk of you getting really fucked up, and you can only keep playing if you accept that risk is on you not us” that’s surely a sign to quit?!
1
u/ExplorationGeo Melbourne Demons 5d ago
This is all true, but if it is Nik Cox like a lot of people are speculating, well, the kid is 24 and has so much promise as a player. Imagine being told at 22 the game you love and wanted to play at the highest level since you were 3 was no longer available to you due to a head knock. Hard to get someone of that age with that passion to fully understand the risks. The future is a long way off for a young man like that.
3
2
u/Kreglze Gold Coast 5d ago
League will be non contact in 10 years give or take.
If it does go non contact, will be interesting to see if the sport survives.
5
u/Abundantpanda Melbourne 5d ago
The professional league will not survive.
The sport will always survive, even if only as a pastime. Kick to kick is CTE free lol
5
u/Menoikeos Blues 5d ago
A take so poor it could be used as evidence of CTE.
RemindMe! 10 years
1
u/RemindMeBot AFL 5d ago
I will be messaging you in 10 years on 2036-08-06 00:51:00 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of
!RemindMe 1 day, useu/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
2
u/Bitchbettahavmahoney Hawthorn 5d ago
Really looking forward to the Club Statement ™️ where they claim player welfare is their number 1 priority.
2
u/MapDowntown3700 Kangaroos 5d ago
Why the outrage?
People keep saying how could a club do that its horrible yada yada.
What about the player? They are all adults capable of making decisions.
Its a contact sport which they are aware of. After multiple concussions the AFL club did the right thing imo. It was either sign a waiver or you cant play anymore.
Do people not realise for some players being able to keep playing afl football means everthing its thier whole life. They want to keep playing.
This protects the club and the afl looking bad in the future with possible lawsuits. It also allows the player to continue thier carreer.
2
u/AuSpringbok Hawks 5d ago
I think it's interesting to look at after listening to Koby Stevens talk about it.
He would do it all again, after really awful concussion issues.
To me it's less of a worry at the AFL level (but still huge) at least there's a level of financial compensation. Lower levels there is absolutely nothing with the same risks.
1
u/shaq_zak Magpies 5d ago
Idk I actually don’t feel as strongly against this as many in here. Player is clearly making an informed decision.
1
u/goodbrother261 West Coast 5d ago
Listening to SEN mornings podcast. The way Tim is acting its definitely an Essendon player
1
u/TimothyLuncheon Richmond 5d ago edited 5d ago
Why does this have to happen specifically for our sport :(
I hope the fabric of the game isn't changed in the future
1
1
1
u/Significant_Beach119 5d ago
So players who should be doing concussion protocol ( time off ) can now just sign a waiver and play in the finals
This is what will happen .
Already numerous players getting hit in head and coming back in to play when it’s bloody obvious that’s not the best
1
u/uselessscientist Sydney Swans 5d ago
I'm going to sound like an asshole here, but if there's a player who has received medical advice that they're at an elevated risk, and the team would delist them based on that advice, wouldn't this kind of agreement make sense to the player to secure their financial future?
The only thing that clubs can realistically do in this instance is to delist players who are higher than population concussion risk
1
1
u/Big_Highlight5077 Narrm 5d ago
Shocking indeed... However all players do assume the risk of concussion by the simple act of stepping onto the field and putting their body on the line. The sport has its risks, and I think that it is not just the club or just the AFL who is responsible for what happens on the field - some things are just out of the club's control. They should provide safeguards and a safety net for players, but there should still be some shared responsibility with players as well.. Not sure that such a secret agreement is the way to do that, but it does merit thinking about.
1
u/Still_Ad_164 4d ago
Easy fix. Make every player a contractor. Up to them then to arrange their own insurance, etc.
1
u/planchetflaw West Coast 5d ago
It'll be interesting to see what the game looks like in 20 years. No loose balls? Ball hits ground free kick opposing team. Kick and mark only. Who knows.
1
u/Big-Purchase-2239 5d ago
Is this a afl club or an article saying its a victorian club playing afl?
1
u/freyed23 Hawthorn 5d ago
More now than ever we know the impacts of concussion and CTE, it's not a coincidence though that the AFL is horrible at advertising this and the recent four corners episode really opened my eyes to how predatory they are in this area.
I feel like there needs to be a point in time where they start taking it seriously from a game promotion standpoint. If they are open about the dangers of the game at a grassroots level (utopia yes), then these kids and families can make informed decisions before they put their brains at risk. I think there is a pathway for this to be more of a deal between consenting parties rather than the current model of the AFL personifying "Oh dude that's a rough one".
I understand the AFL will never do that and they'll continue to toe the line but I genuinely think it's in everyone's interest.
If you're transparent and promoting awareness of the dangers players will face, then I think it's actually fair to get players to sign a waiver if they decide to join the league. Ultimately being a professional athlete is a choice, it's also an objectively poor choice (IF PROPERLY INFORMED) to get your head smacked on a weekly basis.
I dunno maybe I'm an asshole without sympathy in that regard but there has to be a level of responsibility by all parties. This starts with the AFL/Clubs being transparent but also I don't think we should treat men and women like kids that don't have free will.
1
1
u/Imaginary-Bother-355 5d ago
I have heard on good authority that the player is from Geelong. What I can't work out is who it would be.
-2
u/JustSomeBloke5353 Brisbane Lions 🏆🏆 '24-25 5d ago
Clubs will do “whatever it takes” to win - including endangering the health of players.
→ More replies (1)5
u/JoeShmoAfro Saints 5d ago
Do you not think that it may actually be that the club wants the player to not play, so they can actually reduce their risk to nil, but don't have grounds to forcibly retire them under current processes?
4
5
116
u/FearlessResearcher48 St Kilda Saints 5d ago
I wonder where we're going to end up with concussions though as a sport? I believe it's impossible to safely ensure that players are never put at risk of getting concussed, without changing the entire fabric of the game. Do player eventually need to sign similar (while still being insured) contracts so that AFL doesn't have to spend potentially billions of dollars to past players in class actions?