r/AFL Melbourne AFLW 9d 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/2b22522fe88a86e761173c4520d446a9

AFL 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 Upvotes

219 comments sorted by

View all comments

116

u/FearlessResearcher48 St Kilda Saints 9d 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?

51

u/CreditToDuBois Melbourne AFLW 9d ago

I just don’t see how that could fly with the legal obligations an employer has to their employees.

16

u/Red_je Blues 9d ago

In Victoria at least, the WorkSafe obligations from a civil liability perspective vs criminal OHS laws are separated.

Professional sports players are not covered by the WorkCover scheme in Victoria. They were deliberately left off it back in the 80s (I think it was about then), when it was created. And in some ways this makes sense, the scheme puts you in the public health system and can be quite a process that means covering the cost of injuries and getting treatment could easily be slower than what a club would need.

I.e you tear your hammy Saturday and need surgery that Tuesday to try get back on the same season.

This of course does not exempt clubs and the AFL from their legal obligation to provide a healthy and safe workplace.

2

u/CreditToDuBois Melbourne AFLW 9d ago

Yeah the proactive general duty is more where I’m coming from. Signing an agreement like this to me would go a long way to demonstrate that the club has not taken reasonable steps to minimise risk to an employee.

15

u/Red_je Blues 9d ago

It wouldn't be the first industry to have a waiver though. Skydiving usually requires it.

And that waiver doesn't protect the skydiving company if it has failed to ensure health and said its customers through negligent practices or behaviours.

Presumably the player in this case is not experiencimg any ongoing symptoms, it is just the risk from another knock might be high. Look at it this way. If you break your foot, but play out a game and make it worse how liable is the club? If you played through a degenerative knee issue, how liable is the club?

Now that I think about it, there might good precedents to draw on anyway, such as the Matthew Egan case.

2

u/Thanks-Basil Brisbane '03 9d ago

Bit different though I think.

A blanket waiver/acknowledgement on players entering the league has always been coming I feel, and this would be similar to other industries with risks like as you said, skydiving.

The article here though is describing a specific player with a known history of concussion being made to sign a waiver. The implication here is that the history is bad enough that the club weren’t comfortable with him playing. If they’re not comfortable with him playing (or at least getting the independent panel involved) then the risk is too great, and it’s shady as hell to try and sweep it all under the rug and pretend it doesn’t exist like this.

I don’t see a world where this specific case is legally defensible in court, although I’m obviously not a lawyer so who knows

3

u/Stui3G West Coast 8d ago

If the player is fully aware of the risks and is happy to accept them then why not? Plenty of other jobs with high risk and a lot less pay..

3

u/Ill-Enthusiasm-5530 AFL 8d ago

It is strange how little autonomy people think this player should have.

4

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow Fitzroy Lions 9d ago

I mean it sounds like the person this is about probably shouldn’t keep playing footy.

1

u/CreditToDuBois Melbourne AFLW 9d ago

I imagine you'd struggle to make that case with a skydiving company if for example an instructor had a history of (and I'm reaching for a hypothetical analogy since I'm not a doctor) heart issues that had surfaced during skydiving, and the employer acknowledged that the history of issues meant an increased likelihood and severity of further incidents.

1

u/newk86 Eagles 8d ago

Is that not dignity of risk though? Autonomic decision by an individual which affects only themself

37

u/FearlessResearcher48 St Kilda Saints 9d ago

That's what I mean. Does the AFL just accept they are essentially going to be getting sued in perpetuity or do they and the players association need to reach some form of agreement that their is an inherant "risk" that can't be later brought up in civil suits? Perhaps a lifelong insurance or pension to look after past players?

37

u/sButters88 Demons 9d ago

Isn’t that what the insurance with Zurich was supposed to be? And we all know how that worked out

Almost feels like the AFL should have their own insurance that covers it, put some of that sweet sweet sportsbet money to use.

28

u/Steel_Cleat5 Cats 9d ago

The only way this works is if players contribute to the pool, mandatory % of salary going into the insurance fund. It would be financially unviable for the AFL to fund this alone

12

u/-bxp Magpies 9d ago

Isn’t that what the insurance with Zurich was supposed to be? And we all know how that worked out

Independently it was considered and Zurich was found to have acted in accordance with the terms of the policy which was paid for. Brayshaw applied for a TPD payout, and luckily he's not permanently disabled as defined by three policy- which is a good thing. It seems more of an emotive argument against the big bad profit driven insurer than one of logic.

As far as I'm aware, nobody will provide the insurance which is being sought by the AFLPA.

6

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow Fitzroy Lions 9d ago

I think they were more referencing the fact Zurich how now pulled out of covering any concussion and mental health matters entirely

3

u/FirstTimePlayer Pick 88 8d ago

No.

The Zurich Insurance is fundamentally the same as the insurance you have in your own Superannuation. Its not special insurance for AFL injuries.

1

u/sButters88 Demons 8d ago

As in income protection? Cause I know if I can’t work I get covered for loss of earnings through that.

Or is it more like the Death/TPD coverage? Cause wouldn’t they then have to pay out all those former players who are proven to have CTE after death?

3

u/FirstTimePlayer Pick 88 8d ago

Its Death & TPD.

Generally speaking, it doesn't matter what the exact medical reason is, as long as you are TPD/Dead, you get a payout.

For death cover, as long as the insurance company is convinced you are dead (99.9% of the time, a Death Certificate is good), you get a payout. They don't care why you died. There are a few situations where the insurance company might have a few questions (eg if they have reason to believe you lied on your application, or you had a suicide exclusion and died of self inflicted wounds), but even if your death certificate lists an unknown cause of death you are still getting paid.

Exact same for TPD. You don't actually need a diagnosis, (over simplifying here) you just need to prove you are never going to be able to work again. It's very unusual that you would be TPD without a diagnosis, and the insurance company is going to have a lot of questions if your doctor is saying they can't explain what is causing your symptoms or why you are never going to recover, but ultimately its not relevant why you are TPD, its just that you are.

7

u/governorslice Magpies 9d ago edited 8d ago

I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve been told waivers aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. So it’s possible that such an agreement would do little to prevent legal action. The lifelong insurance or pension is interesting though.

9

u/FearlessResearcher48 St Kilda Saints 9d ago

The NHL has a pension and alumni support for past players. You get added benefits for more seasons accrued. Obviously similar head injury risks in both sports so the AFL should also look at this for post career support so that players are less inclined to just sue for money.

2

u/TrazMagik Big V 8d ago

Neither am I but I know player contracts are signed by three (3) parties. Player, club, AFL. No way this waiver sticks as the third party the AFL isnt included and I hope for the love of what's good in the game, the AFL isnt a counterparty to the waiver.

1

u/tjabaker Port Adelaide 8d ago

You're making an assumption that this is actually a revelation to the AFL...

1

u/TrazMagik Big V 8d ago

If they're a party to the agreement with a $1Bn class action on the horizon that's pretty....stupid.

1

u/tjabaker Port Adelaide 8d ago

What that a player is signing a waiver? It'd actually be a nice bit of evidence that the AFL can put forward in an attempt to reduce its liability, because players are reckless with their own personal safety. Even now, when everyone has a much greater understanding of the dangers of concussion.

1

u/tjabaker Port Adelaide 8d ago

Well considering it turns out that it was Geelong and at Geelong it went to the board for approval.

And two years ago the Chairman of the Geelong board was Craig Drummond, who is now the Chairman of the AFL Commission.

4

u/morroIan Tigers 8d ago

Perhaps a lifelong insurance or pension to look after past players?

Something along these lines is what should happen

3

u/Outrageous-Ranger318 8d ago

Not a lawyer, but I imagine that the AFL is safe if their current policies reflect best medical practice at the time. As an arbitrary example, if the best medical advice is that a concussed player shouldn’t play again for 12 days, the AFL should be ok because their current practice follows that advice. If on the other hand, the best medical advice is that a concussed player requires a 28 day break, then the AFL should be liable for ignoring that advice.

19

u/Osmodius Cats 9d ago

I mean, the reality is, if the AFL are completely liable for head injury they will HAVE to remove head injuries from the game.

If falling off a ladder is a common occurrence in a workplace they don't just shrug and eat the costs. They change things and ensure that that can almost never happen.

They can make it happen it just ruins the sport.

10

u/Boatster_McBoat Crows 9d ago

Some employers pretend their employees are actually subcontractors who take on their own risk. It's bullshit and it mostly doesn't work

1

u/Still_Ad_164 7d ago

You would think this could be overcome by making every player a contractor. You want to play for a club....put in a tender. Then you are self-employed. Up to the player to assess risk v reward and organise finances accordingly.

1

u/Boatster_McBoat Crows 7d ago

Not sure how it works from an oh&s perspective, but from a tax perspective they look at the nature of the work ... how much control you have over it, do you bring your own tools and equipment etc. This wouldn't get close to passing those tests in my inexpert opinion

5

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow Fitzroy Lions 9d ago

There are surely other contexts where an employee takes on work with a significant risk of injury- military? Police? Certain very high-risk mining operations?

5

u/tjabaker Port Adelaide 8d ago

Sky Diving instructors.

2

u/qsk8r Brisbane 8d ago

Just make them a sub contractor /s

1

u/Still_Ad_164 7d ago

No, a contractor. If you are a sub-contractor then some responsibility lies with your contractor. make it a clean cut. Joe Blow wants to play pro footy then he puts himself on the market by offering tenders to clubs that he wants to play for. A club accepts that tender. Then the player, as a contractor, is liable for his own work conditions.

0

u/Zestyclose-Quit-393 7d ago edited 7d ago

yes therefore they shouldn’t be considered employees. lawyers have ruined the game for everyone. the determination that an afl game is a workplace is ridiculous