Delay on introduction of concussion substitutes could leave football's governing bodies open to legal action
Football’s governing bodies have been warned they risk leaving themselves open to legal action over the ongoing delay to introduce concussion substitutes and stronger protocols to protect players against brain disease.
It is now more than six weeks since the University of Glasgow published landmark evidence which showed that former professional footballers were at significantly increased risk of devastating neurological disease, including a respective five- and four-fold chance of dying from Alzheimer’s and motor neurone disease.
The International Football Association Board met this week and promised to convene what they call “an expert group” ahead of a plan to introduce trials next season for the introduction of the sort of concussion substitutes that have become common in other contact sports.
Although concussions substitutes are now backed in theory by Uefa, the Football Association and the players’ union FIFPro, the IFAB’s timescale means there is now only a limited chance of change arriving across football even next year. Neuropathologists and campaigners on brain injury are incredulous at the ongoing delay, as well as the suggestion from football’s authorities that they must wait for further research before introducing other precautionary measures like a limit on heading in training or a ban on heading for young children.
Both Dr Willie Stewart, who was the lead researcher in the Glasgow study and Dawn Astle, who runs the Jeff Astle Foundation, were invited on the FA’s research task force and have become increasingly disappointed by the lack of progress.
Ipek Tugcu, who is an associate solicitor at the brain injury team at Bolt Burdon Kemp, described football’s “relaxed reaction” as “baffling” and stressed the legal duty of care particularly after the Glasgow research. “I don’t understand what reason there is for delay, especially given they seemingly acknowledge that there’s an issue,” she told The Telegraph. “This subject has been raised at their meetings time and time again, and every time it’s just pushed back for discussion at a different time.
“In my view, there’s sufficient knowledge now that footballers have a higher risk of suffering head injuries. There’s then sufficient expertise to recommend factors which would lower this risk - better concussion protocols, less header training, concussion substitutes. That knowledge could prove risky for them if legal proceedings are pursued, because the basis for a case would be, ‘You had a duty of care, you breached that duty of care by ignoring information that could have prevented further injuries’.”
Dr Stewart said that football’s current concussion protocol was “unacceptable” and that it was “hard to believe” a sport could suggest that it was just starting to think seriously about the issue in 2019.
Sports like rugby and American football have made significant changes in recent years, both in changing laws to mitigate the risk of head impacts, but also how they manage and assess head injuries during matches. In rugby, players can be replaced for 10 minutes to assess a head injury. Football medics are still often left to make quick on-field decisions.
Patrick Nelson, the IFAB chairman, said that football was just discussing concussions substitutes “this for the first time” but that an expert group would be formed. “We'll get that group together fairly quickly over the next month or so,” he said.
“There will be a lot of data connected with that and we'll try to come up with some ways of having trials in competitions next season. We are taking it as seriously as we can.”
