The renowned waves of the Victorian surf coast are overshadowed this week by a significant issue tied to Geelong’s waiver, which has put the AFL in a precarious position amid an ongoing concussion crisis.
Geelong’s Liability Waiver
Two years ago, a player from the Cats signed a legal document with the club that absolved Geelong from any liability in future concussion-related lawsuits. The club has faced considerable criticism for its actions, especially since the AFL’s most senior official, chair Craig Drummond, approved the agreement while serving as Geelong’s president and board member. Instead of punishing the club, the AFL issued a statement on Thursday evening, declaring that the waiver would be nullified and future waivers banned.
Community Reaction and Player Safety
This lackluster response from the league has only fueled anger within the football community. Questions loom over how Geelong avoided punishment yet again, the implications of Drummond’s involvement, and what exactly qualifies as a “I daresay a lot of people will sign whatever is in front of them,” as mentioned in the league’s statement. As discussions continued on Friday, the AFL machine was in full operation, with talkback shows buzzing and former players sharing their opinions. However, amid this chatter, the underlying issue of player safety remained unaddressed, resembling an untreated wound.
It raises the question of how a prestigious football club could feel so threatened by liability that it demanded a player sign a waiver. Even more troubling is the fact that the player agreed to it, despite the known long-term risks associated with contact sports.
Player Perspectives
Melbourne’s captain Max Gawn expressed that he would not have signed such a document, although he believed he might be in the minority. “We’re on good money, it’s tough to get that money elsewhere, and we also love footy.” he mentioned during an interview on Triple M. “Every player wants to keep playing until their boots fall off, so it’s an interesting discussion around liability and risk,” Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge echoed similar sentiments. “All I know is that when I was playing, we all had concussions, and if I had to sign a waiver to keep playing, I would have.” he commented on Thursday night. “I’m disappointed the AFLPA didn’t take stronger leadership on this and waited to do a joint statement with the AFL,”
The AFL has implemented stringent penalties for on-field head contact and sling tackles to enhance player safety. This year, the league granted independent doctors the authority to remove players suspected of concussion from the game, alongside upcoming restrictions on contact training for the pre-season.
While adjustments are being made, the inherent dangers of the sport remain unchanged. Over the years, there have been persistent efforts to educate players regarding the risks associated with head trauma and potential long-term consequences. Yet, the drive to compete often leads to sacrifices.
Response from AFL and AFLPA
It falls to the custodians of the game to devise solutions. The AFL and the AFL Players’ Association jointly issued a statement on Thursday in response to the Geelong waiver, raising eyebrows due to the apparent camaraderie between the two organizations, given that one is the players’ union and the other typically negotiates against them. Professor Alan Pearce, a respected brain health researcher at Swinburne, expressed disappointment that the AFLPA did not take a more assertive stance. “The power the players association have is 100% membership. They can’t be in bed with the employer. They have to actually stand up for the rights of the players, the rights of their members.” he remarked.
This sentiment was echoed by former AFLPA president Joel Bowden, who shared his thoughts with ABC Melbourne, stating, “The power the players association have is 100% membership. They can’t be in bed with the employer. They have to actually stand up for the rights of the players, the rights of their members.” Geelong’s attempt to undermine the rights of an AFLPA member could be viewed as an affront to the union, which has historically championed improvements in player pay and conditions. Its response has positioned the organization to appear more like an HR division of the AFL.
While the AFLPA can take solace in highlighting the issue of waivers this week, and the AFL’s agreement that they have no place in the sport, it missed a critical opportunity to demonstrate that it might already possess the solution to football’s most pressing dilemma – it simply requires a larger share of the AFL’s $1.2 billion in annual revenue.
Financial Implications and Future Concerns
With concerns stemming from the Max Rooke class action, AFL clubs are now more inclined to prioritize financial safety over ethical considerations. Geelong’s waiver epitomizes this anxiety, one clause at a time. This fear is likely to escalate. The number of professional players in Australian rules football has doubled in the last decade, thanks to the AFLW, and many of these athletes may require financial assistance later in life due to neurological decline from their time in the sport.
The AFLPA has already established a severe injury benefit fund, offering eligible former players (and their dependents) up to $600,000 to compensate for lost earning capacity in later life due to bodily or cognitive impairments stemming from their playing careers. This establishment is a notable achievement and a point of envy for those in rugby league.
However, commercial insurance providers have withdrawn coverage for head trauma, leaving the AFLPA’s safety net as the primary means to assist former players in living fulfilling lives. While generous payouts from this fund could help mitigate clubs’ liability risks due to past player lawsuits, the challenge lies in the fact that since the fund began accepting claims last year, the rate of payouts is accelerating, soon surpassing the contributions from players.
This week has been a stark awakening for the AFL, underscoring the harsh reality of concussion within the sport and presenting uncomfortable, existential dilemmas. The solutions may be costly, but they are necessary to protect players from the consequences of their choices.
