AFL’s tepid response to Geelong’s secret waiver neglects the true cost of concussion

The waves may be famous on the Victorian surf coast but it was Geelong’s waiver that wiped out the AFL this week, as the sporting juggernaut was submerged by the weight of the concussion crisis.

A Cats player signed a legal document with the club two years ago that would preclude liability for Geelong in any future concussion-related lawsuit.

The club has been widely condemned for its conduct, even if the AFL – whose most senior representative, chair Craig Drummond, signed off on the deal when Geelong president and part of the board – did not sanction them. The AFL instead issued a statement on Thursday evening, confirming the waiver would be set aside and others outlawed.

The league’s tepid response, however, only served to enrage the football community. How did Geelong escape with no punishment (again)? What of Drummond’s role and his suitability as AFL supremo? And what exactly makes it a “complex and unique case”, as described in the league’s statement?

The wheels of the AFL machine whirred away on Friday, as talkback phones lit up, and past players shared their takes. But while that busywork sustained the Melbourne footy media, it hid the game’s infected wound, still weeping with pus.

How can a leading football club be so scared of liability that it required a player to sign a waiver? And gallingly, despite everything known about the long-term risks of contact sport and its personal implications, the player was prepared to sign.

Melbourne captain Max Gawn said he would not have signed such a document, but he suspected he might be in the minority. “I daresay a lot of people will sign whatever is in front of them,” he told Triple M on Friday. “We’re on good money, it’s tough to get that money elsewhere, and we also love footy.”

Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge is one of those people. “Every player wants to keep playing until their boots fall off, so it’s an interesting discussion around liability and risk,” he said on Thursday night. “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.”

The AFL has introduced harsh penalties for on-field head contact and sling tackles to make the game safer. Just this year, it gave independent doctors the power to pull players suspected of concussion off the field. Limits to contact training will be in place for the coming pre-season.

The game may be tweaked, but there will always be a danger. There have been concerted efforts over years to educate players on the risk associated with head trauma, and the possibility of long-term damage. The overriding urge to sacrifice in order to play is a constant.

So it is left up to the game’s stewards to find a solution. Two of those stewards – the AFL and AFL Players’ Association – co-signed Thursday’s statement in response to the Geelong waiver. The chumminess of the two organisations, given one is the players’ union and the other usually sits across the negotiating table, drew consternation.

Swinburne’s respected brain health researcher, professor Alan Pearce, said the AFLPA must show greater independence. “I’m disappointed the AFLPA didn’t take stronger leadership on this and waited to do a joint statement with the AFL,” he said.

The perspective was echoed by former AFLPA president Joel Bowden, who told ABC Melbourne: “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 deny the rights of an AFLPA member might have been considered an affront to the union, which has a proud history of improving pay and condition for players. Its response makes the organisation resemble a human resources arm of the AFL.

The union will rightfully be pleased this week has brought to light the issue of waivers, and that the AFL has agreed they have no place in the game. But the AFLPA also missed an opportunity to show they might already have the solution to solve football’s most pressing conundrum – they just need a larger share of the AFL’s $1.2bn in annual revenue.

Scared by the Max Rooke class action, AFL clubs are now motivated to avoid future financial exposure above ethics. Geelong’s waiver is the embodiment of that fear, clause by trembling clause.

Their terror will only grow. The professional cohort playing Australian rules football has doubled in the past decade thanks to the AFLW. Many of these entertainers will need financial support in future to live rich and meaningful lives due to brain decline caused by impacts during their employment in the industry.

The AFLPA has already established a severe injury benefit fund that hands eligible past players (and dependents) up to $600,000 to compensate them for loss of earning capacity in later life due to bodily or cognitive impairment caused by their playing career. Its establishment is a significant achievement, and the source of envy to those in rugby league.

Commercial insurance providers have now withdrawn coverage for head trauma, leaving this AFLPA safety net as the main mechanism to help former on-field champions live full lives. Deserved and generous payments under this fund could help minimise the exposure of clubs to liability due to past player court proceedings better than any waiver can. The only issue is, since the fund started accepting claims last year, the value of payouts is accelerating and will soon eclipse the rate of contributions from players.

This week has been a jarring wake-up for the AFL, a saga that rams home the new reality of concussion in the sport, and raises uncomfortable, existential questions. The answer may be costly, but it is a price the game must pay to save players from themselves.

Click here to read article