Geelong forced to scrap secret concussion deal with player

Geelong have backflipped on a written agreement with a senior player, who has a history of concussion, that waived his legal responsibility for future on-field head trauma.

The Cats were forced to scrap the waiver on Thursday after the AFL revealed it had not approved the arrangement. However, the agreement was ratified by the Geelong board, chaired at the time by current AFL Commission chairman Craig Drummond.

The deal was also condemned by the AFL Players Association.

The Geelong player, who has asked not to be named, signed the agreement acknowledging his elevated risk of concussion in 2024.

“The AFL and AFLPA are aware of a complex and unique case in which a Geelong player was cleared as fit to play following an assessment by an AFL concussion panel,” the league said in a statement.

“The player then signed a letter acknowledging the potential risk and sought to waive some potential future legal rights, which was not lodged with or approved by the AFL or the AFLPA.

“Geelong has advised the AFL today that the waiver in the letter will be removed, noting that the player continues to acknowledge potential risks.

“The AFL is satisfied that the letter was not used by Geelong to allow a medically unfit player to return to play.”

Geelong CEO Steve Hocking confirmed the Cats had removed the waiver and said the player had not been directed to medically retire.

“Geelong Football Club acknowledges that the letter signed with one of its players went further than was intended and recognises the absence of the AFLPA in the process,” Hocking said in a club statement.

“At the time, the club was involved in extensive discussions with a player, their family and representative in relation to that player’s concussion history.

“Those discussions, including medical advice from the club’s chief medical officer and the AFL concussion panel, were documented in the letter, signed by the player.”

Hocking said the Cats were not attempting to vary the terms of the AFL standard playing contract, nor attempting to avoid their responsibilities under health and safety laws.

“The club’s focus throughout the process was providing care and support to the player, with the intention to give the player agency in the decision-making process around their own playing career.

“The club always aims to ensure that players are provided with information to enable them to make informed decisions about their careers.”

The letter was approved by the Geelong board under then president Drummond, who made a statement to this masthead on Thursday night.

“This matter was complex, sensitive and very carefully considered by the Geelong board at the time,” Drummond said. “The club has today addressed the reasons for decisions in relation to the player and the appropriate changes it will make going forward.”

A source with knowledge of the deal but who was unable to speak on behalf of the club said the letter had given the Cats a level of comfort that the player had given informed consent and was aware of the risks.

Drummond left the Cats at the end of the 2024 season and is now the AFL chairman.

The source said the player was happy with the support, care and treatment he had been given and wanted to continue his career.

The player has played without issue since and, according to the source, continues to be supportive of the club.

Two former Geelong doctors are caught up in a legal class action case with former Cats star Max Rooke as the lead plaintiff.

Rooke and a raft of players have alleged their lives were impacted by serious head knocks.

The class action, brought by Margalit Injury Lawyers, is set to be heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria from May next year.

Former Geelong doctors Chris Bradshaw and Geoff Allen are two of the listed third parties mentioned in Rooke’s statement of claim.

AFLPA chief executive James Gallagher was critical of the Cats earlier on Thursday.

“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,” Gallagher said.

“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.”

Melbourne coach Steven King responded to the report at his media conference.

“All I’ll say about that is, as a club, or me personally, I would never do anything or ask my players to put themselves at risk,” King said.

“I think what we are doing, and the things we have implemented in the game to help look after players’ safety and wellbeing has been really positive.

“As a coach, my opinion is, I would never ask a player to put himself at risk to play. Those decisions are with our doctors and medical team and that’s where, as a coach, I leave them to be honest.”

WorkSafe is also investigating the AFL’s concussion management protocols.

Sports law expert Leon Harris, who is doing his PhD in head trauma and concussion liability, said he was not surprised to hear such a contract had been drawn up. He said whether it was enforceable was another matter.

“You can’t contract your way out of a statutory liability. If you have breached workplace health and safety requirements, you can’t say, ‘oh no we got them to sign a waiver for any injury they suffer at any point, we’re in the clear’,” Harris said.

“So under the civil liability legislation in theory you would have rights still even if you were encouraged to contract your way out of those rights, but it just becomes a fight you don’t really want.

“If the player as an adult knows the risk that they’re running by continuing to play and is willing to voluntarily assume that risk then, in a way, that’s up to the player. But the question then becomes, is it OK for a professional sporting organisation to allow somebody in that situation to assume that risk of harm, and that potentially is more of a moral question than a legal question.”

Harris said part of the problem was that there was still a grey area around the issue as it was yet to be fully decided in court. There remained limited research around the prolonged effects of repeated sub-concussive head trauma, he added.

While numerous legal actions have been brought in Australia and overseas, most have resulted in settlements.

“I think eventually it will end up going to a court to make a decision, whether it’s here, whether it’s in England … and they will make a ruling and a variety of sports will have decisions to make, unless those sports start putting rules in place now to deal with sub-concussive events, not just concussion.”

– with Sam McClure

Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.