CTE, Rugby and the $1B Negligence Claim Reshaping Sport

"'I am really not sure.' When a Wallaby legend turned Australian Senator publicly questions whether rugby union will survive the next fifty years, the courtrooms of London and the medical wards of Auckland suggest he is asking exactly the right question."

In a recent interview with 'The Issue' on 7News Australia[1], Wallaby legend and Australian Senator David Pocock was asked whether rugby union will still be played in fifty years' time. His answer, "I am really not sure" was not the hedged diplomacy of a politician, but the considered uncertainty of a man who gave his body to the game for over a decade. A landmark negligence claim brought by over 1,000 former players against World Rugby and its national governing bodies is currently before the UK High Court, and the mishandling of Tonga's Eliesa Katoa at the 2025 Pacific Championships suggests the problem is far from solved.

What the Science is telling us

The science is no longer speculative. Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease caused by repeated blows to the head and is now well established in the brains of former contact sport athletes. Its cruellest feature is also its most legally significant: it can only be confirmed post-mortem, meaning players deteriorate for decades without knowing why. World Rugby's own Brain Health Service found one in four retired elite players at risk of long-term cognitive dysfunction, and the Australian Senate inquiry heard that contact sport participants are up to four times more likely to die from a neurodegenerative disease than the general population[2].

Current Governance

In response to the growing body of scientific evidence, governing bodies have not been idle. World Rugby's Regulation 10[3] sets the global baseline that any player suspected of concussion must be immediately removed from play, assessed by a medical practitioner, and cannot return on the same day. In Australia, Rugby Australia's Concussion Management Procedure[4] mirrors those standards. The 2023 Australian Senate inquiry added further impetus, handing down 13 recommendations including binding return-to-play protocols, a National Sports Injury Database, and improved support for affected athletes[5]. The progress is genuine, but translating the architecture of these protocols into consistent practice remains the central challenge.

Legal Landscape

The question of what governing bodies knew, and when they knew it, is now squarely before the courts. Over 1,000 former professional rugby union and rugby league players are before the High Court in London, pursuing a negligence claim against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union[6]. Among them is 2003 World Cup winner Steve Thompson, a man who cannot remember lifting that trophy. He is in his early forties. The claimants allege the governing bodies knew, or ought to have known, of the long-term neurological risks of repeated concussive and sub-concussive head impacts, and failed to adequately warn or protect them. On the duty question, the claimants draw on the precedent established in the Michael Watson boxing case[7], establishing that governing bodies owe a duty of care to ensure proper medical provision. On breach, the claimants point to decades of available science. Legal commentators have argued that from as early as 1975, governing bodies knew or ought to have known of the cumulative neurological risks of repeated head trauma[8]. The integrity of the science itself is also in issue as World Rugby's safety regulations were informed by the Concussion in Sport Group, whose lead author resigned in 2022 over ten counts of plagiarism, casting doubt over the scientific advice on which those protocols were built[9].

World Rugby's response, filed in February 2026, is equally considered. It denies owing any duty of care to the claimants, denies any breach, and denies that it knew at any material time of established science linking sub-concussive head impacts to long-term neurological injury. Centrally, it characterises brain injury as a foreseeable and inherent risk of the sport and one that all participants voluntarily accepted when they chose to play[10]. In legal terms this is the ‘volenti non fit injuria’ defence meaning ‘to one who consents, no wrong is done’. Both positions have legal merit and the contest between them will ultimately turn on the state of scientific knowledge at the relevant times, the adequacy of the protocols in place, and whether players were genuinely informed of the risks they were accepting.

Its consequences, wherever it lands, will reach far beyond the courts of England and Wales. World Rugby is a defendant. Rugby Australia operates under the very regulatory framework now under judicial scrutiny. For Rugby Australia, whether or not litigation eventuates in Australia, the proceedings in London raise questions that Rugby Australia cannot afford to leave unanswered.

The Web of Liability

It would be a mistake to assume that concussion liability begins and ends with governing bodies. The Katoa incident is a sobering reminder of just how far that liability web can extend. It was the team's own medical staff whose failure to communicate vital health information the NRL identified as a serious breach of protocol. The head doctor, assistant doctor and head trainer were each handed 24-month bans, with the medical assistant receiving a formal warning[11]. In a civil litigation context, those same facts could expose team doctors, physiotherapists and coaches to personal claims in medical negligence, entirely independent of any action against a governing body. Clubs risk vicarious liability for the conduct of their employed staff. And as established in a 2003 case involving the Welsh Rugby Union[12], even referees can owe a duty of care to players in the enforcement of rules designed to minimise injury. In Australian rugby union and rugby league, that is a very large number of people and for every one of them, treating concussion liability as someone else's problem could prove to be a very expensive mistake indeed.

Where do we go from here?

The starting point is informed consent, current participant agreements do not adequately reflect what is now known about the long-term neurological risks of repeated head trauma and need to be updated[13]. Critically however, informed consent is not a shield against negligence and courts will look beyond a signed form to whether the risk was genuinely understood[14]. Standardised participant agreements clearly delineating the respective responsibilities of the governing body, the club, the coaching staff and the medical practitioner are equally essential. Matchday medical practitioners should be appointed by and answerable to the governing body, not the clubs, so that concussion decisions are free from competitive pressure. Mandatory reporting of all concussion events to a central database would improve the science, create a compliance record, and directly address the Senate's recommendation for a National Sports Injury Database[15]. Player welfare clauses guaranteeing neurological screening and ongoing medical support well beyond a playing career would address the most acute human dimension of this issue. That urgency was underscored in March 2026 when Zurich Insurance withdrew TPD coverage for traumatic head injury and CTE for AFL players effective 1 May 2026[16], leaving over 500 players without cover. Professional athletes in Australian contact sport are excluded from WorkCover, and where commercial insurers retreat, there is presently nothing to replace them. At the grassroots level, standardised concussion education should be a mandatory condition of coach accreditation and club registration. The legal and financial consequences of failing to act on any of these fronts are significant and they are only going to grow.

Lasting Thoughts

As a former professional rugby player, I have a deeply personal stake in where this goes. The game gave me everything, and it is precisely that love for rugby which makes me confident that the sport has both the will and the capacity to evolve. The law will keep pushing, the science will keep revealing and my hope is that fifty years from now, David Pocock's uncertainty proves to have been not a prophecy, but a catalyst.

---

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Callum Sirker i brings a unique perspective to legal practice, combining a strong foundation in employment law with firsthand experience in professional sport. After a seven-year career as a professional rugby player, he developed a particular interest in sports-related legal matters and the challenges faced by athletes and organisations in the sporting industry.

References:

[1] 7News Australia, The Issue with David Pocock (2026) — https://7news.com.au/sport/7news-the-issue-podcast-independent-senator-david-pocock-wants-albanese-government-and-taxpayers-to-fund-new-canberra-stadium-c-22130042

[2] Australian Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sports (September 2023) - https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Headtraumainsport/Report

[3] World Rugby, Regulation 10 — Concussion (2024) — https://www.world.rugby/organisation/governance/regulations/reg-10

[4] Rugby Australia, Concussion Management Procedure (updated February 2025) — https://australia.rugby/about/codes-and-policies/safety-and-welfare/concussion-management

[5] Australian Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sports — 13 Recommendations (September 2023)

[6] RTE Sport, Ex-players lose UK court bid in concussion lawsuit (23 December 2025) — https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2025/1223/1550310-ex-players-lose-uk-court-bid-in-concussion-lawsuit/

[7] Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134

[8] Rugby and the Law, Concussion Litigation in Rugby — Part II: Breach of Duty (27 August 2021) — https://rugbyandthelaw.com/2021/08/27/concussion-litigation-rugby-union-part-ii-breach-of-duty-negligence-world-rugby-rfu-wru/

[9] The Guardian, Concussion kingpin resigns global post over plagiarism scandal (5 March 2022) — https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/05/concussion-kingpin-resigns-global-post-over-plagiarism-scandal

[10] Yahoo Sports, World Rugby argues concussion is ‘inherent risk’ in response to lawsuit (27 February 2026) — https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/world-rugby-argues-concussion-inherent-171111303.html

[11] NRL, Tonga XIII Breach Notices (8 December 2025) — https://www.nrl.com/news/2025/12/08/tonga-xiii-breach-notices/

[12] Vowles v Evans and the Welsh Rugby Union [2003] EWCA Civ 318

[13] Neurology, Legal and ethical implications in the evaluation and management of sports-related concussion (2014) — https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000000613

[14] Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) — sections 5F-5N

[15] Australian Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sports

[16] ABC News, AFL players to lose insurance coverage for brain injuries (27 March 2026) — https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-27/afl-players-to-lose-insurance-coverage-for-brain-injuries/106503280