Rugby Union Ex-player Group Claim: A Canary for Sports Governing Bodies? – Yasin Patel and Charlie Hutchins

Yasin Patel and Charlie Hutchins provide an in-depth analysis of a Class Action Lawsuit brought by ex-Rugby Union players in relation to their deteriorating medical conditions from neurodegenerative diseases, and delve into the potential ramifications for sporting governing bodies.

INTRODUCTION

A class action lawsuit led by prominent ex-players has brought to the fore the questions being asked about the connection between rugby union and the effects of head impact injuries upon players.

Due to this, rugby union is currently undergoing an existential crisis, with a growing concern about the long-term impact the game is having on players’ brains – from those playing the game at the grassroots to professional level.

Although relatively rare in retired sports athletes[1], there is a growing body of research suggesting a direct connection between playing the sport and an enhanced probability of sustaining long-term neurodegenerative disease (“ND”) through traumatic brain injury (‘TBI’); reported conditions usually include either dementia, epilepsy, Parkinson’s, motor neurone disease and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (“CTE”) – the latter which can typically only be diagnosed after death. World Rugby’s new brain health service programme has identified a significant number of former elite players as being “at risk” of cognitive problems in later life[2].

Prominent ex-players such as Steve Thompson and Alix Popham have gone public and talked movingly about their diagnoses and are among the leading figures in a class action lawsuit and there are now among 725 former professional rugby players who have initiated three Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’) claims against three of the largest of the sport’s governing bodies (‘SGB’): World Rugby Limited, Welsh Rugby Union Limited (“WRU”) and Rugby Union Football (“RFU”).

The claims allege negligence and a failure to provide adequate protection from foreseeable harm. At the core of these claims lies the assertion that governing organisations failed in their legal duty of care for a number of reasons by,

not implementing appropriate safety measures,
not adequately informing players of the risks involved, and

failing to monitor and mitigate head injuries during and after play.

In this article, Yasin Patel and Charlie Hutchins of Church Court Chambers consider the issues that SGBs potentially face from the tsunami of lawsuits and cases that they may have to deal with very soon.

THE DATA

The data in relation to rugby union and CTE is currently limited.

Nonetheless, The National Institutes of Health has found ‘clear evidence of CTE pathology in around two-thirds of cases’ from the 31 brain donations from both amateur and ex-rugby players[3]. Diagnosing CTE is a less disputed field of science than Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome (‘TES’), which use a set of clinical criteria to identify and characterise the syndrome in living individuals.

World Rugby (“WR”) launched the Brain Health Service in 2024 to provide cognitive screening to retired elite players. Of the 65 participants who completed assessments, 25% were identified as being at risk of long-term cognitive dysfunction: one in four ex-elite players could be affected due to playing a sport where the governing bodies at the time, saw negligible threat to the players’ health or welfare from head impact injuries. This corresponds with a growing body of scientific analysis concluding that some people develop dementia following repeated concussive head injury in sport[4].

Data from WR’s 2023–2024 annual injury report indicates that concussion remains the most prevalent injury in elite-level rugby. For male athletes, a concussion is recorded approximately every two games; for elite women, the figure is one every 2.3 matches[5]. Each incident typically results in a three-week recovery period, though the long-term consequences are increasingly the subject of concern.

THE SGB’s RESPONSE

In response to growing scrutiny, WR has introduced a range of measures that it believes, with the advice of medical experts, will help to mitigate the risks associated with head trauma:

In August 2024, it issued revised Concussion Guidelines mandating the immediate and permanent removal from play of any player suspected of sustaining a concussion. A medical expert makes the decision of removal. All such players must undergo formal medical assessment.
A 21-day return-to-play exclusion has been implemented for children and adult players must typically complete an individualised rehabilitation programme[6].
Smart mouthguards have been introduced in elite rugby to monitor head impacts in real time, although doubts persist about their accuracy[7].
Discussions are ongoing to mandate 12 weeks of non-contact rest annually for professional players, in collaboration with the International Rugby Players’ Union[8].

SGBs have also introduced other governing laws, such as WR’s lowering of the tackle height in the global game in the 2023/24 season.

Data suggests this is having the desired effect[9], despite the furore it created at the time with a flurry of red cards being shown in games.

Head-on-head contact was reduced by 45% and shoulder to head tackles are down 22%.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: TORTIOUS LIABILITY IN CONTACT SPORTS

With the aforementioned class action now live, critical questions are being raised over who is liable for the injuries and the demise in health of the ex-rugby players.

As Dr Mark James states: “no governing body has been sued successfully for the creation or implementation of a sport’s playing rules. Even where there is a known danger associated […] for example scrummaging in rugby union, the courts have so far refused to examine the reasonableness or otherwise of the laws of a game that give rise to inherent dangers of personal injury being caused to the players. Instead, governing bodies have been held liable, or at least potentially liable, for the overall safety of participants in their sport and for the regulatory frameworks within which safety inspections and licensing take place.[10]”

There currently is also no UK case law in respect of repeated TBI and dementia[11].

Identifying the Defendants

In tort law, establishing a viable claim necessitates identifying parties with a duty of care and the capacity to have breached it. While liability could extend to team doctors or medical staff, claimants in the ongoing group litigation have directed their action against the sport’s primary governing entities—WR, the WRU, and the RFU. This is consistent with the “deepest pockets” doctrine, wherein claimants pursue defendants with the financial resources to pay significant damages.

The crux of the legal claim is that these bodies negligently failed to inform players of the material risks associated with repeated head trauma; and implement and enforce adequate protocols to assess, diagnose, and manage head injuries during and after play.

Limitation Periods

Personal injury claims in England and Wales are generally subject to a three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980, beginning either from the date the injury was sustained or from the date the claimant first became aware of the injury and its likely cause.

In the context of neurodegenerative injury, this “date of knowledge” is highly relevant.

Following the principles established in the case of AB the court will assess when the claimant had a reasonable belief that their injury was attributable to the alleged negligent act or omission. In these rugby-related cases, many claimants argue that they only became aware of the link between their conditions and their playing careers following medical diagnoses in recent years; therefore, bringing their claims within the permissible window.

Establishing Duty of Care

One of the key legal questions is whether the sport’s governing bodies owed players a duty of care concerning concussion management. The non-binding Australian case of Agor[12] held that no such duty existed on the part of the International Rugby Board (as it then was), and that the board’s role was too remote in relation to individual injuries (it should be noted though this was not concerning concussion injuries).

Of potential greater relevance is the case of the British boxer, Michael Watson.

The Court of Appeal found that a sport’s governing body owed a duty of care to athletes to ensure proper medical provision and protocols. Applying this precedent, there is an argument that rugby’s national and international authorities owed and continue to owe players a similar duty to prevent avoidable harm arising from known medical risks.

In the case of Wattleworth[13] it was established that sporting regulatory bodies are responsible for the safety of participants in their sport and that they must ensure that they are reasonably safe taking into account the relevant prevailing circumstances and inherent dangers associated with the activity[14].

Standard of Care and Breach

The appropriate standard of care for these governing bodies is that of a reasonably competent regulatory authority in their field (Wattleworth)[15].

To establish breach, the claimants must demonstrate that the defendants either knew or ought reasonably to have known, based on the information available at the time, that concussions posed a serious and foreseeable risk of long-term injury. If a competent governing body in the same position would have issued warnings, revised rules, or adopted safety protocols, the failure to do so may constitute a breach. The SGB’s employment of a vast array of medical expertise and access to data will likely feature in the court’s thinking on whether this matter is made out.

Causation

The challenge of proving causation in mass tort claims involving cumulative injuries is well documented. The conventional “but for” test is often inappropriate. Instead, courts may apply a modified approach, as endorsed in Heneghan[16].

This two-stage test asks:

What were the causative agents contributing to the injury?
To what extent did the defendants materially contribute to those agents?

Given the multi-faceted nature of neurological deterioration, claimants will need to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities, their rugby-related head injuries made a material contribution to the development of their conditions. This is likely to prove a major evidential hurdle for the claimants to traverse.

However, as explained under the section “Data” above, information already exists potentially proving the link between rugby, head injuries, neurological deterioration and medical conditions.

Contributory Negligence

If the claimants are able to clear aforementioned hurdles, there will be several defences available to the governing bodies. Voluntary assumption of risk (‘Volenti non fit injuria’) is a complete defence, where it can be shown the player was aware of the associated risk inherent of playing the sport. The players in the class claim strongly refute though they were made fully aware of the risks of long-term ND from participation.

A further defence is that of contributory negligence. If it can be demonstrated the player participated under conditions where they were aware of the risk of long-term ND, then they will likely be found to be partially liable[17], and the claimant’s damages reduced to whatever is deemed equitable by the court[18].

In the case of Maylin[19], where the claimant alleged the defendant had breached its duty to provide a safety induction or briefing, it was found where there was an ‘inherent risk in the activity’ and yet the claimant proceeded, the claim would fail.

Whether there was a known inherent risk to contracting a ND disease consequent to playing the sport is likely to be a hotly debated matter.

SRA INVESTIGATION OF RYLANDS GARTH

As well as the legal hurdles to be cleared in order to bring a successful claim, there are various on-going concerns around solicitors bringing the class claim.

Former England prop Will Green stated he was contacted by Rylands Garth, offering what he thought was a free brain scan, having been suffering with migraines. Green thought it would be prudent to get a ‘free’ test to make sure there was nothing untoward.

As he went on to say in an article in The Telegraph, the ‘free’ test resulted in three years of constant stress and costs of more than £20,000, even though Ryland’s case against Green for breach of contract was dismissed by a Judge. The Judge said Rylands Garth had misrepresented their services and went on to say their letter of engagement was ‘at very best, vague, muddled and highly confusing’.

In light of Green’s experience, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (‘SRA’) subsequently stated: ‘following additional information in the court case, we can confirm that we will be looking into this before deciding on next steps’.

The investigation is ongoing.

JUDICIAL CRITICISM OF RYLANDS GARTH

To add to Rylands Garth’s woes, in July 2025, the presiding judge over the Rugby Union claim and the separate Rugby League claim rebuked Richard Boardman – owner of the solicitors firm – for being under a “misapprehension about his responsibilities”, going on to say, “he seems to have a problem with the English language”.[20]

The Judge, Senior Master Jeremy Cook, was scathing in his criticism of the way the claims had been handled, critiquing “Mr Boardman’s complete misunderstanding of his responsibilities”, having not disclosed all of the relevant material for the defendants. For example, it transpired that of the 383 claimants who joined the class claim since the cut-off earlier this year, only 91 have received a medical diagnosis.

Arguably, it was Cook’s recognition of how much the claims meant to the claimants and the substantial time that had already passed (five years), that meant “the complete failure on the part of Mr Boardman to recognise that all this was caused by his misreading” did not derail the two claims.

CONCLUSION

Attitudes towards concussion, from both players and governing bodies have experienced a seismic change over the past few years. Garry Ringrose, a star player for Ireland who has previously experienced concussion issues, was selected for the Lions team in the second Test match this month against Australia. Despite having been selected for a potentially once in a lifetime game, he took the decision to pull himself out of the game due to head-related issues. This would have almost been unthinkable only a couple of years ago, given the magnitude of the game, and is illustrative of how much more informed and pro-active players are in looking after their heads.

The SGBs have made marked steps in attempting to make the sport as safe as possible. However, the authors of this article submit that more needs to be done.

The disjointed and parochial nature of the global game, which is still struggling to shake off the amateur shackles of governance, having only turned professional as a sport in 1995, means there will continue to be headwinds for efforts to reform the game. The lack of a global calendar and financial pressures to stage more games continue to undermine these efforts. Players from nations like Argentina, who juggle domestic and international commitments, are effectively playing year-round, which makes world rugby’s claims to adhere to their responsibilities concerning duties of care problematic.

The legal and medical dimensions of the concussion crisis in rugby union are converging toward a potential watershed moment in contact sports law globally. While courts have historically been reluctant to impose liability on sports’ governing bodies, for fear of opening the litigation floodgates, evolving jurisprudence and mounting scientific evidence suggest that a duty of care does, in fact, exist. Furthermore, in the case of rugby, this duty may have been breached, with studies finding the number of ex-athletes (not just in rugby) who self-identify with ‘cognitive disorders and a general population of neurodegenerative disorders [being] striking’[21].

It will not be easy for the Claimants to make out the negligence claim due to potential current scientific evidential limitations. Nonetheless, salient evidential points can be made concerning the breach of the SGB’s duties. Ultimately, if the class action can demonstrate the ex-players were not aware of the aware of the risk to their brains, the governing bodies’ defence of volenti non fit injuria could be extinguished.

If the group action against WR and others succeeds, the ramifications could be vast. It would set a precedent not only for other contact sports but also for the governance of athlete safety more broadly.

Comparisons are already being drawn to the NFL’s 2013 settlement of $765 million over similar concussion-related claims. As recently as the 29 July 2025, a man shot and killed four people in New York, blaming American Football for giving him CTE in a note he left behind – saying “study my brain, please” and, “I’m sorry.”[22] Another worrying consideration from a liability-perspective for the SGBs is the ever-growing women’s game, which has an all-time high 2.7 million players globally[23] and the potential liabilities from there. Unlike the NFL, rugby union lacks the financial resilience to absorb such a payout for the men’s game, let alone the women’s, with many of its domestic leagues and national unions already in financial difficulty.

The outcome of the legal challenges now facing rugby union’s governing bodies will likely shape the future of the duty of care owed in contact sports worldwide. Whether rugby union in its current form survives is another question entirely.

[1] B.S. Willer, M.N. Haider, C. Wilber, C. Esopenko, M. Turner and J. Leddy, “Long-term neurocognitive, mental health consequences of contact sports” (2021) 40(1) Clin. Sports Med. 173–186.

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/apr/30/quarter-of-world-rugbys-test-group-of-ex-players-at-risk-of-cognitive-problems

[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10627955/#:~:text=Regarding%20neuropathological%20findings%2C%20CTE%20was,7%20high%20stage%20%5B1%5D.

[4] Katz, Bernick, Dodick, Mez, Mariani, Adler, Alosco, Balcer, Banks and Barr et al, “National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke consensus diagnostic criteria for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome” (2021) 96(18) Neurology 848–863.

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/apr/30/quarter-of-world-rugbys-test-group-of-ex-players-at-risk-of-cognitive-problems

[6] https://www.world.rugby/organisation/governance/regulations/reg-10

[7] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12009008/

[8] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/apr/30/quarter-of-world-rugbys-test-group-of-ex-players-at-risk-of-cognitive-problems

[9] https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/rugby-tackle-height-change-boosting-player-safety

[10] Dr Mark James, ‘Sport: Negligence – Overview Article’, Westlaw, Nov 2019

[11] N.V. Todd & A.V. Wright-Todd, ‘Dementia and traumatic brain injury: causation of dementia in repeated and solitary brain injury’, Westlaw, 2025

[12] Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552

[13] Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Co Ltd [2004] EWHC 140 (QB); [2004] P.I.Q.R. P25

[14] Dr Mark James, ‘Sport: Negligence – Overview Article’, Westlaw, Nov 2019

[15] Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Co Ltd [2004] EWHC 140 (QB)

[16] Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 86