Sporting events can offer big challenges for insurers, because the risk of serious injury to competitors – and sometimes spectators – is always there. Here are some insights from Richard Salvini, Partner at HF, on how these difficulties can be overcome.
Insurers are understandably wary of the risk associated with head injury in contact sports. There has been a growing number of claimants across football and rugby and other contact sports in the UK and abroad, with the inevitable and very significant high levels of media interest.
If we are to save the future of contact sports, there needs to be a focus on risk – understanding risks, mitigating those risks and ensuring that the outcome is an optimum level of safety, giving reassurance to insurers and protecting the nature and enjoyment of the sport itself.
Any litigation will of course require a sharp focus on to what extent if at all these sports have caused or contributed to the development of degenerative brain disease, including early onset dementia, MND etc.
Although in these sports it is impossible to completely eliminate risk, there is inevitable pressure on sporting governing bodies, clubs and associations to find workable solutions to identify, quantify and reduce risk as much as possible. This impacts not just on the professional game but all levels including amateur, community and children’s sport.
Whatever the actual level of risk that emanates from these sports, the consequence that we are seeing in the insurance market appears to be a significant shift in available capacity as insurers reduce their appetite for writing this type of risk, with some having pulled out of the market all together.
This creates a major challenge for the relevant national governing bodies (NGBs). They have a legal duty to be responsive to any developing knowledge relating to how these conditions might develop and any potential association with participation in contact sports.
It may be that we currently have some way to go or have yet to see definitive evidence regarding the mechanism, relevant pathology and head injury for those conditions that we are concerned with.
Whatever the outcome is on causation arguments – there is no doubt a requirement for NGBs to be proactive in managing head injury risk. A key step in my view is that any objective analysis should be data led.
Some guidance worth bearing in mind includes:
– Creation of dedicated teams within relevant NGBs – focused specifically on this area of risk (brain health) working alongside medical experts in the field.
– Meeting on a regular basis to form the decision-making hub for recommendations and implementation across professional and amateur/community games.
– Keep track of progress and enforcement.
Critical objective being:
– Identify key risk factors and recommendations to
o Reduce measurable rates of concussion
o Reduce absolute sub concussive incidents by measurable amount
Above all based on data analysis from that sport, including:
– Analysing data (for example through technologies such as compulsory wearing of gum shields) to obtain head acceleration data
– Identifying through data which aspects of the game create greater levels of frequency of the above including correlation with time exposure (minutes on the pitch).
– Analysis of this data forms the basis for the required responsiveness to risk.
– Enablement of benchmarking and comparisons, eg between men and women games, academy/reserve level
– Injury surveillance with time spent on the pitch and impact on
-injury incidence
-injury severity
Based on the criteria set out above.
Although not a definitive list, this illustrates the level of analysis that should form the basis for key decisions around:
– Current laws and introducing key modifications (specifically to reduce risk – i.e. incidence of high magnitude head accelerations)
– Measuring impact of these modifications.
– Feasibility for their introduction – (measured in terms of whether these modifications compromise the dynamics of the sport/ease of implementation for players and referees).
– Mandating existing rules and enforcement of new ones – obviously through referees and officials but also through coaching.
– Training of coaches at all levels and implementation.
– Independent (rather than employed by club) concussion assessors (at professional clubs etc) to diagnose concussion.
This focus on risk management response is an absolute requirement if insurers are to have the confidence to provide insurance backing for contact sport.
The additional benefit of such risk mechanisms is to help assess to what extent risk is historic and form the basis for responding to any developing medical knowledge, insight and research into potential causation.
Legal expertise evaluating risk, mitigation and potential litigation is crucial to help insurers quantify their risk and continue providing cover for sporting bodies.
Be the first to comment