Concussions in the NFL Concussions have been and will continue to be a major threat and liability risk to the National Football League. Head related injuries can have devastating long-term effects, causing serious brain damage, neurological disorders, and other cognitive health problems (“Concussions in Sports”). Within the past couple of years, suicides by former professional football players have been linked to Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, a disorder attributed to multiple concussions (Hanna). As a result, numerous class-action lawsuits have been filed against the NFL alleging “negligence, fraud, and concealment” (Brandt). Although the League has implemented new safety mechanisms and rules regarding head injuries, the main focus of the lawsuits is based on the NFL’s past failure to perform its legal duty of protecting and informing players about the true dangers and life-long impacts associated with concussions.
The various lawsuits filed by football players demonstrate a liability risk to the NFL. Under the United States legal system, a liability risk arises when a person or entity can be held financially responsible for the life, income, or health to someone else (Rejda). Brain injuries and severe cognitive repercussions suffered by former NFL players can be categorized more specifically as bodily injuries. This type of liability damage imposes legal responsibility “for losses a person may incur because his or her body or mind has been harmed” (Rejda). In addition to liability risk, the complaints against the NFL for failing to perform the legal duty owed to its players show the potential legal impact of negligence. According to the plaintiffs of the concussion litigation, the “NFL actively and purposefully concealed and misrepresented the severe neurological risks of concussions and exposed players to dangers they could have avoided had the League provided them with truthful and accurate information” (Dugan). The NFL would be held liable if the plaintiffs are able to prove all four elements of negligence- that the NFL had a legal duty, failed to perform that duty, and a proximate cause relationship exists and was a direct result of the actual injury (Rejda). Being found guilty for failure to satisfy its duty and misleading players about the dangers of concussions would not only require the NFL to pay compensation to the injured victims, but would also have a devastating impact on the organization’s reputation.
Even though new lawsuits will continue to add onto the thousands already filed, the NFL may be able to avoid legal liability through the defenses of comparative negligence or assumption of risk. Under comparative negligence, if both parties are responsible or contribute to the plaintiff’s injury, the financial burden is shared in accordance to each person’s level of fault (Rejda). Many studies have actually shown that players do not always inform the medical staff of head injuries, purposefully perform poorly on pre-season cognitive tests, and return to action before fully recovered. In a survey conducted by the Associated Press in 2009, about 20% of players admitted that they have neglected to report head injuries or have ignored concussion-like symptoms to avoid having to miss a game or practice (Hanna). The NFL may also be able to defeat the claims for damages by raising the assumption of risk defense. Many activities, such as playing football, have an inevitable and implied level of danger. By choosing to engage in this particular sport, professional football players knowingly assume some degree of liability and risk. Even though the NFL’s negligence may have caused the plaintiff’s injuries, the assumption of risk doctrine denies recovery for damages because players should have an understanding of the inherent danger related to professional football (Rejda). Both current and future concussion-related lawsuits present major concerns to the NFL’s reputation and existence. In an attempt to reduce the number of concussions, and in turn, its liability, the NFL has made changes to the league’s concussion policies and has implemented new guidelines and player safety mechanisms. Under the new rules, independent neurologists and third party athletic trainers have to examine players after experiencing a head injury and are not allowed to return to a game or practice (“Concussions in Sports”). The organization has also started suspending and fining players who commit illegal hits to the head (Dugan). As the number of lawsuits and players suffering from the long-term effects of head injuries continues to grow, it will become increasingly more important for the NFL to take stronger action in protecting its players. In order to prevent a future rise in concussion-related liability suits, the organization will not only have to constantly update its policies, but will also have to conduct research to keep players up to date on all of the consequences linked to head trauma (Dugan).

Works Cited
Brandt, Andrew. “The NFL’s concussion conundrum.” ESPN.com 17 Oct. 2012. ESPN Internet
Ventures. Web. 9 Nov. 2012.
“Concussions in Sports.” ESPN.com. ESPN Internet Ventures, 30 Aug. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2012.
Dugan, James. “NFL Concussion Litigation.” Dugan Law Firm. The Dugan Law Firm, LLC,
2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2012.
Hanna, Joseph. “Paying the Piper: NFL’s concussion policy results in huge class action lawsuit.”
Thomson Reuters News & Insight. 15 Aug. 2012. Thomson Reuters. Web. 10 Nov. 2012
Rejda, George E. Principles of Risk Management and Insurance. 11th ed. Boston: Pearson
Education Inc, 2011. Print.