EXPLAINER: Long Suspensions

One of the major talking points at the start of the 2022 season has been the lengthy suspensions handed out to several players. In round 1, suspensions totalling 22 matches were handed down in Super League alone. Round 2 has seen a similarly lengthy list.

Gil Dudson received a three match ban for an offence that may not have registered on the radar in years gone by. James Bentley has been slapped with a four match ban (plus already missed most the match in which he was sent off) for a high tackle. Luke Gale faces a potential 8 match ban for foul play this week.

Why is this happening?

Whilst the sport has made significant efforts recently to make the game safer, such as through the introduction of head injury protocols, I suspect that the move to harsher suspensions is not solely due to altruism or greater care for player welfare.

The greater on-field and off-field punishments should be viewed through the prism of litigation. The RFL are being sued by at least 40 players for negligence. It is alleged that the sport's governing body failed to adequately protect the former players from suffering head injuries (or, failed in its duty to put in place adequate mitigations).

How could this impact the sport?

I am not privy to the details or merits of the cases. I do not know whether the cases will succeed or fail. What we can do is explore the potential impact of the different outcomes.

Should the RFL lose the case, then it would be liable to pay compensatory damages which, when looking at the number of players part of this action, could feasibly run into millions of pounds. Should the RFL lose the case, they would also be liable to pay the reasonable legal costs of the players. This could feasibly run into several hundred thousands of pounds.

If the RFL either lose at Court or agree an out-of-Court settlement, whilst a 'precedent' would not be set, other players may be tempted to take similar action. This may lead to damages payouts and legal bills increasing further.

Even if the RFL win the initial 'test' case, they will still face their own hefty legal bill. The law in England means that those who pursue negligence claims rarely have to pay the legal fees of the entity that they sue if they lose.

How are the RFL's finances?

In 2021, the RFL did return of a profit of £25,000. This was in part due to Government support to see the sport through the pandemic (totalling nearly £30 million) and the furlough scheme, which reduced staffing costs by £363,000. 

Cuts also led to this profit. The RFL have cut their staffing costs by 27% over the past three years. Other factors include financial support from Sport England and the sale of former Headquarters (Red Hall in Leeds) for more than £1 million, last year. These savings or incomings cannot be gained again going forward.

Furthemore, the RFL repaid Sky Sports £3.75 million "due to lack of ability to deliver live content in 2020 as a result of restrictions placed on holding live sporting events". This seems strange considering Sky Sports showed more games than ever in 2020, but regardless, it is a huge financial hole. Thankfully, such a rebate in the future seems unlikely.

Can the RFL afford this litigation?

That is the big unknown, given the uncertainty in sums that this litigation may give rise to. What is certain is that the litigation has the potential to blow an enormous hole in the RFL's budget.

It may necessitate further staffing cuts, a sale of remaining resources, a reduced ability to invest in the community and professional game. Worst case scenario, the RFL may not be able to meet its liabilities. 

This litigation has the potential to financially bankrupt the sport to the extent that it no longer exists at a professional level in the UK. This is level of seriousness that we are talking about. The relative lack of attention to this litigation amongst Rugby League fans and media surprises me. Perhaps it is easier to bury our heads in the sand that face this unthinkable reality.

What can we do?

We can do little about the current claims. They are based on alleged past action (or inaction). It is the decision of previous administrators that are under the microscope. All we can do now is mitigate or futureproof against more claims.

Rugby League is a contact sport where injuries will occur and are unavoidable. As I understand it, that is not the basis of the action or dispute. What is being questioned is whether the RFL breached its duty of care to players by negligently failing to protect them from head injuries.

That is why we are seeing strong on and off field sanctions in 2022, especially for reckless and deliberate head-high contacts. By showing that severe sanctions are in place for perpetrators of such acts and thorough protocols are in place to protect players from the adverse impact of head injuries, this significantly reduces the prospects of future claims being made and succeeding.

Has the sport changed forever?

Sky Sports commentator Barrie McDermott commented during Catalans match against Wakefield this weekend that the sport has changed and that he, like us all, must get used to it.

McDermott may be right. Many players and fans fear physicality is being taken out of the sport. To an extent, that is correct. 

Although, I see no reason that players cannot be physical but the price to pay if you get that wrong is now far higher. What I do not accept is that the sport has 'gone soft'. There is nothing tough about punching an opponent or striking an opponent in the head. There are legitimate ways to demonstrate toughness.

Many fear that fans will turn away from the sport due to the clampdown (though TV viewing figures and attendances do not support such a theory). Everyone has a view on this. Personally, I do not see that the sport has a reduced appeal because foul play and head-high contacts are punished. Others do. That may be on the basis that players may be less inclined to, for example, try a big hit, in case it isn't executed perfectly. The risk of getting it wrong and missing months of matches is now too high.

To that end, we are between a rock and a hard place. If the RFL continue with their clampdown, the sport loses its appeal to some or potentially many. If the RFL halt their clampdown, they risk financial ruin. How do we square that circle?

October 2022 update: Since this piece was first published, the numbers pursuing claims has increased to 75 ex players. We have also learned that the RFL's insurance costs have quadrupled this year.

The Daily Mirror reports that this case continues. Since this was written, the disciplinary process has changed to become more lenient, in the face of unyielding criticism. The unntended consequence being it is more inconsistent.

Many on social media are outraged (quelle surprise) at a perceived compensation culture (even though numbers of personal injury claims made have fallen every year since 2011).

But your opinion doesn't matter. Sorry to be blunt. Neither does mine. These particular claims proceed irrespective of what you or I think. And the cost of ignoring them will be higher insurance premiums, more claims, more financial risk. And then what?

So, next year, when the complaints about the disciplinary process begin again, think about these claims. And think how the RFL could possibly defend future claims without showing significant sanction for head high contacts. And think how we could pay for that. That price could even be too much for the sport to swallow.