Geelong Scraps Secret Concussion Deal with AFL Player 2026

The AFL has forced Geelong to scrap a secret concussion deal with a player who had a history of concussions, highlighting the critical importance of player safety and legal accountability in sports. This unprecedented case raises serious questions about how clubs manage concussion risks and whether they can contract around their duty of care.

What Was the Secret Concussion Deal?

Geelong had arranged a private agreement with an unnamed player, allowing him to continue playing if the club was protected from future liabilities related to concussion. The deal was made two years ago, but it only came to light recently via the Herald Sun. The AFL and AFL Players’ Association (AFLPA) were not informed or consulted, and they quickly condemned the arrangement.

The player had suffered multiple concussions, and after being cleared by the AFL Concussion Panel, he signed a letter acknowledging the risks and waiving some potential future legal rights. This waiver was not lodged with or approved by the AFL or AFLPA. Upon review, the AFL ordered Geelong to remove the waiver, and the club complied on Thursday.

Why Was the Deal Controversial?

The deal was widely criticized by former players, coaches, and the AFLPA. AFLPA CEO James Gallagher stated that such a deal could breach both competition rules and Australian law. He emphasized that clubs cannot unilaterally contract out of their obligations under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) or standard playing contracts, nor can they avoid responsibilities under health and safety laws.

The core issue is that no player can return to play or train unless deemed medically fit. The waiver was seen as an attempt to bypass this fundamental rule, potentially putting the player’s health at risk while shielding the club from legal consequences. This raised ethical and legal red flags across the league.

Key Takeaways from the Geelong Concussion Saga

• Player safety is paramount: Clubs cannot use waivers to override medical fitness assessments.
• Legal accountability: Employers (clubs) cannot contract out of their duty of care under workplace health and safety laws.
• Transparency required: Any special arrangements must be disclosed to the AFL and AFLPA.
• No penalties yet: Geelong avoided sanctions, but the incident serves as a warning to all clubs.
• Future prevention: The AFL and AFLPA are discussing how to prevent similar cases.

Comparison: Standard AFL Concussion Protocol vs. Geelong’s Secret Deal

What Does This Mean for the AFL and Players?

The AFL and AFLPA have issued a joint statement confirming that the waiver has been removed, and the player continues to acknowledge potential risks. However, the AFL is satisfied that the letter was not used to allow a medically unfit player to return. This incident has prompted a broader discussion about concussion management in contact sports.

Former players and medical experts have long called for stricter protocols and better long-term care for concussion-related injuries. This case underscores the need for robust governance and the impossibility of contracting away basic workplace safety rights.

Expert Opinions and Reactions

James Gallagher, AFLPA chief executive, called the deal “unacceptable” and stressed that clubs must adhere to the CBA and health and safety laws. He also noted that the AFLPA is working with the AFL to ensure this issue isn’t replicated at the elite level. The AFL itself has not penalized Geelong but has made it clear that such arrangements are not tolerated.

Sports lawyers have pointed out that any waiver of legal rights in employment contracts is generally void if it violates statutory protections. In Australia, workplace health and safety laws impose non-delegable duties on employers, meaning clubs cannot shift responsibility to players.

FAQ

Best Products We’ve Tested and Rated

Our testing team has hands-on reviews of punching bag, smart mirror, portable sauna, percussion massage gun, and gps fitness watch. Every option below was compared across price, build quality, and real-world performance, with honest pros and cons. We update these guides regularly as new models arrive, so the recommendations stay current.

Our testing team has hands-on reviews of compression boots, cold plunge tub, cycling bike, vibration plate machine, and pilates reformer machine home. Every option below was compared across price, build quality, and real-world performance, with honest pros and cons. We update these guides regularly as new models arrive, so the recommendations stay current.

How the Waiver Mechanism Worked

The Geelong arrangement rested on a document the player signed after being cleared by the AFL Concussion Panel, in which he acknowledged the risks of further concussion and waived some potential future legal rights. The waiver was never lodged with or approved by the AFL or the AFL Players' Association, which is why the Herald Sun's disclosure two years after the deal was struck triggered the league's review. The AFL's remedy was narrow: it ordered the waiver removed, and Geelong complied on Thursday.

James Gallagher's objection targets the sequencing rather than the medical finding. Clearance by the AFL Concussion Panel governs whether a player may return to play or train; the waiver sat alongside that clearance and purported to limit what the player could claim later. Because clubs cannot unilaterally contract out of obligations under the Collective Bargaining Agreement or standard playing contracts, the document had no recognised standing within the league's framework.

What the Outcome Does Not Establish

Geelong avoided sanctions, and the AFL stated it is satisfied the letter was not used to allow a medically unfit player to return. That finding addresses the player's fitness at the point of return, not the propriety of asking a player with multiple concussions to sign away rights. The absence of a penalty therefore signals an administrative correction, not an adjudication that the arrangement was lawful.

Sports lawyers cited in the coverage note that any waiver of legal rights in employment contracts is generally void where it violates statutory protections, and that Australian workplace health and safety law imposes non-delegable duties on employers. On that reading, the waiver's practical effect may have been negligible from the outset, which reframes the episode as a governance failure rather than a successful transfer of liability. The open question is whether the AFL and AFLPA review produces a disclosure rule covering any comparable arrangement.

Precedent and the Wider Protocol Debate

The case sits within a longer argument over concussion management in contact sports, where former players and medical experts have pressed for stricter protocols and better long-term care for concussion-related injuries. Geelong's attempt to shift liability to the player runs against the standard protocol, under which medical clearance is required, waivers are not permitted, and AFL approval is mandatory for any exception.

The AFLPA, under Gallagher, is working with the AFL to ensure the arrangement is not replicated at elite level, and the joint statement confirms the waiver has been removed while the player continues to acknowledge potential risks. Whether disclosure obligations are written into the CBA or handled through league policy is unresolved, and that choice will determine how much scrutiny future club arrangements face.