Heading in football has no ‘safe limit,’ court hears in brain injury case
A High Court hearing has been told that there exists no “safe threshold” for the number of times football players can head the ball; as part of ongoing legal proceedings involving former players seeking compensation for alleged brain injuries sustained during their careers.
Legal representatives for 33 ex-footballers and their relatives argue that even if such a threshold could be established, it would already have been surpassed, given that no safe limit has ever been officially determined.
The lawsuit involves 23 retired professional players and the estates of 10 deceased players, all pursuing legal action against the Football Association (FA), Football League Ltd, and the Football Association of Wales (FAW). All three organisations are contesting the allegations.
Among those represented is the estate of Norbert “Nobby” Stiles, the former England midfielder and 1966 World Cup champion who passed away in 2020. Stiles had been diagnosed with dementia and was posthumously found to have chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disorder linked to repetitive head trauma.
During Thursday’s preliminary hearing in London, Susan Rodway KC, counsel for the players and families, stated that none of their medical experts could identify a safe frequency for heading the ball.
Rodway said: “Our position is clear: there is no safe number of headers a player can perform.
“The question becomes whether the defendants acknowledge this danger or can provide their own threshold backed by expert testimony.
“If they cannot, then we maintain that any theoretical safe level has been exceeded, unless they wish to claim that heading poses no risk regardless of frequency.”
Rodway emphasised that the central issue concerns “what the defendants knew or should have known, and what preventive measures they could have implemented.”
In their written arguments, FA lawyers contended that the plaintiffs are essentially arguing for a complete prohibition of heading in both matches and training sessions dating back to the 1960s.
Martin Porter KC, representing the FA, characterised the claimants’ position as viewing heading as an “unnecessary” aspect of football.
He stated that they believe “from at least the 1960s onward, it was known or should have been known that repetitive heading posed dangers and predictably caused permanent brain damage, and therefore should have been ‘progressively eliminated from competitive play and practice.'”
Porter suggested this logic would have required drastic measures: “According to this reasoning, the FA should either have withdrawn from the 1966 World Cup or instructed their players to avoid heading the ball entirely.”
However, lawyers for the claimants disputed this characterisation, clarifying that they have never advocated for an outright ban on heading.
Instead, their case centres on whether football authorities were aware of the associated risks and failed to properly inform players.
The preliminary hearing before Judge Amanda Stevens addressed several procedural issues.
The court also learned that an additional 90 male former players have signed agreements to pursue similar claims.
