Daniel Bell - mild brain damage

How many people do you know who play or have played football? How many of them complain of loss of brain function to the point where they lose their train of thought mid-sentence as mentioned in this article? My answer to these questions would be "lots" and "none". Of course they can imagine it, but I think there's a difference between plausible and reasonable to expect. Broken bones, torn muscles, strain injuries etc I'd say are reasonable injuries to expect for footballers - permanent brain damage I'd say is not.

Hmmm, point taken, but I still think it's reasonable to expect concussion as a part of playing AFL, and if it's reasonable to expect concussion, it's reasonable to expect injuries resulting from concussion.

I similarly think it's reasonable to expect long term arthritis issues or something along those lines as a result of knee/joint injuries. Those kind of injuries happen in AFL.

It's not to say that's what a player should expect, or that these injuries are common or meaningless, because they are not. But in a contact sport like AFL I think we need to be frank about the dangers it poses to its players. In that respect I like the provision in the contract.

I'm a tad uncomfortable with this - they chose their workplace (and the associated risks) argument.

Playing football for a living shouldn't mean that you cannot seek compensation if your brain is so battered you are showing the effects of Alzheimers before your 30...

And besides - it's in the CBA.

Case closed, he should get compensation.

But I would prefer the Dees just agree to pay for ongoing health checks and remedies relating to his brain in perpetuity.

Still disagree. The clause in the contract is a good thing. Paying Bell out for life is not.