Global players’ union FIFPro is calling on FIFA to “make a good decision” by allowing trials of temporary concussion substitutes in the Premier League, Major League Soccer and France’s Ligue 1.
The debate on how best to deal with players who may be concussed has been raging for years, with many experts saying the best option is to take the decision away from coaches and players by allowing a temporary substitute while the player is properly assessed by an independent doctor in a quiet environment.
Advertisement
This approach, which would take between 15 and 20 minutes, is already used in rugby but FIFA, world football’s governing body, remains unconvinced that temporary substitutes are right for the game and has backed a different approach: giving teams the option of an extra permanent substitute if a player needs to be assessed.
Any changes to football’s laws must be approved by the International Football Association Board (IFAB), the body set up in 1886 to standardise the rulebook. It approved trials of FIFA’s permanent concussion substitute idea in December 2020 and the protocol has been used in dozens of competitions, including last month’s men’s World Cup.
But FIFPro has never been convinced that the option to make an additional permanent substitute will lead to the more fundamental change in attitude that is really required to protect players, often from themselves.
Last month, the players’ union co-signed a letter to IFAB from the World Leagues Forum, an organisation that represents 45 leading domestic competitions, asking for permission to allow trials of temporary concussion substitutes, too.
The letter, which The Athletic has seen, said the top flights in England, France and the US, and their respective players’ unions, wanted to start the trials as soon as possible, which in the latter’s case would be the start of the new MLS season on February 25.
It is no accident that it is those three leagues which are pushing hardest for the trials, as the debate about contact sport and head injuries is much further advanced there than it is most other leading football nations. In fact, there is a chance that MLS will proceed with temporary substitutes because that is what US lawmakers will force it to do.
Time is pressing, then, but IFAB has its Annual Business Meeting in London next week. Usually scheduled for the autumn but moved because of Qatar World Cup, the ABM is the opportunity for football’s stakeholders to propose new laws, amendments and trials.
Advertisement
For historic reasons, IFAB is comprised of five members: the four British football associations and FIFA.
As mentioned, FIFA has been opposed to temporary concussion substitutes because it thought the idea was unnecessarily complicated and it could not be universally applied throughout the game, as only elite men’s football would have independent medical experts able to do the correct assessment. FIFA has also pointed out that concussions are relatively rare and there are some within the game who continue to worry that some coaches will abuse the system to gain a tactical advantage.
FIFPro, on the other hand, believes football can no longer ignore the growing body of evidence that suggests the game is underestimating the risk and prevalence of concussions, and cites numerous examples of clearly concussed players being allowed to play on because either they or their coaches did not want to make a permanent substitute.
A recent case involved Iran goalkeeper Alireza Beiranvand, who played on after colliding with a team-mate during their World Cup opener against England. He would eventually go off on a stretcher.
Speaking to reporters on a conference call this week, FIFPro general secretary Jonas Baer-Hoffmann said: “We think it is time for football to catch up with the best practice seen in other sports. The pressure of the moment is clearly effecting good decision-making.
“The ‘if in doubt, sit it out’ message clearly isn’t getting through. We believe temporary substitutes will help football get there.”
The English FA agrees with him and is organising a meeting with the three other British FAs to find a common position before Wednesday’s meeting. It is understood the Scottish FA is receptive to the idea, which is no real surprise as the two associations have co-funded research into the long-term impact of head injuries.
Advertisement
Despite coming in for growing criticism from campaigners and pundits, IFAB itself is neutral on the matter, although The Athletic understands its small team of permanent staff are open to the idea of trialling both permanent and temporary substitutes, letting each competition organiser decide which is best for them, to see which method brings about that change in mindset that every expert agrees is necessary.
What IFAB would be very keen to avoid, though, is confusion over what is allowed and the risk of losing control of the debate.
Under its rules, decisions at the ABM are done on a straight majority basis. So, for example, the four home nations, or even just three of them, could outvote FIFA and allow temporary substitute trials. But decisions at the AGM, where changes to the laws are ratified, need 75 per cent majorities, which means FIFA, with its four votes, can block anything the British associations want to do.
The English FA is understood to be pushing hard for a consensus that would allow trials of both solutions — extra permanent substitutes and temporary ones — and is unlikely to force FIFA into a position where it would have to use its block vote at the AGM, which is also in London on March 4, to change a majority ABM decision.
“We just want football to make a good decision and we do not understand why anyone would not want the game to have the very best protocol it can, even if it only applies at the elite end,” said Baer-Hoffmann. “Why wouldn’t you do it, if you can?”
GO DEEPER Concussion, the ‘invisible injury’: What are the rules in football and what should be done?
(Photo: Getty Images)