Is Sports’ Tone of Voice Hitting the Wrong Chord On Injuries?

We’ve all heard and seen stories of young professional sportspeople defying good sense to go for glory. There was even an extensive montage paying tribute to ‘injury highlights’ in the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics. But has the time come to change our tone of voice when discussing athletes and injuries? 

On Saturday night, a super-charged, super-hyped boxing match saw Anthony Joshua badly beaten; AJ took four massive blows to the head before being finished in the fifth. Two weeks ago, the Miami Dolphins’ star quarterback, Tua Tagovailoa, suffered a third major concussion. Despite the suggestion he rethinks carrying on in the NFL – including from players – Tagovailoa is going to serve a month out before attempting to take to the field again.   

It’s understandable: for these men as for many athletes, the money is mind-blowing. They have financial responsibilities; they are young and probably feel invincible.  

Sportspeople are, overall, a tough lot, many of whom have been brought up with The Black Knight ethos of ‘it’s just a flesh wound’ despite being down two arms.  They want to show the crowd – and themselves – they are fine, hence they determinedly limp off the pitch with an ACL, compete when injured and – worst of all at amateur or junior level – cave in to peer or coaching pressure to return quickly. All too often, the background commentary to this are words like ‘bravery’, ‘resilience’, ‘grit’ and ‘legend’.  

Undeniably sportspeople have all of these qualities, but to use them alongside injuries like brain trauma and serious injury takes us all to a very dangerous place – not least the person to whom they are being ascribed.  

But it’s not just the language that needs to change. It’s time to shift the sports science and tech conversation too.  

It’s become a widely accepted issue that the majority of sports and health science research has male bias. Yet it is one thing stating that, another addressing it, and yet another to determine which area of the body to prioritize. 

Much has been made of ACL injuries in women but what about mitigating female head injuries? Men are known to sustain brain damage through heading a soccer ball, yet nothing has been done to mitigate the risk to women – despite our necks being 32% weaker in flexion and 20% weaker in extension. Women don’t want to play with a lighter ball than male counterparts but, as the women’s game’s rises, sensible measures are needed quickly. 

There is a growing pool of scientific research and medical tech that is helping governing bodies make better-informed decisions, but that comes with a Catch-22. For those in charge to use the tech, it needs to be scalable, affordable and standardized (ie, it lets someone tick a box). For tech to get to that point, it needs those in charge to use it. You can see the issue. 

Sports’ bosses have a tricky balancing act. There is an ethical imperative to safeguard those who play sport, a financial imperative to safeguard their code’s longevity, and an aesthetic imperative to ensure that fans aren’t uncomfortable with the spectacle presented to them – not least as those fans have the power to prevent the next generation participating. In this landscape, managing serious issues like head trauma is hard but is essential. Unfortunately, there’s no immediate consequence for those who choose to kick this can down the road.  

So what can be done to prevent young athletes mortgage their future health for our entertainment? Firstly, as suggested by the team at Love of the Game, it is time to introduce head scans for elite athletes when they reach 23. This is when the brain stops developing and will provide medics with a baseline by which to measure any future traumas. We also need to make athletes aware of what options are there for them – you’ll frequently see a footballer with their own GameReady kit, but I only know of one retired athlete with a PolarCap. 

The conversation around Tagovailoa injury, when it happened, was very considered, but with each head trauma headline the subject risks becoming less newsworthy. We all want to recognize and celebrate the effort it takes for an athlete to return from injury, but glorification of poor choices is not good for sport. It certainly is very, very not good for sportspeople. 

As for the Olympic montage? I once asked Derek Redmond what he felt about seeing the clip of his heartbreaking hamstring tear in Barcelona used so often.  

His response: “I’d rather be remembered for what I won.”  

Please read Love of the Game’s excellent chapter on Concussion and the role technology is playing in it, in The 2023 Sports Technology Annual Review available here 

VAR, Humbug!

In June, when IPSOS polled football fans on VAR’s impact on The Premier League, the results weren’t exactly glowing

Continue reading

Para and Parity: It’s Technically Interesting

As the Olympic excitement shifts to the Paralympics, the hope is that Paris will continue to deliver an amazing competition.

The Olympics are fun but the Paralympics are important. People with disabilities comprise 15% of the world’s population; how society treats them is heavily influenced by how they are portrayed in the media. These games are a significant part of that.

Able-bodied or disabled, the path to a Games is hard, but the lack of parity goes far beyond the physical for para-athletes. It was with this in mind that we decided to create an Adaptive Sports Technology category for The 2025 Sports Technology Awards.

We owe a huge debt to Stef Reid – the celebrated Paralympian, broadcaster, motivational speaker and executive coach – for directing us in how to properly develop this category. Stef recommended the term ‘adaptive sport’ as she felt we should celebrate creativity that eliminate barriers to participate, instead of focusing on elite-level disability.

In the way that science and technology is finding solutions to issues for mainstream athletes, more is needed for their para counterparts. They have myriad specific issues which could be solved – sometimes very easily – with clever tech.

Not least among these is independence and dignity. For example, until Samsung devised the Spanish blind swimming team’s ‘buzzing cap’, telling them when to tumble turn, the preferred method of communication was to tap participants with a stick. Similarly in cricket, a sport outside the Paralympics, blind players had the issue not just of hitting the ball but finding it afterwards. This has been solved magnificently with a sonic ball and tracker.

These are just a few examples of small breakthroughs making a big difference, but much more of this type of innovative tech is needed.

Cost, which is a consideration throughout sports, is even greater for anyone with a disability. For example, while an able-bodied person can go jogging with just a pair of shoes, someone who uses a racing wheelchair is looking at an investment of US$3,750 US$6,250. If you need a running leg, you are looking at US$6,250 to US$32,000.

It is for this reason we will be asking judges to consider impact versus cost when evaluating entries in this new category. Clearly, lower priced adaptive equipment is necessary not just for the elite but for all disabled sportspeople. As in any able-bodied discipline, para-sport needs a robust population of recreational athletes as a pipeline for talent.

The needs of para-athletes should be a source of inspiration to clever minds who like problem-solving. We look forward to celebrating Paralympic success later this month – and then we look forward to celebrating the solutions that supported the heroes of these Games next Spring.