by From next season, the use of permanent substitutes will be added to the laws of football. The culmination of three years of trials in the men’s game, the decision is a “very important step”, according to Fifa’s general secretary, “interim ad” Mattias Grafström, one based “on data and medical advice”. It’s fair to say that not everyone in football agrees.
For the Premier League, the players’ unions PFA and FIFPro, and several national associations, the decision made by football’s governing body Ifab during its AGM at the weekend was a rebuff. They all welcomed the addition of the new law, but wanted additional action – namely the trial of temporary concussion substitutes.
Related: A goalkeeper to beat the clock to beat a waste of time
This method of dealing with suspected concussions, taking a player off the field for 15 minutes while they are assessed (and removing them permanently from the game if there is concern), is the one they believe is most likely to be effective at the elite level of. the game. Letters were written to Ifab before the meeting urging them to go ahead with the trials. For at least the third time in the past two years, that request has been denied.
Gianni Infantino, a member of Fifa, was at home for the AGM. In a break with tradition he chose not to attend the post-meeting press conference, instead attending the Scottish Premiership match between St Mirren and Aberdeen. But the night before he made some impromptu comments on the subject. “We will not bring in temporary concussion substitutes, because we value the health of the players,” he said.
“If you want to take care of the health of the player, then the player [goes] out and another player comes in, and that’s the end of it. All the rest are not defending the players’ leaders, but making some PR announcements.”
At the very least, Infantino’s remarks were a non-diplomatic way to address a serious issue on which sincere opinions are expressed. The private response of those who seemed to prefer PR over the health of the players was borderline incandescent. After the dust settled a familiar question, meanwhile, remained unanswered: is football taking concussions seriously enough?
In favor of a data-driven decision, Ifab admits it struggled to establish the facts of its permanent representative concussion tests. “Gathering data on it was difficult, and that was part of the challenge of the trial,” said Ian Maxwell, chief executive of the Scottish Football Association who sits on the Ifab board.
Furthermore, the cumulative figures – with around 650 concussion substitutes used across 317 competitions over three seasons – do not suggest the most cautious approach to testing. Academic studies of the 2016 men’s European Championships and the 2018 World Cup found that potential concussive events occurred at a rate greater than one match. The trial results indicate that such situations occur less than once a season (however, it should be noted that trial tournaments vary and the Community Shield is one of the 317).
If there is a question about how effectively the trials have been implemented, there is also doubt as to how many competitions will implement the protocol now that it is law. It will not be mandatory to bring in permanent concussion members but instead it will be up to the competition organisers, with Grafström likening the process to deciding whether to have five substitutes in a game or three. “As an Ifab body we lay out the options for the organizers of the competition but it is up to us to implement it or not,” he said.
There is an argument for permanent concussion members; is the most direct way to reduce risk. “when in doubt, sit them out” is what everyone agrees on and removing a player permanently eliminates the possibility of a false negative being assessed and a player being reinstated the field at risk of further injury. Temporary substitutes, on the other hand, guarantee the minimum time recommended for concussion evaluation and remove players and doctors from blinding coaches and fans and the potential incentive to continue playing.
“Even among medical professionals there are differences of opinion, with some favoring the permanent model and saying in theory it is safer because even at the point of assessment they are removed permanently”, says Mark Bullingham, chief executive of the English Football Association and another for the executives of the home nations who share half of the voting rights on the Ifab board. “The argument in favor of temporary is whether that actually works.”
Although there are arguments for and against both types of surrogate protocol, only one has been tested, with the other being dismissed as a stunt by Fifa’s boss. It gives the impression that politics, rather than concerns about player safety, are at work. Remembering the debacle about rainbow bonds in Qatar, or the “blue card” that was also nixed after personal intervention from Infantino, it seems that the trend of ideas coming from outside the office of the President is being sent with prejudice. As long as this story lasts, football is not doing everything possible to limit concussions.
