Chronic traumatic encephalopathy CTE is a brain condition likely caused by repeated head injuries, identified nearly a century ago as dementia pugilistica or punch drunk syndrome. CTE remains a significant concern in high-impact sports like boxing, American football, and rugby. Despite the long-standing awareness of the risks of traumatic brain injuries and ongoing brain degeneration due to repeated impacts in these sports, some governing bodies still attempt to downplay the link between impact sports and CTE. However, media coverage has begun to shift public opinion.
This increasing consciousness is further fueled by numerous lawsuits against sports organizations over brain injuries. Former athletes, both professional and amateur, from sports such as American football, Australian rules football, and rugby claim their governing bodies failed to protect them during their careers. The NFL has paid nearly one million pounds to former players affected by sport-induced brain trauma. Prominent rugby players are also pursuing legal action over brain injuries. These issues are not limited to elite athletes. Research has found CTE in former players who only participated at the amateur level, and even in players younger than 30, some as young as 17. Each extra year of involvement in impact sports heightens the CTE risk by up to 30 percent in American football.
There is no debate about the perils of high-impact sports. Research and medical experts agree that sport-related brain trauma leads to degenerative brain conditions. In this context, our recent paper, co-authored with Jack Hardwicke, a senior lecturer in sport sociology at Nottingham Trent University, questions the appropriateness of allowing children to take part in sports that intentionally involve impacts, especially to the head. We suggest that allowing those under 18 to engage in high-impact sports should be seen as child abuse, specifically “child brain abuse,” and propose that such activities should be legally banned for children.
We are not advocating for a ban on adult versions of impact sports and our argument does not extend to sports or activities where brain trauma could occur accidentally. In sports where impact is an organized element, like boxing or rugby tackling, collisions are not random but an integral part of the game. Despite claims that sports are safer, there is justified concern over concussions in children playing these high-impact sports—brain injury can happen even at low levels of impact. For instance, heading a football can lead to immediate and measurable changes in brain function and long-term diseases like CTE. The CTE risk is notably higher in sports such as American football and rugby. Former players of impact sports have a greater likelihood of developing degenerative brain diseases compared to those who played non-impact sports or the general population.
Some sports organizations defend high-impact sports by highlighting the importance of physical activity for overall health. Team sports can counter isolation and help develop social skills. However, these advantages can also be achieved through non-impact sports, like touch rugby, which fosters discipline and teamwork without the risk of brain injury. There are no health benefits to tackling or being struck in the head. Instead, the health benefits of activities like rugby or boxing come from overall physical movement.
Tag rugby is generally faster than its full-contact counterpart and better for cardiovascular health. Research shows contact during children’s rugby accounts for 87 percent of injuries, with tackling responsible for 52 percent of all injuries and concussions being the most common injury. Tagging instead of tackling protects children’s brains. Our research suggests that impact sports should be treated like other banned activities for children, such as smoking. Children cannot make informed decisions about the long-term risks associated with these activities. Parental approval for these activities is also socially frowned upon or criminalized.
Our research references various legal frameworks supporting our position that neither children nor parents on their behalf can consent to sports requiring brain trauma as a fundamental part. For example, Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child UNCRC, signed by 195 countries, mandates protection from violence, abuse, and neglect, stating that governments must ensure children are safe from all forms of these mistreatments.
Some commentators agree that while high-impact sports are dangerous, labeling them as child abuse goes too far. However, the NSPCC, the UK’s leading children’s charity, considers physical neglect a form of abuse that occurs when a child is not kept safe. Allowing participation in impact sports with knowledge of the potential harm reflects, our research shows, a failure to protect children.
Critics of barring children from playing high-impact sports argue boys are naturally aggressive and contact sports help them learn emotional control. They claim boys need physical activities for growth. However, there is no evidence that boys need to endure brain trauma to become responsible adults. There is no health justification for children playing impact sports over non-impact alternatives. We urge ministers to prioritize children’s brain health over corporate sports interests.