Concussion and head-injury risks in football: recent decisions and litigation

Football’s intensifying debate about the risks of heading has moved from the training ground to the tribunal room.

In late 2025, the Upper Tribunal held that cumulative, undocumented head‑impact incidents may count as “accidents” when assessing loss of faculty in an Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) case involving former England football captain, David Watson. And in January 2026, a coroner concluded that repeated heading likely contributed to Gordon McQueen’s chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

Set against recent rulings, a developing body of medical research, evolving guidance from football governing bodies and growing public awareness, claimant firm strategies are hardening. 

Recent developments: determining causation

• In October 2025, the Upper Tribunal set aside a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, refusing David Watson’s claim for IIDB. Mr Watson has been diagnosed with probable CTE and probable Alzheimer’s disease. The First-tier Tribunal had concluded that his loss of faculty was likely due to repeatedly heading the ball (among other things) but confined its causation assessment to ten specific, documented heading incidents, finding that they were not an effective cause of his condition. The Upper Tribunal held this approach was wrong in law: the First-tier Tribunal should also have considered whether the undocumented head-impact incidents were themselves “accidents” and whether, alongside the documented accidents, they materially contributed to the loss of faculty. A new tribunal will now re-determine the case afresh.
• In January 2026, a coroner’s inquest into the death of former Scotland defender Gordon McQueen concluded that repetitive heading contributed, on the balance of probabilities, to the development of his CTE. 

These developments come in the context of evolving medical research into neurodegenerative disease among former professional sportspersons.

Rising concerns: current claims and potential future group actions

Claimant law firms are pursuing coordinated actions against football governing bodies that allege that football governing bodies knew or ought to have known, as far back as the 1960s, of the risks posed by cumulative head impacts and that they failed to implement adequate and timely preventative measures. Similar claims are also underway in rugby. 

It is possible that claims could broaden to cover other types of defendants such as clubs, too, and could merge into coordinated group litigation mechanisms.

Key considerations for clubs and governing bodies

As scrutiny of head-impact risk in football grows, three themes stand out: 

1. Evolving standards: Guidance on concussion, heading limits and return‑to‑play is developing.
2. Cumulative exposure: Following the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Watson, future causation arguments are likely to centre on cumulative harm, not just isolated incidents.
3. Proactive governance and player welfare: This is not simply about legal compliance; it’s about demonstrating a robust and proactive commitment to player welfare. Establishing and communicating best-practice medical protocols, and fostering a culture where health concerns are prioritised, will be key to future safeguarding.

Link to Upper Tribunal Judgment:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6917475ceba5bda2026fc9c0/UA-2024-001189-II+_combined_decisions.pdf