Ethics CasesSport

Cases · World Rugby, RFU, WRU, RFL · 2020–2026

We Were a Bit of Meat: Former Players Sue Rugby Over Brain Injury

In December 2020, England 2003 World Cup winner Steve Thompson and seven other former players, all diagnosed with early signs of dementia, began legal action against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union. The group grew to about 1,000 claimants across rugby union and rugby league. The governing bodies deny wrongdoing and point to welfare reforms such as smart mouthguards. By 2026, the case was close to collapse over the claimant law firm's failure to follow court orders on disclosure. The case asks what governing bodies owed players in the professional era, and how justice can be reached.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Thompson and seven other former players announce a negligence claim.
  2. World Rugby launches a six-point player welfare plan.
  3. Proceedings are issued on behalf of more than 185 rugby union players.
  4. The court orders the claimants to provide information.
  5. World Rugby says legal action prevents it from reaching out to the players.
  6. The senior master criticizes the claimants' solicitor over disclosure failures.
  7. The claims are struck out but relief is granted in principle after the law firm is replaced.
  8. The new lawyers pay £1.5m in costs, leaving 377 rugby union claims at risk.

The ethical issues

  • The duty of care governing bodies owe in professional sport.
  • Knowledge of risk and the obligation to warn.
  • Access to justice and litigation funding.
  • How claimants' lawyers conduct a case.
  • Supporting ex-players while litigation continues.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Former players and familiesRecognition, care and compensation.
World Rugby, RFU, WRU and RFLLegal liability and the future of the game.
Current and youth playersA safer sport.
Lawyers and litigation fundersFees and returns.
CourtsFair and efficient process.
Scientists and cliniciansEvidence on brain injury.

The case

Steve Thompson played in every England match of the 2003 Rugby World Cup. “I can’t remember any of those games. It’s frightening,” he told BBC Sport in December 2020.[3] He and seven other former players had been diagnosed by neurologists at King’s College London with early-onset dementia and probable chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). They announced plans to sue the game’s authorities for negligence.[3] Thompson described full-contact training in the early professional era: “There was one session when the scrummaging hadn’t gone quite right and they made us do a hundred live scrums. When it comes to it, we were like a bit of meat, really.”[3] The case asks what rugby’s governing bodies owed players as the game turned professional, and whether the courts can deliver justice.

Background

Rugby union went professional in the mid-1990s. Thompson said: “When we first started going full-time in the mid-1990s, training sessions could quickly turn into full contact.”[3] The group included former Wales international Alix Popham, and their lawyers said another 80 former players were showing symptoms.[3] World Rugby replied that it “takes player safety very seriously and implements injury-prevention strategies based on the latest available knowledge, research and evidence.”[3] Thompson said: “The whole point of us doing this is to look after the young players coming through. I don’t want rugby to stop.”[3]

What happened

In July 2022, Rylands Legal issued proceedings on behalf of more than 185 rugby union players against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union (RFU) and the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU). A separate claim involving 75 rugby league players was brought against the Rugby Football League.[4] The claim said the bodies had failed to:

  • respond to disregard for player safety as the game turned professional;
  • warn players of the risks;
  • keep the mandatory 21-day stand-down after concussion;
  • recognize that five- or 10-minute in-match assessments were inadequate;
  • limit substitutions of uninjured players;
  • monitor players and commission research.[4]

The bodies said their strategies were “founded on the latest science, evidence and independent expert guidance.”[4]

World Rugby had launched a six-point welfare plan in July 2021. It promised a “brain health action plan,” with a global network of services for former players. Its leadership wrote: “No former player will be left behind.”[1]

The rules and governance

The case is now governed by court procedure. In December 2023, World Rugby said: “Legal action prevents us reaching out to support the players involved.” It cited “a ‘gaping hole’ in the evidence” from the claimants’ lawyers, as well as its use of smart mouthguards in elite rugby and lower-tackle-height trials in the community game.[2] In July 2025, the senior master, Jeremy Cook, criticized the claimants’ solicitor for “serious and widespread failures to comply” with court orders. He declined to strike out the claims and said: “These claimants need their cases resolving and the sooner the better.”[5] It was also revealed that only 91 of the 383 claimants who had joined since that year’s cut-off date had received a medical diagnosis. A World Rugby spokesperson questioned whether “players’ best interests are being served.” The claimants’ law firm said testing had been “extremely thorough, including brain imaging and neurological assessments.”[5]

Aftermath

By 2026, the judge had ruled that about 1,000 claims stood struck out for failing to comply with an “unless order.” After the solicitor’s firm was replaced by KP Law, he granted relief “with some hesitation.”[6] On 16 October 2026, the new lawyers met a court deadline to pay £1.5m in costs, funded by the commercial litigation funder backing the case. However, 377 rugby union claimants still faced automatic strike-out unless outstanding medical records were provided by the end of the month.[6] Rugby’s authorities deny wrongdoing.[6] No trial date has been reported.[5][6]

The core dilemma

Did governing bodies breach a duty of care by failing to manage the risks to the brain as rugby professionalized? And if litigation collapses over legal process, what do they still owe former players?

Competing values

Duty of care stands against assumption of risk. Access to justice stands against procedural fairness. The sport’s future stands against accountability for its past.

Strongest arguments

For the claimants: Professionalization increased exposure to head impacts without matching protections. The stand-down period was cut, and players were not warned.[3][4]

For the governing bodies: They acted on the science available at the time and have introduced world-leading reforms. Causation is complex, and the claimants’ case has been poorly run.[1][2][5]

Applying the frameworks

Care

An ethic of care asks what a governing body owes former players regardless of legal liability, including care while litigation continues.[1][2]

Justice

Justice asks whether injured players can get a fair hearing, and whether funding and lawyers’ conduct have served them.[5][6]

Utilitarian

A consequentialist weighs the welfare gains for current and future players against the costs and risks for the sport.[1][4]

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. What are the facts? The diagnoses, the allegations, the reforms and the procedural history.[3][4][5][6]
  2. Who are the stakeholders? Former players, governing bodies, current players, lawyers and the courts.
  3. What are the options? Litigate; settle; or fund a no-fault care scheme.
  4. Which values are in conflict? Care against liability; justice against process.
  5. What do the frameworks suggest? Care favors support whatever the outcome; justice favors a fair trial.
  6. What would you decide and why? Decide as World Rugby’s board.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: The claims were filed and the procedural rulings were made.[4][5][6]

Contested: Causation, what was known and when, and liability.[2][4]

Why this case matters

Compare with the NFL concussion settlement, Tua Tagovailoa and the NFL concussion protocol and heading in youth soccer.

Key terms

Duty of care
The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.
Non-maleficence
The duty to avoid causing harm, often paired with care ethics when setting safety rules.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Consent and autonomy
Whether people have agreed freely and with full information, and whether their right to make their own choices is respected.
Due process
Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. What did the governing bodies know, and when?
  2. Should a sport bear liability for risks players accepted?
  3. Is litigation the best route to justice for ex-players?
  4. Who is responsible when claimants' own lawyers fail them?
  5. Should rugby change the tackle or the training to reduce harm?

Sources

  1. Why 2022 will be the year of player welfare in rugby — World Rugby
  2. World Rugby release statement on concussion case — Rugby365
  3. Steve Thompson in group of ex-rugby union internationals to sue for brain damage — BBC Sport
  4. Dementia and sport: Rugby players launch legal action against governing bodies — BBC Sport
  5. Judge criticises solicitor acting on behalf of players with brain injury lawsuits — The Guardian
  6. Rugby concussion lawsuit saved from collapse after 11th-hour £1.5m payment — Yahoo Sports (The Telegraph)