At what time should a club say to a player that their contract is to be terminated due to constant injuries? I assume that a club, similar to any other industry, has a duty of care to their employees.
More to point can a club actually terminate a contract due to injuries? Is there a clause in their contract regarding injuries?
My query is raised due to Richie Fa'aoso, a whole hearted player, who came back from serious injury to be consistently injured again. His first tackle in his first match back resulted in him being knocked out and again he was knocked out in his second match shortly after getting onto the field. At that point the writing was on the wall, for the players sake his contract should have been terminated. That it wasn't surprised me (and many others I would assume) and he came back for a couple more matches before getting injured yet again for the final time.
There is another player at our club who has also getting seriously injured consistently, and that is Kaysa Pritchard. In his case when does a club's duty of care apply for the player's safety. Now I know there are competing forces at play here. The club wanting a player, especially an important player to the team, to play thru injury, as in Norman's case when on one leg and Sandow gone, and the player wanting to extend their footy career because of the money involved.
There are also times, not many that I can remember, where an injury plagued player is let go by a club only to prosper elsewhere. The most recent to come to mind is Pat Richards, a very good Parra junior, who had a series of knee injuries and was let go by the club. He prospered to have a long successful, largely injury free, career including a premiership win.
What are your thoughts?
Replies
The club does have a duty of care and it's why they employ doctors and physios. Often when a club signs a player with a history of injury, there are clauses relating to number of games played in their contract.
The club also has a number of welfare programs for players going into retirement or affected by long term injuries to ensure those players are receiving the support they need.
Duty of Care - such a broad non definitive term that gets bandied around without a great deal of thought put into what it actually means.
IF, as you say a club should be able to terminate a players contract because said player is constantly (seriously) injured then there is a complete failure of Duty of Care.
First port of call imo is to ascertain why the player is getting injured.
Incorrect training regime?
Incorrect treatment for the injuries sustained?
A very murky pool indeed.
Fa'aoso was signed to a one year deal as I understand it - and there was major concern for his health - hence the kerfuffle over his player insurance.
To sign a player like Champion for example is another thing perhaps - he had a history of injury - some in the serious category - so one would surmise that the club did undertake a Due Diligence exercise before offering a contract to ensure they could meet their Duty of Care requirements.
Your point re Pritchard is valid - BUT - how can anyone possibly foresee a serious injury to any player?