Playing on at Your Own Risk? Jake Kolodjashnij and the Limits of Concussion Consent

Earlier this month, it emerged that Geelong defender Jake Kolodjashnij had signed an agreement concerning the risks of continuing his AFL career.

After a series of assessments in 2023, the AFL’s Concussion Panel returned an inconclusive ‘amber’ finding.[1] It did not direct Kolodjashnij to retire, but expressed concern about his increased risk of further concussion and possible long-term effects.[2] In early 2024, after further consultation with Geelong, Kolodjashnij signed what was described as a Voluntary Assumption of Risk and Medical Disclosure.[3]

We are now aware that the document acknowledged those risks and sought to waive some potential future legal rights.[4] Kolodjashnij ultimately continued his AFL career and re-signed with Geelong in October 2024. Yet the arrangement was never formally brought to or approved by the AFL.[5]

The relevant waiver has since been removed, with the AFL and AFLPA making it clear that future arrangements cannot seek to place concussion risk solely on players.[6]

Player Choice or Player Protection?

Former AFL player Will Schofield has urged critics to put themselves in Kolodjashnij’s position.[7] AFL careers are short. Early retirement for a player in their late twenties may mean surrendering some of their final years competing and earning at the elite level.[8]

Faced with that choice, it is not difficult to understand why a player would want to continue.

Yet that instinct is also part of the difficulty. Research has long recognised that athletes may under-report concussion symptoms because they fear being excluded from upcoming matches.[9] The AFL’s mandatory stand-down rules reflect the same concern: a player can feel ready to return and will still be prevented from doing so.[10]

In concussion management, player willingness has never been enough on its own.

What Exactly Was Kolodjashnij Accepting?

Playing AFL necessarily carries a risk of concussion. But accepting the risk of being concussed is not necessarily the same as accepting responsibility for how concussion is managed.

That distinction matters legally. AFL players do not contract with their clubs in isolation. Player arrangements sit within a tripartite player-club-AFL structure, alongside the CBA and Standard Playing Contract.[11] The AFL and AFLPA have also emphasised that statutory health and safety obligations continue to protect players, and that future arrangements affecting those protections require notification and approval.[12]

There is another complication. Kolodjashnij’s agreement reportedly resembled an assumption-of-risk provision previously approved by the AFL for another player in 2021.[13]

The difference between the two was procedural. The earlier arrangement formed part of the player’s contract and involved AFLPA input, whereas Geelong did not formally lodge Kolodjashnij’s document.[14]

So, perhaps the issue is not simply whether a player can accept concussion risk, but rather, who gets to determine the terms on which that risk is accepted. And even then, what exactly can a player meaningfully consent to in the first place?

Geelong says Kolodjashnij was given agency over his career, but the choice was made against a difficult medical backdrop.[15] The club doctor reportedly advised him that avoiding an increase in concussion-related risk would require him to stop playing contact sport.[16] Yet, neither the doctor nor the AFL Concussion Panel directed him to medically retire.[17]

So even if Kolodjashnij knew there was a risk, its long-term consequences could not necessarily be known with the same certainty.

A Lesson from the NFL?

This is where the NFL becomes useful. The League has already spent years dealing with the fallout of large-scale concussion litigation, with its settlement program approving more than US$1.5 billion in payable monetary awards.[18]

Against that backdrop, US sports-law scholar Ramsey Fisher examines whether greater player knowledge would make an express NFL “concussion clause” - releasing the league from future liability - enforceable.[19] His analysis reveals that a player may knowingly assume the inherent risks of football without an express waiver of legal responsibility following from that knowledge.[20]

That distinction is particularly relevant here. The evidence suggests Kolodjashnij understood that continuing to play carried risk. But greater knowledge could strengthen the case for respecting a player’s choice without necessarily weakening the responsibilities retained by the club or league.

A Broader Concussion Problem for the AFL?

That concern is hardly hypothetical for the AFL. In 2025, 160 concussions were reportedly recorded among listed AFL players.[21]

The consequences are also extending beyond the field. By March 2026, the Rooke v AFL class action involved more than 100 former players, with 11 clubs named alongside the AFL in the case concerning alleged long-term brain injury from concussion.[22]

The League’s financial safety net has narrowed too. This year, Zurich removed concussion and head-trauma coverage from the AFLPA superannuation fund after high claim volumes,[23] while AMP said no insurer was willing to provide replacement group cover for those injuries.[24]

All of this points to the larger issue. Concussion is no longer just about when a player can safely return to the field. It is also about who carries the legal and financial consequences if problems emerge years later.

Where this Leaves Us?

Former Collingwood president Eddie McGuire has proposed an NCAA-style annual concussion acknowledgement.[25] Unlike a waiver, it would recognise responsibilities on both sides, without attempting to transfer future legal liability.[26]

Whether that model is the answer is another question. But it highlights an important distinction between ensuring a player understands a risk and asking them to legally bear it.

That is where the Kolodjashnij controversy leaves us: not with a simple question of whether players should be allowed to take risks, but with a harder one about where player choice ends and the AFL’s responsibility begins.

References

Image: JamesDPhotography, ‘[Geelong Cats - Cheer Squad]’, Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

[1] Jared Lynch, ‘Geelong Cats concussion waiver sparks push for mandatory player safety clauses’, The Australian (online, 13 August 2026) (‘Lynch’) <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/geelong-cats-concussion-waiver-sparks-push-for-mandatory-player-safety-clauses/news-story/5ca166496d3b128ac468a234cac392ce>; Tom Morris, ‘The phrase that constituted Geelong’s Kolodjashnij overreach’, SEN (online, 11 August 2026) (‘Morris’) <https://www.sen.com.au/news/2026/08/10/afl-news-geelong-concussion-story-jake-kolodjashnij-tom-morris>.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid; Lynch (no 1).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid; Morris (no 1).

[6] AFL and AFLPA, ‘Joint statement from the AFL and the AFLPA’, AFL (online statement, 6 August 2026) (‘AFL and AFLPA’) <https://www.afl.com.au/news/1577657/joint-statement-from-the-afl-and-aflpa>.; Lynch (no 1).

[7] Will Schofield, ‘Geelong’s concussion waiver was wrong. But here’s the part nobody wants to hear - Will Schofield’, Fox Sports (online, 11 August 2026) <https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/geelong-cats/afl-news-2026-will-schofield-column-on-geelong-concussion-scandal-jake-kolodjashnij-waiver-and-why-the-cats-were-ahead-of-their-time/news-story/9d6f556d83ba2424d2f66cfd4c132913>.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Cristina Morganti-Kossmann, ‘Repetitive Concussions in Sport: The Legal Implications for Athletes, Clubs and Sport Associations’, (2017) 143 Precedent (NSW) 20, 22 (‘Morganti-Kossmann’).

[10] Alan Pearce et al., ‘Subsequent Injury Risk Following Concussion in Australian Football League (AFL) Male Athletes: Is It a Case of a Player Being ‘Luckless’?’, Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology (2026) 11(195), 1, 3 (‘Pearce’); Morganti-Kossmann (no 7) 22.

[11] Lynch (no 1); Eric Windholz, ‘A Secret Waiver but No Punishment: The AFL’s Concussion Conundrum Just Got Murkier’, The Conversation (online, 6 August 2026) (‘Windholz’) <https://theconversation.com/a-secret-waiver-but-no-punishment-the-afls-concussion-conundrum-just-got-murkier-289216>.

[12] AFL and AFLPA (no 2).

[13] Morris (no 1); Windholz (no 11).

[14] Morris (no 1).

[15] Geelong Cats, ‘Geelong Cats Club Statement’, Cats Media (online statement, 6 August 2026) <https://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/2092240/geelong-cats-club-statement>; Lynch (no 1).

[16] Morris (no 1); Lynch (no 1).

[17] Ibid.  

[18] Official NFL Concussion Settlement Website: In re: National Football league Players’ Concussion Injury Litigation No.2:12-md-02323 (E.D Pa)’ NFL Concussion Settlement (online) <https://www.nflconcussionsettlement.com/Home.aspx>.

[19] Ramsay W. Fisher, ‘Evaluating a Concussion Clause: Why the NFL’s Assumption of Risk Defense Fares No Better as Time Goes on’, (2019), 21(3) Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 650, 680-1 (‘Fisher’).

[20] Ibid 657, 680-1.

[21] Wendy Carlisle, ‘Geelong deserves a massive fine for its waiver failure’, The Australian (online, 14 August 2026) <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/geelong-deserves-a-massive-fine-for-its-waiver-failure/news-story/1119bcc001d21156df4f4093f660ab6b>.

[22] Jessica Halloran, ‘AFL concussion class action expands to more than 100 players and 11 clubs’, ABC (online, 26 March 2026) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-26/afl-concussion-class-action-expands-to-more-former-players/106491268>.

[23] Jessica Halloran, ‘AFL players to lose insurance coverage for brain injuries’, ABC (online, 27 March 2026) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-27/afl-players-to-lose-insurance-coverage-for-brain-injuries/106503280>; Final Services Online, ‘AFL Players Face Loss of Brain Injury Insurance Coverage’, Australian Insurance, Finance, Superannuation & Investment Resources (online, 10 June 2026) <https://financialservicesonline.com.au/news.php?id=7736>.

[24] Ibid; Windholz (no 11).

[25] Lynch (no 1).

[26] Ibid.