Concussion in professional football is a topic that has generated a significant amount of interest for many years, partly due in recent times to the filing of the class-action litigation and the uncapped compensation injury fund and settlement involving 4,500 retired professional players and the National Football League (NFL). The proceedings claimed that the NFL, as the governing body of American football, failed in its duty to protect players' health during their professional playing careers by exposing players to risks of repetitive concussions and actively concealing links to potential long-term consequences. The NFL litigation sharpened the focus on the fundamental regulatory, governance and ethical considerations for football governing bodies, as self-regulated organisations, when governing the delicate balance between the dynamics of contact and collision sports, entertainment and player-health considerations. It also raised questions about public accountability and responsibilities to all levels of the sport through a framework of public health ethics. The NFL litigation and Congressional hearings have led to changes within the NFL and its regulatory and governance responses. A case study of the NFL responses to concussion in the sport of American football can provide insight into concussion regulation. Australian football governing bodies can align their regulatory and governance responses to concussion within their sports with the aim to avoid similar accusations, and circumvent a more coercive form of intervention.

The regulation of anti-doping practices in Australian sport is overseen by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), which is a statutory authority funded by the Australian Commonwealth Government (ACG). The 2013 ASADA investigation into the Essendon Football Club (EFC) uncovered the alleged use of performance and image enhancing drugs by a number of players and support personnel. However, despite the call for sanctions to be placed on those taking banned substances, ASADA itself became the central focus of enquiry with the EFC questioning the legitimacy of ASADA's authority in their management of the investigation. Using content analysis and Bourdieu's conceptual framework, this paper aims to determine the legitimate regulatory authority of key actors involved in the EFC investigation. The findings suggest actors in the social field, as related to the case of the EFC investigation, possess varying amounts and types of capital, which cumulatively convert to symbolic capital. Dominant actors within the social field retain more symbolic capital than others and are perceived to possess legitimate regulatory authority, which does not translate to actual legal authority. This apparent disconnect between perceived authority on the one hand and actual legal legitimacy on the other has implications for the future management of such cases, both in the Australian Football League and beyond.

Company directors should welcome and embrace the statutory business judgment rule, due to commence on 13 March 2000. It finally provides them with the certainty that they need to take their companies into the next millenium. The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 was passed by Parliament on 20 October 1999. The position is now clear -the merits of bona fide business judgments made by directors, meeting the four requirements, will not be subject to judicial review. Directors will be taken to have met their duty of care and diligence.

No abstract

No abstract