Key result
Australian media reporting biases disproportionately highlight football risks despite proactive safety management.
Why the study?
The reporting and public awareness of serious injury and death in Australian football codes are influenced by media bias and recent emphasis on head trauma and concussion, despite proactive safety measures by peak bodies.
A historical review of fatalities in Australian football codes highlights the bias in reporting and awareness of serious events, despite proactive safety management by peak bodies.
Alerts clinicians to underreporting bias in football-related deaths; leaves open accurate incidence estimates pending improved surveillance.
In Australia, four major football codes (focusing on soccer, rugby union, rugby league and Australian football) are generally considered to be high risk sports. On rare occasions, serious injury and death can occur.1, 2 The popularity of these sports for spectators and participants tends to result in a bias on the reporting and awareness of any serious events that happen. This has been further heightened by the emphasis on head trauma and concussion in recent years. At the same time, the peak bodies of the football codes in Australia, including the Football Federation Australia, Rugby Australia, the National Rugby League and the Australian Football League, have been proactive in addressing safety concerns. This includes rule changes,3 return to play protocols,4 and direct funding of research.5 Perhaps counterintuitively, positive safety management can result in the public image being presented with an unfair focus on the risks of participation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jewson et al. (2020) conducted a review in Fatalities and serious injuries in football codes. Football codes participation was evaluated. A historical review of Australian print media indicates that despite proactive safety management, media reporting biases disproportionately focus public attention on the risks of football participation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: