Highly paid sportsmen and women today risk losing everything through injury. But what risks should insurers consider in cover for sporting stars? Jason Smith and Stuart Hardy explain
While Michael Owen reportedly earns £60,000 a week playing for Liverpool, Michael Schumacher earns more than £1m each time he drives for Ferrari and Tiger Woods earned over $11m (£7.6m) in prize money in 2000 taking his career total to almost $32m (£22m).
Yet they, like all professional sportsmen and women, should have insurance for "career-ending" injury suffered while participating in their chosen sport. Football has an endless list of players forced to retire through injury, whether as a result of a tackle or otherwise. In Formula One, no one needs reminding of the tragic death of Ayrton Senna.
Even in golf, what if Tiger were to develop a repetitive strain injury in his shoulder?
In any particular case, the insurer in assessing risk will need to look at the nature of the sport and, indeed, the individual's "injury" history. In some cases, though, the risk may not be so obvious. In rugby, players have suffered strokes or heart problems resulting from particularly high levels of repeated impact.
Following a payout under the terms of any such policy, the insurer will, however, be keen to pursue any third parties where liability, such as negligence, could be shown. Will the courts exclude themselves from sport? Clearly not.
In 1999 the High Court awarded £959,000 to Gordon Watson, a professional footballer with Bradford City FC, following a challenge by Kevin Gray of Huddersfield Town described by the judge as "badly mistimed", which he accepted as "negligent and a serious lapse of judgement".
In Watson v the British Boxing Board of Control [2000] an award was made against the sport's governing body in favour of Michael Watson on the basis that its rules did not provide for adequate medical attendance at the ringside.
In Slack v Glenie [2000] an action was brought in respect of injuries sustained while participating in a race involving specially constructed motorcycle and side car combinations. While competing, the claimant's vehicle touched the outer fence and the machine travelled diagonally across the track, striking the inner fence and rendering the claimant paraplegic. The Court of Appeal upheld the earlier finding that the defendant was liable under the Occupier's Liability Act in failing to provide an obstructed central run-off area (albeit that the claimant was, on the facts, found partly to blame).
Clearly, a thorough investigation of all circumstances relating to the injury will be required.
Jason Smith is a specialist in all areas of sports law and Stuart Hardy is a specialist in sports injury litigation. Both are with James Chapman & Co, Manchester
