There are moments in sport medicine when a governing body does something that makes clinicians pause and say: finally. The NRL’s quiet introduction of contact training limits at the start of the 2026 season is one of those moments. For those of us who work at the intersection of head trauma and neurological health, this is a statement of intent, and a serious one.
The AFL, by contrast, continues to fall short. And that gap matters enormously.
What the NRL Has Done
Effective from the 2026 season, the NRL has introduced structured limits on contact training for both its men’s and women’s competitions. Male players are now restricted to 100 minutes of contact training within a standard seven-day turnaround between games, with reduced limits applying to shorter breaks. Female players in the NRLW are capped at 85 minutes per week under the same framework.
These limits reflect a considered response to a growing body of evidence, and the science is unambiguous on one crucial point. As I have said to colleagues many times: “It is not only concussion but also repeated sub-concussions. When it comes to long-term brain disease, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.”
The protein implicated in chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a progressive and degenerative brain disease, can be released by forces well below the threshold of a diagnosed concussion. No helmet, no mouthguard, no piece of protective equipment has been shown to mitigate this risk. Only reduction in contact exposure has.
The NRL has understood this. Hence the policy.
Why the Women’s Game Deserves Specific Mention
The lower contact ceiling for NRLW players reflects something the evidence has been telling us for some time: women tend to experience more adverse outcomes from concussion and head trauma than men. This is a significant finding, and the fact that the NRL has structurally embedded it into policy is commendable.
This is what evidence-based governance looks like in practice.
The AFL’s Position Is Not Good Enough
In my professional opinion, the AFL is not keeping pace with the science, and the consequences of that complacency fall on the players, not the administrators.
I will state this plainly: “Currently, the AFL is in breach of its own code of conduct. The brain is being traumatised, and helmets will not prevent concussion.” That is not a provocative claim. It is a clinical reality supported by the available evidence.
While the AFL is reportedly considering contact training limits for introduction next season, it has simultaneously been under fire for promoting an unproven helmet design as part of its concussion response. These two positions are incompatible with a serious commitment to player brain health.
The NRL introduced its limits without fanfare. No press release, no media campaign. The work was done, the policy was implemented, and the season began. The AFL, meanwhile, has been louder on optics and quieter on structural reform.
What this means is straightforward: “Consistently applying the rules is paramount to minimise blows to the head and upper cervical spine.” Governance is not separate from clinical outcomes. The decisions made in boardrooms are felt in bodies on the field.
One concussion is too many. Repeated sub-concussive impacts over a career are cumulative and potentially irreversible. We have understood this in principle since at least the 1930s. The evidence base has only strengthened since.
Any sporting code that fails to ask “how do we reduce total contact exposure over a career?” as its primary question is failing its players.
Why This Matters Beyond Elite Sport
The harder challenge, and the one I would urge all sporting bodies to now turn their attention to, is community sport. The elite level is visible, regulated, and increasingly litigated. Grassroots football, junior competitions, and community leagues operate with far less oversight and, frequently, far less education around head trauma risk.
The same forces act on a junior footballer’s brain as on a professional’s. The same protein is released. The same cumulative risk accumulates.
The NRL has taken a meaningful step. A great start. But the conversation cannot end here.
A Final Word
The authors of the recent Conversation article on this topic, Stephen Townsend from the University of Queensland and Professor Alan Pearce from Swinburne University, note that this policy likely reflects a combination of epidemiological evidence, player advocacy, and awareness of the increasingly litigious landscape around concussion in Australian sport.
Whatever drove it, the outcome is sound. The evidence supports it. The players benefit from it.
The NRL, for men and women alike, has taken a clear lead. The AFL needs to follow, with structural change, and without delay.
NOTE: We used Gemini to create an image of NRL players so as not to identify any particular people with this story