Quote Originally Posted by I am invisible View Post
It may not happen much in sport, but it's pretty much the basis of all negligence law - reasonable foreseeability, and all that. If you have prior knowledge that someone is prone to injury, and you put them in a situation / give them a task to do where they're more likely to get injured (or, in this case, fail to act if you've just witnessed them getting injured, and then leave them to carry on doing the same task for nearly another hour), then you're on pretty shaky ground. Up until now I would imagine most sports clubs have refrained from making claims because of the floodgates argument, but I wouldn't mind betting that this is something that we'll start to see more and more of now players' wages are getting more expensive and harder for clubs to simply write-off?
It could be argued however that the clubs shouldn't be paying players these wages in the 1st place, maybe they would get compensation if players weren't so overpaid.

By doing what you're suggesting you'd effectively end up discriminating against players who are injury prone, because why would you pick a player who is more likely to get injured and going to cost you money?

It's always been the same and I don't see why it should change to be honest, all clubs have to deal with it, we've got a number of injury prone players we carry every year, should we not pay them when they injured as well, or ask them for compensation?

We get injuries regularly in our squad, I'm not surprised they get injured on International duty because some of these guys gets injured every other week at club level, it's not really anyone's fault, if you're injury prone you're injury prone, why should someone else have to pay up for that, especially when you choose to go and play (players don't have to play, they can opt out).