It has been a significant week for the issue of head injuries in sport then, which slots neatly into the growing conversation about athlete welfare.

Football’s attitude to head injuries was epitomised nicely during Arsenal’s Premier League match against Wolverhampton Wanderers at the end of November. Arsenal defender David Luiz and Wolves forward Raúl Jiménez clashed heads at the start of the game, with Jiménez stretchered off the pitch and taken straight to hospital after suffering a fractured skull.

Despite the severity of the incident, Luiz was allowed to play on. He remained on the pitch even as the cut on his head bled through the bandage wrapped round it. Only at half-time was Luiz deemed unfit to continue.

The concussion substitute trials, which will be available from January for any league which wants them, will aim to put an end to this. Two trials have been approved. The first gives a team one additional change in the event of concussion, but the opponent does not get to make a change of their own to compensate. The second allows for two concussion substitutes to be made by one team. To avoid potential abuse of this rule, opposition teams will also be able to make a change at the same time.

This is something that has been desperately needed in football and will allow teams to prioritise player welfare without having to worry about being at a competitive disadvantage. The consequences of not taking head injuries seriously has been shown so starkly in rugby this week.

All nine rugby players who are involved in the legal action against RFU, WRU and World Rugby have recently been diagnosed with early signs of dementia. This includes England's World Cup-winning hooker Steve Thompson. The 42-year-old claims that he cannot remember winning rugby’s flagship tournament in 2003.

At 30-years-old, former Welsh under-20 player Adam Hughes is the youngest involved. Four other players have asked to remain anonymous. Rylands Law, which is representing the group, has claimed more than 100 players have come forward, however. Those additional players will be tested for early onset dementia and their details added to the claim involving the existing nine when it is ready.

Female rugby players have also shared their stories recently, with Kat Merchant telling BBC Radio 5 Live that she had “lower cognitive capacity” as a result of her playing career. The English World Cup winner retired in 2014 on medical grounds but said she had received little support since then.

Despite the number of female rugby players that suffer from head injuries, a special report by The Telegraph into the concussion crisis found women are excluded from rugby-based concussion analysis. There is subsequently a data gap in how playing rugby can contribute to brain injuries in women.  

Following the claims, World Rugby chair Sir Bill Beaumont said he cared “deeply about the welfare of all players” but the issue of concussion was “extremely complex”.

“We have continuously acted on research and scientific information as it has become available,” he said. “The science continues to evolve, and we will evolve with it.”

World Rugby may be forced to move faster than it already is, however, with it now becoming clear how many players are suffering from brain injuries. Indeed, the legal action led by Rylands Law may end up becoming a landmark case and change the very way rugby is played.

The discussions surrounding concussions in sport is part of wider conversation about the importance of athlete welfare. There was a pertinent example about the importance of ensuring athlete safety at the Formula 1 Bahrain Grand Prix at the start of December.

The world watched in horror as the car of France’s Romain Grosjean smashed into a barrier at 137 miles per hour and burst into flames. Even though the car was split into two, Grosjean escaped the crash unharmed, bar burns to his hand and a sprained ankle.

This was due to a number of features in place following decades of aiming to improve safety standards in motor racing. This included the carbon fibre safety cell surrounding Grosjean, as well as the Halo and HANS device fitted in his car.

Grosjean himself was not a fan of the Halo when it was first introduced to F1 but has since called it the “greatest thing” after it saved his life. This firstly shows the importance of constantly striving to improve safety in sport, but also displays the significance of doing so even if it is unpopular. If there had not been notable progression in improving safety standards in motor racing then Grosjean’s crash would have been a tragedy.

It is interesting that there is an ongoing conversation taking place about athlete welfare with the Olympics and Paralympics in Tokyo just seven months away. The Games will be held against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and it is worth considering whether athlete health can be guaranteed.

A number of coronavirus countermeasures have already been lined up for Tokyo 2020, and more will be announced as the event looms closer. Officials such as International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach has pledged to stage a safe Games, and the development of a number of COVID-19 vaccines is a big boost. It is not thought a vaccination will be mandatory for athletes, however. 

It can not be absolutely guaranteed that an outbreak of coronavirus among athletes is not possible then, and although sportspeople are not in the category expected to be worse affected by the illness, some have warned of the toll COVID-19 takes on fitness levels. British Olympic race walker Tom Bosworth claimed he took months to fully recover from the virus after he contracted it in March.

Of late, the consequences of ignoring athlete welfare has been laid bare and the importance of safety features and rules has become evident. Will the organisers of Tokyo 2020 be at odds with this increased emphasis on athlete health and safety?