Researchers involved in the FA-supported HEADING study on dementia and head injuries in former footballers have been accused of “marking their own homework” and having a “conflict of interest.” The study’s initial findings, published last month, downplay the impact of heading a football on cognitive function. However, critics point out that three key researchers in the study were also members of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC), which is considering whether to recognize dementia in football as an industrial disease. James Drake of the Drake Foundation, which funded the study, expressed concerns about the researchers’ failure to initially declare their IIAC roles. He stated that “marking one’s own homework is never a good thing,” especially when evaluating whether dementia should be considered an industrial injury in football. When contacted by Mail Sport, one of the researchers, Neil Pearce, said his IIAC membership was declared as a potential conflict of interest when the HEADING study was submitted for academic review. However, it was not included in the “competing interest statement” of the initial findings published on a pre-print server. The presence of Pearce and the other two researchers on both the HEADING study and the IIAC has raised concerns about the potential influence of their findings on head injury management policy. The study’s initial findings could downplay the impact of heading a football on players at all levels, influencing future decisions on head injury management. The impact of head injuries in football remains a significant issue, with players like Manchester United’s Raphael Varane expressing concerns about the long-term effects of concussions. Modern players may use lighter balls, but there are still concerns about the cumulative impact of heading over time.
FA-Supported Dementia Study Draws Conflict of Interest Claims
