THE PAID FOOTBALLER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14174, 24 September 1909, Page 6

THE PAID FOOTBALLER.

COMPENSATION FOR INJURY.

A "WORKMAN" UNDER THE ACT,

*[from ovm. avns CO»HR3FOXDTjrr.]

London. August 13. . Me. JcsxfCE Hasington gave judgment Croydon County Court this week in the Crystal Palace football case, which raised the important question a* to whether a professional footballer was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for injuries received while playing- . . Plaintiffs were George Walker, of Penge, and Richard J, IT. Roberts, of Upper Norwood, two former members of the Crystal Palace team, and they claimed damages from the Crystal Palace Football Company, Ltd., for injuries received while playing in matches. In a simdar case on August 3, Evans, the West Bromwich Albion back, was awarded compensation, and now Judge Harington confirmed the decision that a footballer is a workman within the meaning of the Act. Walker was injured in the Swindon versus Crystal Palace match on October 1? last, and Roberts on September 8 last. They were each paid wages up to April 30, but had claimed an additional £1 per week from that date. It was contended by the defence that football players were not workmen as generally understood, and that the Compensation Act did not contemplate persons injured in professional pastimes being regarded as workmen. Had Walker undergone an operation to his injured knee, as advised by the doctor, he would have probably recovered before now, and would have been re-engaged by the club.

In giving judgment, His Honor said the defendants were a limited company, whose business was to conduct football, and for this purpose they enlisted the services of professional players. These players had to enter into certain contracts, and were bound down to serve the company exclusively during the period of such contracts. It was obvious that the section of the Workmen's Compensation Act referred to in these cases was very wide, and although it did not specify cases like the one before him, it was pretty obvious that they came within the scope of the words or otherwise." In his opinion the contracts established the relations between employer and workman as intended by the Act. A professional footballer was engaged to play, and, through playing, he earned his livelihood, and defendants engaged plaintiffs in the same way as workmen were engaged as skilled artisans. They had full control over the footballer; he was at their beck and call, and had to devote the whole of his time to the service of the club. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, he thought the proper course would be to award Walker compensation at the rate of £1 a week, from April 30 to June 15. As however, it was possible that the operation might not have removed the incapacity, he thought the plaintiff's rights should be kept alive from that date, and that there should be a suspensory award of one penny a week from June 15, so that in the event of an operation being made without a cure, ho would be able to come to the Courts and reopen his claim. In regard to the case of Roberts, the circumstances of which were similar to those of Walker, it was clear that plaintiff either neglected, or refused, to go under the 'operation. ' He thought that had he taken this course in January ho would have been cured by the middle o) May, and been ready to offer again his services to the club. Therefore, in• the case of Roberts, he would award two months' compensation at the rate of £1 a week, with a suspensory award as in Walker's case. Stay of execution was granted pending an appeal.