By Anna Giambelluca, Esq.
When we think of concussion litigation, we picture professional football and other major contact sports. Cases involving the NFL, NHL, and NCAA have helped reshape public understanding of repetitive brain trauma and its long-term health implications, which in turn has forced sports organizations to confront the growing concerns for athlete health. Now, similar legal theories are beginning to emerge beyond traditional contact sports and enter into the Olympic arena.
In February 2022, the estate of former Olympic bobsledder Pavle “Pauly” Jovanovic filed a wrongful death lawsuit against numerous Olympic and bobsled governing bodies, including the International Olympic Committee, the IOC Medical Commission, the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation, the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, and the United States Bobsled & Skeleton Federation. The complaint alleged that years of repetitive head trauma, violent crashes, and subconcussive impacts sustained during Jovanic’s bobsled career lead to long-term neurological damage and ultimately his death in 2020.
While the lawsuit currently sits in the allegation stage, it reflects a broader shift occurring throughout sports law. Increasingly, athletes and their families are questioning whether sports governing bodies can continue to rely on assumption of risk arguments while exercising substantial control over athlete participation, medical oversight, and safety standards. As concussion litigation expands beyond the NFL, courts may be forced to reevaluate the legal responsibilities sports organizations owe to the athletes who compete under their authority.
Pavle “Pauly” Jovanovic was a former elite American bobsled athlete who competed internationally for years within the Olympic system. According to the complaint, Jovanovic was repeatedly exposed to high-speed crashes, extreme G-forces, violent impacts, and continuous “brain-rattling vibrations” associated with the sport of bobsleding. The complaint further alleged that Jovanovic later developed symptoms associated with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and other long-term neurological conditions, including cognative decline, depression, and behavioral changes before ultimately dying by suicide in 2020.
The lawsuit named multiple organizations involved in Olympic governance and oversight (see above). According to the complaint, these organizations collectively maintained authority over competition rules, athlete participation, medical guidance, concussion protocols, and safety procedures within Olympic bobsled competition.
Central to the plaintiff’s theory was the allegation that these organizations knew, or at least should have known, about the long-term neurological risks associated with repetitive head trauma. The estate argued that despite decades of concussion research and growing awareness regarding CTE, the defendants failed to adequately warn athletes, implement sufficient concussion protections, or meaningfully address the long-term consequences associated with brain injuries.
The lawsuit primarily asserted negligence and wrongful death claims against the defendants. At the center of the case is a question that now appears in nearly every major concussion-related lawsuit: what duty do sports organizations owe athletes when they possess superior knowledge about long-term health risks?
Sports organizations have historically relied heavily on assumption-of-risk arguments. Athletes voluntarily participate in dangerous sports, and injuries are understood to be part of competition. But modern concussion litigation has complicated that framework considerably.
The issue is no longer simply whether athletes understood sports could be dangerous. Courts are now being asked to examine whether athletes fully understood the potential long-term neurological consequences associated with repetitive brain trauma and whether governing bodies adequately disclosed those risks. An athlete can knowingly assume the risk of a broken bone or torn ligament. It becomes much harder to argue informed consent when the alleged harm involves degenerative brain disease, long-term cognitive decline, or neurological deterioration that may not fully emerge until years later.
The Jovanovic litigation reflects that changing legal landscape. The complaint repeatedly alleges that the defendants possessed greater knowledge regarding the neurological risks associated with sliding sports while failing to implement meaningful concussion protections or adequately educate athletes about potential long-term consequences.
The lawsuit also places substantial emphasis on the defendants’ own public statements regarding athlete welfare and medical safety. The estate pointed to concussion protocols, medical guidance, and athlete safety initiatives as evidence that these organizations voluntarily undertook responsibilities related to athlete protection. In doing so, the plaintiff attempted to use broad public commitments about athlete welfare as evidence of a legally enforceable duty of care.
What makes the Jovanovic litigation particularly significant is that it pushes concussion-related liability into a part of the sports world that has largely avoided this level of scrutiny. For years, conversations surrounding repetitive brain trauma focused almost entirely on football. That is starting to change. As scientific understanding surrounding subconcussive impacts continues evolving, attention has shifted toward sports where athletes experience repeated neurological trauma over long periods of time, even outside traditional collision sports.
The lawsuit also highlights a growing contradiction within Olympic sports. Organizations continue to market Olympic competition as athlete-centered while operating within a system fueled by sponsorships, media rights, broadcasting revenue, and global commercial success. As those financial interests continue growing, courts may become less willing to accept arguments that governing bodies bear only limited responsibility for the long-term health consequences athletes face.
That issue extends well beyond concussions. Athlete safety disputes now involve mental health protections, abuse prevention, long-term medical care, workload management, and post-career health consequences. Taken together, these disputes reflect a broader shift in how athlete welfare is viewed throughout sports law. For decades, governing bodies primarily focused on regulating competition. Now, they are also being asked whether they are doing enough to protect the athletes competing within those systems.
Although the Jovanovic lawsuit itself remains unresolved, the litigation may represent only the beginning of broader scrutiny involving Olympic sliding sports. In March 2026, multiple former U.S. bobsled and skeleton athletes filed additional lawsuits alleging that USA Bobsled/Skeleton concealed what it knew about the neurological dangers associated with repetitive subconcussive impacts sustained during competition and training. The lawsuits described persistent symptoms commonly referred to within the sport as “sled head,” including memory loss, cognitive decline, migraines, vertigo, emotional instability, and chronic pain.
According to the filings, athletes alleged that coaches and governing bodies witnessed these symptoms for years but failed to meaningfully intervene, implement adequate concussion protocols, or properly warn athletes about the risk of permanent neurological damage.
The newer lawsuits also continued drawing connections between Olympic sliding sports and chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Jovanovic himself was posthumously diagnosed with CTE by researchers at Boston University’s CTE Center. Other former sled athletes and coaches have similarly raised concerns about long-term neurological deterioration and the culture surrounding injury reporting within the sport.
Taken together, the newer lawsuits suggest this issue is not going away anytime soon. What once appeared to be an isolated lawsuit involving one former Olympian is beginning to look more like the early stages of a broader reckoning over brain injuries in Olympic sliding sports.
The implications could be significant. Governing bodies may face mounting pressure to strengthen concussion protocols, improve long-term medical monitoring, and provide athletes with more transparent information regarding neurological risks. At the same time, courts may continue reevaluating how assumption-of-risk principles apply when organizations allegedly possess substantially greater medical knowledge than the athletes competing under their authority. No court is going to eliminate risk from sports altogether. But there is a growing expectation that organizations cannot publicly promote athlete welfare while minimizing the long-term consequences athletes may face privately.
The Jovanovic lawsuit represents more than a wrongful death action involving Olympic bobsledding. It reflects a broader transformation taking place throughout sports law as courts, athletes, and the public continue scrutinizing how sports organizations respond to long-term neurological risks.
As concussion science continues evolving, governing bodies across professional, amateur, and Olympic sports may face growing pressure to move beyond performative statements about athlete safety and implement meaningful protections backed by transparency, medical oversight, and accountability.
The Jovanovic litigation reflects a broader shift in sports law where athletes are no longer willing to accept that long-term neurological damage is simply part of the game. As concussion litigation expands into Olympic sports, governing bodies may face increasing pressure to answer a difficult question: if organizations profit from athletes’ performance, market their stories, and control the conditions under which they compete, how much responsibility do they bear when those athletes are left with lifelong consequences after the competition ends?
Anna Giambelluca is an Austin-based attorney and proud alumna of the University of Texas at Austin, where she completed both her undergraduate and legal education. Her work focuses on the intersection of athletics, advocacy, and law.
