Early last week, a friend recounted to me in gruesome detail the vicious war wounds incurred during that weekend’s rugby match. The physiotherapist bills would be expensive. The lost productivity too agonising to dwell upon.

Suffice to say, then, that sports and exercise are dangerous and costly, both in dollar terms and in lost efficiency.

Naturally, there is only one feasible way to deal with this serious issue.

Clearly, exercise needs to be regulated. Better yet, outright banned!

The Daily Mail, dubious a ‘news’ outlet it may be, recently published an article on the dangers of playing rugby in school.

A few British academics seem set on banning rugby at school due to the high likelihood of serious and long-term injury.

Injuries from the sport range from common minor bruises and sprains to severe brain damage and spinal cord injuries, which in some cases can result in ongoing repercussions.

Commenting on the issue, an expert in Public Health, Professor Allyson Pollock stated that the British Government had a “duty to protect children from the risks of injury”. Pollock argued that it is the responsibility of the government to guarantee the safety and value of various sports, and that injury statistics and prevention strategies should be adequately censored. 

Professor Pollock notes that lessons could be taken from New Zealand, which currently monitors the number of rugby-related injuries to evaluate how risky it is compared to other sports.

Of course, a Crown entity that provides financial compensation and support to citizens who have suffered personal injuries helps.

But the costs are hardly trivial. The New Zealand Herald reported that in 2013 the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) paid out a whopping $64 million for rugby-related injuries, topping the list as New Zealand’s most injury-prone sport.

Granted, the likelihood of bodily harm in undertaking most strenuous athletic activity is hardly a striking realisation. Most devout athletes and sportspeople are well aware of the potential injuries they risk in partaking in any chosen physical activity.

This writer may continue to question the sanity of her mountain-biking colleagues and adrenaline-junkie friends, but the evidence is conclusive. Sports and exercise are costly, not just for individuals, but for the taxpayer as well.

In the desire to see the public accounts return to surplus once again, reducing the budgetary burden by banning sports seems a reasonable start?

If, however, risk-loving sportspeople do not change their behaviour, why further restrict personal freedom for no real benefit?

Meanwhile, this writer may pass on a daily jog in favour of a far less risky activity. Nineteen Eighty-Four anyone?