The evidence in soccer, as I pointed out to you earlier, is very much in its infancy. In getting ready for this committee, I was stressed to find primary preventative evidence within our field, but I think we have to go back 20 years to when we started to realize there were a lot of head injuries from soccer goalposts tipping over. I'm seeing some head nodding here. This was in the era of the unanchored goalposts. Now it's a simple fact that all soccer goalposts are generally anchored, and everyone is aware that there's a tip-over risk. Those weren't just concussions; those were some pretty significant brain injuries.
The other thing I was talking about is that it was our own Rudy Gittens of Canada Soccer's precursor to our current sport medicine committee, who did work with one of the biomechanics firms here in the city and recognized that if you overinflate a soccer ball, there is far more striking force to an individual doing a header. That information has been largely transmitted across the world to make sure that balls are not overinflated. There was a huge trend at one stage to get a livelier ball by overinflating it—and again, I'm seeing some heads nodding, because everyone liked those lively balls—but they hurt when they hit you, and there was more force involved and they were dangerous. So that has been adopted across the sport.
There are two studies that are really quite interesting that we need to talk about. One is a Norwegian study that looked at just taking rules that are currently in play and enforcing them in aerial contests a lot more rigorously. They were able to show a significant reduction in injuries. A German league put that into place and found that also. Those points came up in the last Berlin conference and it was suggested that more vigorous endorsement might produce effects. We're not quite to the point of saying yes, it does, but we're getting to the point where we need to start talking about things of this nature. We have not as yet adopted it.