Rugby player but there are more minor injuries like ankle rolls, sprains, and pulls, but football players receive more serious injuries like breaks and season enders. Both sports receive their fair share of concussions and bruises. They are contact sports. Crap happens. When these things stop happening the sports are gonna disappear because people watch these sports for the contact and injury. So no football players do not get injured more than rugby players and vise versa. I play both sports and watch both sports. This is just an opinion, but I believe it is fairly accurate
Chat with our AI personalities
Which kind of football? That also includes rugby by definition. All sports have similar injury rates; the difference lies in the types of injury and where they occur.
Association football injuries mostly feature the legs, particularly the ankles; rugby football, especially league, usually involve shoulder, neck and head injuries; American football often involves head and torso-limb joint injuries.
American football originated from rugby, but generally on an average, rugby players get injured more often because they wear no padding(however, a select few in the scrum can wear scrumcaps, to stop their ears from being ripped off). The thory behind the no padding is that you can hit somebody as hard as you like, but you will also feel all of the effects. So if you hit and feel the effects, or hit and pretend you did nothing, which do you think would be more likely to injure?