This paper examines the decision-making process and the influences operating in the decision to return an injured player to full playing status. The rights and obligations of the athlete, coach, and team physician are explicated in terms of autonomy, paternalism, and nonmaleficence. It is argued that no single party can be objective enough to render a decision in light of the vested interest and coercions that are operating. The informed-consent model is offered as a first step in the amelioration of a problem directly attributable to lack of a clear policy among sport governing bodies.