English 
Norsk 
Polski 
Lietuvių kalba 
In a recent judgement from Borgarting Court of Appeal (LB-2025-16182), a professional footballer was denied occupational injury approval after being hit in the head by a ball during a match. The court ruled that the incident did not constitute an occupational accident under section 13-3 of the National Insurance Act.
The judgement has attracted attention in the sports community, and brings to the fore the government's proposal to change the law's definition of what constitutes a workplace accident.
Background to the case
The case concerned a footballer who was injured during a top league match in October 2022, when she was hit in the head by a ball cleared with great force from a short distance. She fell backwards, briefly lost consciousness and has since suffered permanent ailments that have made it impossible to continue as a professional footballer.
She submitted a claim to have the injury recognised as an occupational injury, but NAV, the NAV Appeals Board and the National Insurance Court rejected the claim on the grounds that the incident could not be regarded as an occupational accident within the meaning of the law. The case was then brought before the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal's assessment
The Court of Appeal based its decision on Section 13-3 of the National Insurance Act, which defines what is to be regarded as an occupational accident. The provision contains two alternative definitions of occupational accident:
- It emphasised the concept of an occupational accident - a «sudden» and «unexpected external event».
- The mitigated occupational accident concept - a «specific time-limited external event» that causes stress or strain that is «unusual» in relation to what is normal in the work in question.
The court discussed both alternatives, but concluded that neither of them was fulfilled in the case in question. The incident - a ball hitting the player in the head during a match - was considered part of the ordinary course of the game. The risk of such hits is a natural and foreseeable part of being a professional footballer, and thus neither unexpected nor unusual. This is a result of the relativisation of the concept of occupational accidents. The riskier the work, the greater the deviation from the norm required for the incident to qualify as an occupational accident.
The Court of Appeal also referred to the Supreme Court's football player judgement (HR-2006-2107-A), where a player was tackled hard from behind. The injury was recognised as an occupational injury because the incident clearly differed from the norm. In the case before the Court of Appeal, however, there was no breach of the rules, and the incident was deemed to be part of normal match activity.
Consequences for professional athletes
The judgement illustrates that, in practice, professional athletes are at a disadvantage under current regulations. Even serious injuries that occur while working as an athlete will often fall outside the scope of the National Insurance Scheme's occupational injury coverage, precisely because there is a higher risk of injury in sport. The consequence is that this group of employees often miss out on rights under the National Insurance Act, as well as the right to claim compensation from the occupational injury insurance company in cases where the incident results in permanent injury and/or financial loss.
Consultation proposal: The government wants to change the law
In September 2025, the government sent out a consultation paper with a proposal to change the concept of occupational accidents in the National Insurance Scheme. The proposal means that the terms «unexpected» and «extraordinary» will be removed from the legal text. This means that it will no longer be necessary to consider whether the incident was unforeseen or the strain was extraordinary compared to what is normal in the profession.
The government's proposal to amend the legislation could provide better protection for professional athletes and other employees in occupations with a high risk of injury. If adopted, the legislation will be more predictable and fair, and more employees will be entitled to compensation when an injury occurs.
Contact person
Thomas Chr. Wangen
Contact us
