If you don't like the fact that the disabled may have to be looked out for on your dime or taxpayer's dime, that sounds more like an argument for government not

If you don't like the fact that the disabled may have to be looked out for on your dime or taxpayer's dime, that sounds more like an argument for government not "looking out" for someone who voluntarily risked their body. Being your brother's keeper doesn't mean getting an IRS agent and some agent with a gun to force someone who didn't consent to someone else playing football/rugby to pay for their injury. Being brother's keeper doesn't mean removing consent. I think what you should really be arguing for is the rugby association to properly compensate anyone with medical disability as a result of their employment.