Over the last several years, we have seen an increasing recognition that many sporting activities now present the possibility of adverse health outcomes that sit well at odds with any idea of population fitness and wellbeing. As a matter of fact, the discourse regarding the implications for a number of contact sports, in particular the costs and possible trade-offs regarding neurological function and deficit, is now prevalent in terms of the wider media and academic fields. Whilst much emerging evidence and testimonies from athletes, sports people, and their loved ones outlines the damage and consequences that are immediately or longitudinally being experienced (with corresponding lessening of quality of life, or increased mortality risks), there is still an appetite for ‘dangerous’ (i.e. combat, contact, and adventure) or ‘risky’ sports, both in terms of participation and consumption. In this commentary, because of the emerging evidence demonstrating that some sports directly lead to an accelerated development of neurodegenerative syndromes, we argue that a more robust classification system should be used to create a distinction from the largely undefined categorisation of ‘dangerous’ sports, and propose an outline for what we see as ‘hazardous’ sports to reclassify those whose very rules, remit, and objectives present an identifiable risk of harm.