THE AFL has apologised to past players for an "under-funded" and "under-resourced" concussion research project, having received the final report of an independent review it commissioned earlier this year.

General counsel Andrew Dillon acknowledged "a number of inadequacies" cited in the AFL's concussion research between 2014 and 2019, highlighted by a detailed 260-page report documented by an independent panel of experts over the last six months.

The report also investigated plagiarism claims against Associate Professor Paul McCrory, who was a former concussion advisor at the AFL, finding an "embarrassing blemish" on his "professional and academic reputation".

>> READ THE FULL AFL STATEMENT ON THE McCRORY REVIEW

However, the panel found that McCrory's identified instances of plagiarism did not "affect or taint the work" he had undertaken while advising the League on its guidelines for concussion.

The AFL published the independent report in full on Tuesday and advised it had provided a copy to the state coroner who is investigating the death of former Richmond footballer Shane Tuck.

The report said the League's major historical concussion research project, known as the Past Player Project, "suffered from a lack of governance, stewardship and coordination in how it was rolled-out and implemented".

A statement said: "These problems manifested in there being no published research from the study which explained the results of the research imaging undertaken on retired AFL players and confusion on the part of the past player participants as to what tests or procedures related to clinical treatment as opposed to being purely for research purposes."

The AFL has said it will now commence a process to consider and respond to numerous recommendations made by the panel's report, hoped to improve the structure and workings of its ongoing concussion management research.

Part of this will include the League committing investments of up to $1 million per year on concussion research projects, and $2.5 million per year on a "large-scale, 10-year longitudinal research project".

The AFL will also ask Gordon Legal to continue consulting on the design of a no-fault financial assistance scheme for players who have suffered debilitating head injuries during their V/AFL playing careers.

>> DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT HERE

"The AFL accepts the principal criticism of the Review directed to it of underfunding and under-resourcing of some of its historical concussion research and clinical care. This criticism relates to a number of inadequacies in AFL concussion research between 2014 and 2019 and notes that there have been very significant improvements in both the resources devoted to this area within the AFL and lines of accountability since that time," Dillon said in a statement on Tuesday. 

"The Panel has recommended that the AFL take steps to improve the clinical care aspects for past players and we will act on that recommendation as soon as possible and will consider and respond to all other recommendations in the Report.

"Whilst we regret that these controversies have occurred and that caused concerns particularly to the many current and former players who were treated by Associate Professor McCrory over several years, we take comfort knowing that plagiarism by him has been found not to have affected the concussion science which underlies our concussion guidelines at the elite and community football levels.

"Our current 11-step, minimum 12-day return to play protocol continues to be an important tool in the best practice of ensuring a safe return for players who suffer a concussion. The AFL will shortly undertake its annual review of the elite and community football concussion guidelines with the benefit of the research learnings that will be presented at the Concussion in Sport Group’s conference in Amsterdam in late October.

"The AFL apologises to the past players who gave up their time in the hope of better understanding their own conditions and to assist with the research for the benefit of current and future players and were let down by the manner in which some of the research and clinical programs were at times conducted. We will continue to invest, engage, resource and do better on this type of research and the facilitation of care going forward."