In applying the primary assumption of the risk doctrine in sports cases, it is the injury-producing conduct or condition that must be shown to be an inherent risk of the sport–not the particular illness or medical condition which results from encountering that risk. Thus, in this football case, it was the inherent risk of hits to the head which made the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applicable. Plaintiff could not escape that doctrine by arguing that the Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy allegedly caused by those head hits, was not itself a risk inherent to the game of football. Since the risk of head hits was inherent, defendants only owed a duty not to increase that risk. Evidence that defendants might have reduced the risk of head hits by limiting contact practice sessions or other means did not suffice since their only duty was not to increase the risk; they owed no duty to diminish the inherent risk.