Articles like this onemention that televised football is currently in a very healthy state. But, there are some ominous signs.
The thing that is most problematic about American football is that at the high school level, you have an institution that trains players who the overwhelming majority will not make the cut to even be offered money through scholarships to play at the college level. Future pro players are so rare that most high schools probably never graduate one.
So, these institutions see little upside. They don’t receive millions of dollars in TV spots and fees, and yet they face liability risk for any brain injuries their student athletes incur.
It could very well be that a fair price for the cost of these brain injuries, given that they cause lifelong impairment, exceeds any benefit that most high schools get for having a football program. They may at some future date be forced to shut them down.
That would cut off the air to the sport completely, since it would be difficult for the NCAA to run college programs if they don’t have a steady supply of willing subjects, and so on.
Then again, it might not happen this way. One would expect that if say, 90% of public and private high schools were no longer willing to take the risk of a football program, the 10% who still offered one would have many more of their students getting NCAA scholarships and making the pros. (since you suddenly have 1/10 the players contending for the same number of college and pro level slots).
So the system might just shift to a new equilibrium, with televised football remaining a popular pasttime for another century.
Or liability costs may decrease because due to the assumption of risk doctrine because football players are made more aware of potential injuries.
I think the other part is spot on–if costs increase substantially, there would still be some schools that will never give up the sport. There’s also the chance for advancements in technology to alleviate potential injury, so football might disappear for a time and then return.
I talk to people about this issue alot and the way I’m thinking is in 20 years high school football will be dropped (sort of) 1. Because of this issue and 2. the move to sports being done thru clubs rather than thru schools.
Consensus: Football for kids under 18 will still be there but will be run thru clubs. Same as how boxing once was a high school sport but is now run only thru clubs. A few schools still do gymnastics but because of insurance that sport also now is mostly thru clubs.
On Club Teams:
Consider how right now soccer thru the All American League, tells kids to NOT play for their local schools. Some AAA baseball leagues are the same way and its starting to be that way with AAA basketball. Football clubs are chomping at the bit to expand to the high school level.
Lacrosse is interesting because its a sport once run only thru private leagues but now is being added to high school programs.
Also some cash strapped school districts wouldnt mind dropping all sports anyways.
In reality, it’s not even the high school level that matters most - it’s the 6 year olds. When Mom decides whether Junior should play football, a sport which could leave him with lifelong injuries, or soccer, where these sorts of injuries are far less common, it’s not going to be a difficult choice. High school football might stop simply because the supply of kids will dry up.
When I was a student and later a teacher I saw football as incredibly wasteful, apart from the injuries. For what it costs to field a HS football team, you could fund a lot of other stuff that serviced many, many more students. After school rec sports, for example. He’ll, I’d be all in favor of turning over the football budget to the debating team or theatre program.
Add in the new findings on head injuries to young people, and I don’t see how football is remotely defensible. Older than 18? Fine, do what you like. But I hope youth football (at least the traditional kind) dies a quick death.
There’s only one reason high school football is as big as it is. So dads who played football in high school and never went anywhere (yet still gaze lovingly at their letter jackets) can try to live vicariously through their kids.
Football is big because kids love to play it. Whether because they like the sport, have dreams of turning pro, or because it gets the chicks, they are there by their own choice. The percentage of kids being forced in because their old man wants to relive his Glory Days is small.
The clubs option is interesting, sure, but there’s always the possibility that the NFL will grow up and found their own minor league system. It works for baseball spectacularly well and established a greater control over player development for the clubs involved.
I thought education also included what the real world is like on many levels.
Is this lack of teaching sports & leaving it up to the parents to decide a good precedent?
Also, will the funds brought in by sports continue if the parents now have to go to the outside for learning?
No girl sports too?
I don’t think parents who do not have the means to provide their kids with different sports or just one sport will not like having their child to never have a chance at the different games.
The human body needs the physical stretching all through life.
Some athletes are smart enough to be on the debating team along with sports activity.
Surprisingly, perhaps, the vast majority of people do not agree with your vision.
Most HS football teams are self funded throuth ticket/concession sales, booster clubs and/or participants paying. In the vast majority of cases the only school budget item is transportation (busses and drivers). That line item covers all sports and clubs that require transport.
These, OTOH, when run by a city or county, are often subsidised through the parks and rec budget. Everyone pays via taxes whether they participate or not.
Again, there is very little if any “football budget” at the vast majority of high schools. In fact, football is usually not only self sufficient, but profitable. Revenue from footbal helps subsidize all the other sports/extracurriculars, including drama and debate.
That’s your opinion and that’s OK - you are entitled to it. I’m not going to try to change your mind, just to clear up some (common) misconceptions about the money.
I was a PE teacher and sports coach. Several of the districts I worked in spent stupid amounts on football. Please provide cites that most high school programs are self-funded.
Or don’t, because you didnt dispute the head injury problem. In the end, the money discussion is a distant second to that issue. I mentioned it only because of the colossal waste I saw going into football, which never made sense to me.
Sports are important and aren’t going anywhere (or shouldn’t, at the very least).
Football, particularly, is in its death throes, in my opinion. It’s going the way of boxing, real fast. From the most popular sport in the country to one considered barbaric and risky, suitable for gambling, pay per view events and large adults from poor backgrounds, but certainly not for school age kids or worth a billion dollar taxpayer funded stadium downtown.
I don’t think football will go away. I think the quality of players will decrease, though. As noted, fewer parents let their kids play football so there are some great athletes out there being directed to other sports. But there are still enough kids playing that it won’t completely disappear. A shift to clubs is probably inevitable.
I don’t know of ANY Kansas high school football program that is self-supporting once the cost of facilities and staff salaries are figured in. They may be able to buy their own uniforms, but that’s about it.
At the college level, some big-time programs produce a surplus, but even that is often overstated. At the high school level, most programs are a budgetary cost, not revenue center.
In the Texas article above-linked, just three of twenty Dallas-area school districts showed a profit in the football program over a five year period. Dallas Independent School District itself had $2.3 million in revenue, versus $13.3 million in expenses.
That’s an issue for other sports such as baseball where you really need to start young, but in my experience a majority of middle school football players and a large number of the high school players never played organized football before. So it’s not the mothers of 6 year olds, it’s the mothers of 13 and 14 year old who needs to make that decision. At that age decision making is, shall we say, much more complicated and involves compromises.
I live in a wealthy area of a border state and here, at least, the youth leagues are turning away players because they don’t have enough coaches & fields for all the kids who want to play. What is changing is how the sport is coached with much more awareness of which drills should not be run and how tackling should be taught to reduce the change of injury. It is common for parents to ask about the certifications the coach has.
When I researched the health issues when my own son wanted to play I kept running into articles where they’d interview researchers who would discuss the health risks and make them sound ominous. Then at the end of the article they’d usually ask if they’d let their own kids play and frequently the answer was a variation on, “I do. In fact I help coach the team.” So even the researchers see a level of risk/reward to sometimes leans toward reward.
The decision I personally ended up making was not to let him play youth football but if he decides he wants to play in middle school I won’t stop him (but I am trying to steer him toward baseball).
