Is football too dangerous to be allowed?

The Game Room
61

[QUOTE=Broomstick]
Well, no one forced your father to be a bricklayer, did they?

ANY job that carries an inherent risk of injury, debility, or death should make provision for those it harms (according to me). Businesses pay worker’s comp for that very reason, yes? My former employer had insurance for those who had to travel for their job specifically to cover injuries arising from that. The heavy industry near where I live - steel mills, chemical plants, etc. - spend a LOT of money on workers injured on the job. Why should professional football - which is also an employer and an industry - not do the same?

Perhaps, given the high rate of injury inherent to the game (permanent or not) players should receive medical coverage from the NFL for life. Of course, many players will leave the game relatively intact - some bad knees or back, but not that much different from some other workers. That’s fine. Some will leave really messed up, but will be cared for - that’s fine, too. And if the NFL is held responsible for those left crippled then I would expect to see some changes that could prevent unnecessary injuries of that sort and will give the NFL and coaches more incentive to hold back those players who really do need some time to heal up before returning to the game they love.
[/QUOTE]

Broomstick, we are clearly arguing different points. You are arguing that the NFL should provide health care for it’s players. While I think that’s up to the NFL and the Players Union to hack out, I’m willing to agree that they should get sufficient health care.

I was discussing what the actual subject of the thread was. “Should football be banned.” And my answer to the actual question posed is, “no.”

62

More like, we’re arguing different facets of the problem.

I would not support a ban on football. I would, however, support changes that mitigated some of the inevitable damage arising from the game. You do not support a ban, either, but apparently (correct me if I’m wrong) would not support making the NFL responsible for the consequences of that damage a condition for continued legality of the sport.

63

[QUOTE=CJJ*]
.
There is no direct comparison between the class of Roman gladiators and current-day professional football player. But that doesn’t mean the same forces aren’t at work, albeit to a lesser degree now than then.

[/quote]

Apples and oranges. You’re trying to compare a social underclass that was owned to an underclass that has certain rights and liberties.

You tried to make the connection between bloodthirsty Romans and their gladiatorial games.

Romans were pretty darn bloodthirsty before the gladiatorial games became the spectacle we all know and love. If you wish to assert that the gladiatorial games somehow caused Roman bloodlust or the militarization of their culture you’ll have to make a much better case.

They were already lusty for blood before the Empire. Ask Carthage, Spain, or the Latin allies. I’m not sure the Empire was any more bloody minded than the Republic.

I can’t think of many goals in life that can be attained without action or direct confrontation of some sort be in physical or otherwise.

Marc

64

I would be satisfied if the NFL made it clear to all players what the risks are. I also want them to take medical responsibility for the players that got hurt helping billionaire owners get richer. You should pay for what happens to people who take risks working for you. Owners always fight against the responsibility.
They should guarantee contracts. When you sign for 6 years ,if you get hurt or cut ,the contract is voided. That is wrong. They have the player under contract but the owner is not locked in. The Players Union sucks.

65

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I would be satisfied if the NFL made it clear to all players what the risks are. I also want them to take medical responsibility for the players that got hurt helping billionaire owners get richer. You should pay for what happens to people who take risks working for you. Owners always fight against the responsibility.
They should guarantee contracts. When you sign for 6 years ,if you get hurt or cut ,the contract is voided. That is wrong. They have the player under contract but the owner is not locked in. The Players Union sucks.
[/QUOTE]

Taking it one step further, the NFL should make it clear to youth athletes what the risks are. They have concussion management programs in place that are mandatory, but do not perform any type of public service announcements to educate kids (high school down to Pee Wee). It is great that Ray Lewis reads to kids or Peyton Manning volunteers to build a playground… educate kids, parents, coaches, etc about the dangers of the game, the proper equipment and techniques, and the need for trained observers at games (beyond an EMT) and appropriate concussion testing and management programs.

66

Some people find contact sports more enjoyable to play than other, less manly, sports, it’s as simple as that. Personally, I’d rather die earlier than live a life where all enjoyment has been sucked out of it in the name of perceived safety, but obviously, YMMV.

67

I actually hurt my knee playing high school football - full MCL tear and partial ACL tear. My doctor warned me every year what the risks were, and I knew what they were; I don’t remember having any real illusions that I could get hurt, especially when enough others on the various teams got hurt often enough in practice, etc…

I didn’t play my senior year because of the knee injury the year before- didn’t want to take chances with it. That being said, I’m glad I played, and would do it again, if I went back in time and had it to do over.

I think there is some merit to the argument that there should be more communication of risks, but the main thing I think might reduce some of the debilitating injuries like the OP was talking about would be coordinated and serious work from coaches, school administrators and others to reduce the peer pressure to play hurt, or come back quickly after a serious injury, or to downplay the severity of an injury.

You wouldn’t believe the degree of crap that players get; instead of being a situation where the injured are honored for having been hurt in the team’s cause, they’re treated almost like they let the team down by getting hurt, by many of the players and sometimes even the coaching staff.

In high school especially, people look to the pros and college players for examples- I got a lot of “well player X had the same injury and he came back 6 weeks later. Why can’t you?” from other players. My thinking was that if I was getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to play football, then I’d think about it, but otherwise, it was stupid. Then, the year afterward, I caught shit for not playing and got some of that “you can’t talk football; you’re not on the team” stuff from some players (predominantly the guy who was the 2nd string behind me the year before).

I think if there was a change in “tone from the top” about injured players in the college and pro ranks, it would filter down to the high school ranks, and attitudes would eventually change.

68

I suggest the OP never watch rugby, if the stereotypical snide British comments (re: football) are to be believed.

69

[QUOTE=bump]
In high school especially, people look to the pros and college players for examples- I got a lot of “well player X had the same injury and he came back 6 weeks later. Why can’t you?” from other players. My thinking was that if I was getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to play football, then I’d think about it, but otherwise, it was stupid. Then, the year afterward, I caught shit for not playing and got some of that “you can’t talk football; you’re not on the team” stuff from some players (predominantly the guy who was the 2nd string behind me the year before).

I think if there was a change in “tone from the top” about injured players in the college and pro ranks, it would filter down to the high school ranks, and attitudes would eventually change.
[/QUOTE]

There’s also an odd sort of pressure from “sports medicine” types.

I used to work with a sports medicine specialist - I mentioned my high school injury and he was appalled that I hadn’t gone back to participating the following year (my decision - my knee didn’t feel right, it didn’t feel stable). He went on about the incompetence of my attending physician and how I should have been back playing within two months. I just didn’t get it - I was able to get back into most of my other sports quite rapidly as none of them put as much strain on the knees, I avoided surgery, what was the big deal? So I took longer than average to heal, or longer than he thought I should have. Why push to get me back into soccer? Was there no benefit to extending the recovery and not re-exposing myself to injury? He had this real drive to get me back into competing IMMEDIATELY. If I had had such a drive it might have been different, but while I enjoyed soccer I wasn’t married to the game. The biggest loss to me was that I had to give up jumping horses because I just wasn’t stable enough in the saddle - but that going to end in a matter of months when I went off to college anyhow.

I know too many high school athletes who now have life-long problems and chronic issues due to injuries and I can’t help but wonder if some of them were pushed back into play sooner than ideal. My knee bothers me a couple times a year, but other than those few days I can do all I did before (including riding horses in jump position again) and I’ve never re-injured it despite my inclinations to play hard.

70

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
They should guarantee contracts. When you sign for 6 years ,if you get hurt or cut ,the contract is voided. That is wrong. They have the player under contract but the owner is not locked in. The Players Union sucks.
[/QUOTE]
This is a gross oversimplification.

71

[QUOTE=Leaper]
I suggest the OP never watch rugby, if the stereotypical snide British comments (re: football) are to be believed.
[/QUOTE]

There’s big hits in both games:

Rugby big hit

Football big hit

This one’s best, though.

:smiley:

72

To play in the Pros, and to earn the kind of money the NFL pays, players are expected to push the envelope of what a person can endure. That’s what they can endure on the field and off. Good on Real Sports for showing the costs. I hope these facts are made more public; not because I want the sports stopped but because everyone should have the information to make an informed choice.

Right now, kids are only shown the hot athletes at the top of their game. They look great, life is grand. Who wouldn’t want to do that?

73

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I would be satisfied if the NFL made it clear to all players what the risks are. I also want them to take medical responsibility for the players that got hurt helping billionaire owners get richer. You should pay for what happens to people who take risks working for you. Owners always fight against the responsibility.
They should guarantee contracts. When you sign for 6 years ,if you get hurt or cut ,the contract is voided. That is wrong. They have the player under contract but the owner is not locked in. The Players Union sucks.
[/QUOTE]

The average NFL football player is a grown, college educated man, making about $1.5M per year. If have to wet nurse people like this, we might as well shut down the county. God knows what we’d have to do with an 18 year old high school dropout making $25K a year working construction.

Seriously GONZOMAX, do people take individual responsibly anywhere in your world?

The players make a ton of money in the NFL. Like any other union in the country, the members can bargain for what benefits they want. If they want increased benefits, they should work with their leadership to get it.

God knows if I was making $1.5M per, playing a game I love, I’d think my union sucked too. :rolleyes:

74

[QUOTE=MGibson]
Apples and oranges. You’re trying to compare a social underclass that was owned to an underclass that has certain rights and liberties.
[/quote]

Yes I am, but as I stated, “There is no direct comparison between the class of Roman gladiators and current-day professional football player.” You seem to be implying because there isn’t an exact match the analogy doesn’t hold (“apples and oranges”); to clarify, I’m saying there are social forces at work in the professionalization of sports (I’ll even limit that to rough contact sports) similar to the forces that perpetuated gladiatorial competiton.

To be clear, that does not mean professional football and gladiatorial games are equivalent. But they are not “apples and oranges” either. We can tuss out the differences–that’s what forums like this are for–but to simply claim there is no correlation is, IMO, naive.

The evidence is clear gladiatorial contests expanded greatly during the Empire, lost their religious significance, and were part and parcel of the Romanization process. I’m not sure you can measure how “bloody-minded” a society is, but if you don’t believe me, how about the opinion of an eye-witness?

You’re twisting my words; I’m specifically talking about physical confrontation, not generic “action”. Conflict is a part of life, physical confrontation (usually) is not. How many people did you have to knock down to earn a college degree? Write a book? Open a business? The fact that we naturally equate “action” with “physical confrontation” seems to prove the point that the sports metaphor is seizing us, not the other way around.

75

[QUOTE=spifflog]
The average NFL football player is a grown, college educated man, making about $1.5M per year. If have to wet nurse people like this, we might as well shut down the county. God knows what we’d have to do with an 18 year old high school dropout making $25K a year working construction.

Seriously GONZOMAX, do people take individual responsibly anywhere in your world?

The players make a ton of money in the NFL. Like any other union in the country, the members can bargain for what benefits they want. If they want increased benefits, they should work with their leadership to get it.

God knows if I was making $1.5M per, playing a game I love, I’d think my union sucked too. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

In my world people make choices with all the information. The truth of football injuries is not widely known. The future effects on your body are not aired. The ruthless cutting of players with nothing owed them is not known. An informed decision is what is in my world.
The owners are making billions. They have fought responsibility to the players over and over. They suppress the long term concussion effects endlessly. They are fundamentally dishonest.
The union has caved to the owners over and over. Upshaw has a war within the association. He went along with suppressing the concussion ramifications.
A player makes his decision with incomplete and distorted information. Ergo his responsibility is somewhat diminished.

76

[QUOTE=phungi]
Taking it one step further, the NFL should make it clear to youth athletes what the risks are. They have concussion management programs in place that are mandatory, but do not perform any type of public service announcements to educate kids (high school down to Pee Wee). It is great that Ray Lewis reads to kids or Peyton Manning volunteers to build a playground… educate kids, parents, coaches, etc about the dangers of the game, the proper equipment and techniques, and the need for trained observers at games (beyond an EMT) and appropriate concussion testing and management programs.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think there is any disagreement in this thread about the fact that football is a violent, and potentially dangerous, game. But at some point this need to educate becomes absurd.
Down to pee-wee? Have you ever seen pee-wee football? For one thing, “leagues” are limited by weight class. Unlike in the professional ranks, nobody is going to be hit by someone who outweighs them by 50 pounds. Typically, it’s a bunch of kids running around with helmets as big as their bodies. The collisions simply aren’t that violent.
Suggesting that the NFL players run around warning these kids about the dangers of what they are doing is like sending Major Leagues baseball players to little league games to warn kids about the dangers of being beaned by a 90 mph fastball. At that stage of development, the danger is not applicable.

Having said that, I do readily concede that their is a social strain (indicative of earlier societies) that emphasizes physical competition to an extent that some people feel pressured to sacrifice their bodies. Nagging injuries and discomforts often result.

Hell…I’ve laced up my sneakers tight, after twisting an ankle, to finish playing a game of pickup basketball. I now have chronic tendinitis in my right ankle, and can’t run without pain (I’m not yet 30).

But should the NBA have publicized the risk of ankle injuries? Do they owe me this public service? As has been said upthread, anybody who plays football knows it can be violent. Do we really need to educate the public about this (obvious) fact?

People in this thread, however, are conflating this argument with the travesties of having played pro football. These two things don’t equate. Seeing a pro football player, worn down by decades of abuse at the highest levels of the game, doesn’t mean that any kid who straps on some pads is exposing themselves to the risks of permanent injury. If we want to make this stretch, do we need to warn teenagers who get their driving learner’s permit about the fate of the late Nascar dreiver, Dale Earnhardt, Sr.? Sure…same action, but in a completely different context.

And I’m pretty confident that those who do play in the NFL have a good handle on the risks of playing in that league. Given their extreme dedication to the sport, it’s pretty clear they simply don’t care. Now, if you want to make a separate argument about whether the league should be providing greater benefits to its former players, we can delve into that discussion, and discuss how much money the league is providing its vets. But we’re in a thread that hasn’t raised that as the issue to debate, so it’s a hijack to the topic at hand.

77

What does oSHA have to say about the football work environment?

78

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
In my world people make choices with all the information. The truth of football injuries is not widely known. The future effects on your body are not aired. The ruthless cutting of players with nothing owed them is not known. An informed decision is what is in my world.
The owners are making billions. They have fought responsibility to the players over and over. They suppress the long term concussion effects endlessly. They are fundamentally dishonest.
The union has caved to the owners over and over. Upshaw has a war within the association. He went along with suppressing the concussion ramifications.
A player makes his decision with incomplete and distorted information. Ergo his responsibility is somewhat diminished.
[/QUOTE]

I’m baffled; and with all due respect you are incredibly naive and sheltered. As you stated previously, you wouldn’t allow your kid to play football, so I’ll presume you haven’t been around the game and the men who play it.

Do you really think that pro football players who have been playing in an organized fashion for at least 12 years don’t know that it’s violent? Nobody knows how violent football is better than the guys who play it! I played at the division I level. I think I know that we were hitting each other pretty hard. If someone had come to the practice field to tell us that football is rough and that we could get hurt we would have laughed them off campus. Hell most of our coaches were beaten up. Our offensive coordinator had fingers pointing in all directions due to breaks and dislocations! So I think we knew the consequences of playing the game. Are we going to tell race car drivers that they are driving really fast and that cars can get into an accident?

You are naive to think that football players are a bunch of idiots who don’t know that they are in a violent and potentially dangerous sport.

I do think that the players should pressure their union leadership for better health care. But that is their business.

79

[QUOTE=spifflog]
I do think that the players should pressure their union leadership for better health care. But that is their business.
[/QUOTE]
From what I can tell, players have the ultimate health insurance: free top-notch care. It’s not like the Colts were sitting around hoping and waiting for Marvin Harrison to find a good enough HMO to get him back on the field this past season. It’s the retired players – who by being retired aren’t in the union anymore – who need the health insurance.

80

[QUOTE=Atomicktom]
Down to pee-wee? Have you ever seen pee-wee football? For one thing, “leagues” are limited by weight class. Unlike in the professional ranks, nobody is going to be hit by someone who outweighs them by 50 pounds. Typically, it’s a bunch of kids running around with helmets as big as their bodies. The collisions simply aren’t that violent.
Suggesting that the NFL players run around warning these kids about the dangers of what they are doing is like sending Major Leagues baseball players to little league games to warn kids about the dangers of being beaned by a 90 mph fastball. At that stage of development, the danger is not applicable.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps down to the level of Pee Wee is getting extra-cautious, but parents should know that their kids are being prepared for and indoctrinated into a sport that has serious long-term risks.
Would parents make different decisions if they knew their kids’ cognitive abilities could be permanently altered from 2 or more concussions?

(Ref1 , Ref2 , Ref3)