5 ms·

Football is America's gladiator sport. For all the fun, the money, the excitement, the money, the drama, the bombast, the cheerleaders, and even the money, we s

Football is America's gladiator sport. For all the fun, the money, the excitement, the money, the drama, the bombast, the cheerleaders, and even the money, we should remind ourselves that American football is a very violent sport rife with injury and long term disability, and our participation as passive spectators and consumers makes us just as responsible for the incentive structure that harms so many young men for the rest of their lives. And yet we can't stop. Football is practically an addiction in this country, and I don't think there is one serious proposal that could reduce the size and scope of injuries and brain trauma in particular, and allows the game to continue in its current familiar form. So we tuck the problem under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist until moments of faux anguish pierce our veil of doped-up depravity. Sorry if this post comes across as depressing and masochistic. After all, I am a Bills fan.

Jesus_Jones 9y ago
Is violent sport an inherent part of a country's psychic makeup? Mexico has wrestling? What about Bermuda?
- cmurf 9y ago
  I think violence is an inherent part of being a primate. It needs some kind of outlet, be it preemptive wars of choice or civil wars, as the animal gets a bit smarter then there are gladiator games, still pretty vicious but structured, and the smarter ape man gets the more structure and skill and preserving the life of the sportsman the rules get. It's the spectators that drive the structuring every bit as much as the owners. The more debased the spectators are, the more violence persists in the sport. So yeah blame the owners for knowing about football's lifelong consequences before and after the discovery of CTE, but that it persists is squarely on the spectators who keep paying for it.
NegativeLatency 9y ago
Is rugby safer? I'd actually be interested in watching rugby on tv. Never been a fan of football due to all the stopping and setting up plays, makes the game move too slowly to be interesting.
- cmurf 9y ago
  The scrum is definitely not good, and is the main source of degenerative spinal injuries. The bulk of other injuries are muscular (sprains, pulls) and bruises. The rules of the game enforce a direction of play that makes head on attacks far less (maybe even none) likely than American football. But it's still a brutal sport with lasting repetitive use injuries - they just don't tend to be head injuries as much.
- ghaff 9y ago
  >Is rugby safer? The short answer is almost certainly yes but the patterns of injury are different. Rugby also has issues with concussions, although less so than American football. The bigger problem is generally considered to be spinal injuries in scrums. Unfortunately it's hard to catch much rugby on TV in the US. (I assume there are special packages you can subscribe to but I don't care that much.)
- alistairSH 9y ago
  Rugby is occasionally on TV in the US. NBC Sports carries some events. Or, if you want a quick fix, look for a sevens tournament on YouTube (US has a collegiate championship, there's the Olympics, and a few major international). The games are short and fast paced, so easily consumed.
- RankingMember 9y ago
  I think it might be simply because the risk to the person doing the hitting is much greater given they're not covered in pads/helmets. People still get wrecked in rugby, but I think there are less battering-ram style hits.
cmurf 9y ago
I don't think the post is depressing and masochistic. I think football fans are depressed masochists, and they get their temporary fix with vicarious participation in a gladiator sport. The more fans pay for tickets, the more contracts go up in price, the more justification for violence they feel entitled to receive. OH, these guys are getting paid a million bucks at least, I would do that!
- Bud 9y ago
  Except they aren't getting paid a million bucks. College football (and even high school football) account for a very large slice of all football revenue. NCAA football is a multi-billion-dollar business. Those athletes are spending 50% or even more than 50% of their entire productive football careers playing college ball, they are incurring a very high risk for permanent brain injury, and they are NOT getting paid. (Do these figures sound off? Go look up the average career length of NFL running backs.) Yes, yes, they get a "free education", but many or most of these guys aren't actually well-suited to college-level academic work anyway, and a college degree isn't of as much use if you die at 40 (or commit suicide in your late 20s) from horrific brain injuries. They should be getting paid. Bigtime. Paid a lot. Everyone else involved with college football is getting paid; just not the players, the ones who are taking all the risk and doing all the real work.
  - cmurf 9y ago
    Sure, and the excuse here will be "but they will get an instant pay out on day 1 when they're finished with school and get a contract!" There is no possible rational conversation you can have with a fan of college football about the disproportionate blood sucking they're responsible for. These spectators are parasites. Conversing with them rationally is just as likely as conversing with a tick. They're ignorant. They don't care, they don't want to care. Addition: And paying them big time doesn't make it right. That's just more gladiator mentality. The idea of affixing them with more glory makes their sacrifice, and lifelong injuries OK, because they're being fairly compensated for it. Don't fix the sport, don't become less violent, no one change anything except pay the gladiators better.
scott_s 9y ago
The way I think it may change is the way most cultural changes happen: the aggregate of small decisions made by individuals. As more understanding of the eventualities (not "risk") of brain damage become ingrained in how people view football, perceptions may change. I think people may start to view football more as say, smoking. More parents may not sign up their kids for football, or discourage them from playing in high school. Kids may make the decision themselves, as they will grow up with the eventualities as background information. With less players in the pipeline, football programs may shrink. I know the standard objection is still "some players, particularly poorer players, will still play." And that may be true, but the NFL and college teams power is that football is culturally significant. And it's culturally significant because so many people see it as the main American sport. It's quite possible more people will not see it as the main American sport, which will decrease its cultural significance, which can decrease the power and influence of the NFL, college and even high school teams. I'm not saying this will happen, but that it may happen. I do think it's likely.
simplicio 9y ago
I disagree. I think Americans are generally pretty intolerant of sports and other activities where death or disability are likely outcomes. The rules of football, boxing, MMA, etc. have been continuously changed to make them safer, even at the cost of abandoning major aspects of the sport (19th century football was much different than the modern sport, and much more frequently fatal). Football has managed to dodge the CTE issue so far because the injury is both hard to diagnose (basically requiring a brain autopsy), it's symptoms appear decades after the initial injury and involves a lot of mental issues that people often develop without CTE. But as evidence mounts, its clearly becoming harder and harder for the public to ignore. So I think we'll see football drastically change to solve the issue, or die off as public discomfort with the cost to players manifests itself in shrinking audiences.
- jMyles 9y ago
  > The rules of football, boxing, MMA, etc. have been continuously changed to make them safer I disagree, at least in part. Pretty much all of the rules of boxing make it unsafe, and it seems to have evolved to be increasingly so. Boxers have to ignore every instinct that their body has to protect them, from continuous clinching to grabbing to taking the fight to the ground. If a boxer falls to the ground, dizzy with head trauma, the referee will literally count to 10, and if that boxer can stand up, they can stand in front of their opponent and be hit in the head some more. Like they're a piece of meat. MMA is much, much better in this regard, but still has some bad parts, and many of the changes have made things worse and not better. The original UFC rules banned hand wraps, which allow fighters to throw wide, fastball-style overhand punches that would otherwise be impossible without breaking hands. The original rules also did not provide for referee stand-ups, which have nothing to do with the sport and are instead a purely subjective move to make the fight more exciting. Leaving the fight on the ground is always safer (and, IMO, almost always more exciting, but that's a different topic). The system of weight-determination in MMA (typically a single weigh-in, 24-40 hours before the fight) absolutely incentivizes deep weight cuts, and that's disgusting. Changes to these rules have often made things worse instead of better (options for an early weigh-in, a ban on IV rehydration, etc). Although OneFC is doing brilliant work in this field I will say; they are an exception. MMA is a great sport and almost certainly much safer than Football or Boxing, but it's up to fans to stand up and demand re-examination of some of the rules that have gone in the wrong direction.
mcguire 9y ago
On my more cynical days, I think it's a net positive. It occupies a group of people who would otherwise likely be very effective street criminals. It entertains millions who would probably find something worse to enjoy.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Football is America's gladiator sport The analogy goes deeper. We exempt the NFL from antitrust law [1]. We let it keep its feedstock players, i.e. college athletes, people who come from disproportionately low-income backgrounds, so poorly they go hungry [2]. For many, a sports scholarship seems like the only chance they have at a better life. A minority reach semi-stardom, with a vanishing fraction of those achieving fame and wealth. But for all, the cost society charges is literally their minds. [1] https://sportslaw.uslegal.com/antitrust-and-labor-law-issues-in-sports/ https://sportslaw.uslegal.com/antitrust-and-labor-law-issues... [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/04/21/304196202/hunger-games-college-athletes-make-play-for-collective-bargaining http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/04/21/304196202/hun...
jacamat 9y ago
The comparison to a Gladiator sport is a good one. I see no reason why ESPN/NFL/et al., can't provide comprehensive health insurance to every current & former player for life - as reducing the violence of the sport doesn't really seem to be on the table, broadly speaking.
- WesleyLivesay 9y ago
  Remember that the problem goes far deeper than professional sports leagues with infinite pocketbooks. Every high school, college, and amateur league in the country would have to be held to the same standard, and they don't have that much money.

Jesus_Jones 9y ago

Is violent sport an inherent part of a country's psychic makeup? Mexico has wrestling? What about Bermuda?

cmurf 9y ago
I think violence is an inherent part of being a primate. It needs some kind of outlet, be it preemptive wars of choice or civil wars, as the animal gets a bit smarter then there are gladiator games, still pretty vicious but structured, and the smarter ape man gets the more structure and skill and preserving the life of the sportsman the rules get. It's the spectators that drive the structuring every bit as much as the owners. The more debased the spectators are, the more violence persists in the sport. So yeah blame the owners for knowing about football's lifelong consequences before and after the discovery of CTE, but that it persists is squarely on the spectators who keep paying for it.

NegativeLatency 9y ago

Is rugby safer? I'd actually be interested in watching rugby on tv. Never been a fan of football due to all the stopping and setting up plays, makes the game move too slowly to be interesting.

cmurf 9y ago
The scrum is definitely not good, and is the main source of degenerative spinal injuries. The bulk of other injuries are muscular (sprains, pulls) and bruises. The rules of the game enforce a direction of play that makes head on attacks far less (maybe even none) likely than American football. But it's still a brutal sport with lasting repetitive use injuries - they just don't tend to be head injuries as much.
ghaff 9y ago
>Is rugby safer? The short answer is almost certainly yes but the patterns of injury are different. Rugby also has issues with concussions, although less so than American football. The bigger problem is generally considered to be spinal injuries in scrums. Unfortunately it's hard to catch much rugby on TV in the US. (I assume there are special packages you can subscribe to but I don't care that much.)
alistairSH 9y ago
Rugby is occasionally on TV in the US. NBC Sports carries some events. Or, if you want a quick fix, look for a sevens tournament on YouTube (US has a collegiate championship, there's the Olympics, and a few major international). The games are short and fast paced, so easily consumed.
RankingMember 9y ago
I think it might be simply because the risk to the person doing the hitting is much greater given they're not covered in pads/helmets. People still get wrecked in rugby, but I think there are less battering-ram style hits.

cmurf 9y ago

I don't think the post is depressing and masochistic. I think football fans are depressed masochists, and they get their temporary fix with vicarious participation in a gladiator sport. The more fans pay for tickets, the more contracts go up in price, the more justification for violence they feel entitled to receive. OH, these guys are getting paid a million bucks at least, I would do that!

Bud 9y ago
Except they aren't getting paid a million bucks. College football (and even high school football) account for a very large slice of all football revenue. NCAA football is a multi-billion-dollar business. Those athletes are spending 50% or even more than 50% of their entire productive football careers playing college ball, they are incurring a very high risk for permanent brain injury, and they are NOT getting paid. (Do these figures sound off? Go look up the average career length of NFL running backs.) Yes, yes, they get a "free education", but many or most of these guys aren't actually well-suited to college-level academic work anyway, and a college degree isn't of as much use if you die at 40 (or commit suicide in your late 20s) from horrific brain injuries. They should be getting paid. Bigtime. Paid a lot. Everyone else involved with college football is getting paid; just not the players, the ones who are taking all the risk and doing all the real work.
- cmurf 9y ago
  Sure, and the excuse here will be "but they will get an instant pay out on day 1 when they're finished with school and get a contract!" There is no possible rational conversation you can have with a fan of college football about the disproportionate blood sucking they're responsible for. These spectators are parasites. Conversing with them rationally is just as likely as conversing with a tick. They're ignorant. They don't care, they don't want to care. Addition: And paying them big time doesn't make it right. That's just more gladiator mentality. The idea of affixing them with more glory makes their sacrifice, and lifelong injuries OK, because they're being fairly compensated for it. Don't fix the sport, don't become less violent, no one change anything except pay the gladiators better.

scott_s 9y ago

The way I think it may change is the way most cultural changes happen: the aggregate of small decisions made by individuals. As more understanding of the eventualities (not "risk") of brain damage become ingrained in how people view football, perceptions may change. I think people may start to view football more as say, smoking. More parents may not sign up their kids for football, or discourage them from playing in high school. Kids may make the decision themselves, as they will grow up with the eventualities as background information. With less players in the pipeline, football programs may shrink. I know the standard objection is still "some players, particularly poorer players, will still play." And that may be true, but the NFL and college teams power is that football is culturally significant. And it's culturally significant because so many people see it as the main American sport. It's quite possible more people will not see it as the main American sport, which will decrease its cultural significance, which can decrease the power and influence of the NFL, college and even high school teams. I'm not saying this will happen, but that it may happen. I do think it's likely.

simplicio 9y ago

I disagree. I think Americans are generally pretty intolerant of sports and other activities where death or disability are likely outcomes. The rules of football, boxing, MMA, etc. have been continuously changed to make them safer, even at the cost of abandoning major aspects of the sport (19th century football was much different than the modern sport, and much more frequently fatal). Football has managed to dodge the CTE issue so far because the injury is both hard to diagnose (basically requiring a brain autopsy), it's symptoms appear decades after the initial injury and involves a lot of mental issues that people often develop without CTE. But as evidence mounts, its clearly becoming harder and harder for the public to ignore. So I think we'll see football drastically change to solve the issue, or die off as public discomfort with the cost to players manifests itself in shrinking audiences.

jMyles 9y ago
> The rules of football, boxing, MMA, etc. have been continuously changed to make them safer I disagree, at least in part. Pretty much all of the rules of boxing make it unsafe, and it seems to have evolved to be increasingly so. Boxers have to ignore every instinct that their body has to protect them, from continuous clinching to grabbing to taking the fight to the ground. If a boxer falls to the ground, dizzy with head trauma, the referee will literally count to 10, and if that boxer can stand up, they can stand in front of their opponent and be hit in the head some more. Like they're a piece of meat. MMA is much, much better in this regard, but still has some bad parts, and many of the changes have made things worse and not better. The original UFC rules banned hand wraps, which allow fighters to throw wide, fastball-style overhand punches that would otherwise be impossible without breaking hands. The original rules also did not provide for referee stand-ups, which have nothing to do with the sport and are instead a purely subjective move to make the fight more exciting. Leaving the fight on the ground is always safer (and, IMO, almost always more exciting, but that's a different topic). The system of weight-determination in MMA (typically a single weigh-in, 24-40 hours before the fight) absolutely incentivizes deep weight cuts, and that's disgusting. Changes to these rules have often made things worse instead of better (options for an early weigh-in, a ban on IV rehydration, etc). Although OneFC is doing brilliant work in this field I will say; they are an exception. MMA is a great sport and almost certainly much safer than Football or Boxing, but it's up to fans to stand up and demand re-examination of some of the rules that have gone in the wrong direction.

mcguire 9y ago

On my more cynical days, I think it's a net positive. It occupies a group of people who would otherwise likely be very effective street criminals. It entertains millions who would probably find something worse to enjoy.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Football is America's gladiator sport The analogy goes deeper. We exempt the NFL from antitrust law [1]. We let it keep its feedstock players, i.e. college athletes, people who come from disproportionately low-income backgrounds, so poorly they go hungry [2]. For many, a sports scholarship seems like the only chance they have at a better life. A minority reach semi-stardom, with a vanishing fraction of those achieving fame and wealth. But for all, the cost society charges is literally their minds. [1] https://sportslaw.uslegal.com/antitrust-and-labor-law-issues-in-sports/ https://sportslaw.uslegal.com/antitrust-and-labor-law-issues... [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/04/21/304196202/hunger-games-college-athletes-make-play-for-collective-bargaining http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/04/21/304196202/hun...

jacamat 9y ago

The comparison to a Gladiator sport is a good one. I see no reason why ESPN/NFL/et al., can't provide comprehensive health insurance to every current & former player for life - as reducing the violence of the sport doesn't really seem to be on the table, broadly speaking.

WesleyLivesay 9y ago
Remember that the problem goes far deeper than professional sports leagues with infinite pocketbooks. Every high school, college, and amateur league in the country would have to be held to the same standard, and they don't have that much money.