Is American football morally defensible?

[Voidwalkin]

It's a beloved part of American culture, but it has increasingly come under fire. As a new season rolls in, I'm inevitably gonna watch Notre Dame, and I'll inevitably hear calls from some quarters that football is bad and should end. Anybody have a take?

Common points against
-Risk of injury. Ligaments, potential spinal issues(though rare). CTE is the big one here. Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. It turns out, repeated hits to the head is really bad for the old noggin. Migraines, loss of cognitive function, and irreversible decline feature here. It's been observed in players as young as high schoolers, but is more common amongst NFL players, to my knowledge.

-Risk of death. Rare, but does happen. Baseball usually gets more per year, with much less ado.

-cultural and societal concerns. These range a gamut, but usually center around the macho culture that surrounds fans and players, or focus on player immoralities.

Personally, I don't see any reason to think football is inherently immoral after a certain age. 7 or 8 year olds probably shouldn't be allowed to play. I'm not sure I'd let my son play at all... if I father a son at some point, capable of intellectual achievement or high calibre opinions, I wouldn't. If I don't think he is, I'd probably allow it, tbh. Social skills and friendships built are more valuable in that instance and justify the risk.

 

[Arwon]

No, but Canadian football is.

 

[mitsho]

No, but it's gotta adapt its rules. The health concerns are real and will be adressed. Just as in "World" Football, where there will be a ban on headers in the next twenty years. They already stop them in a few countries in children games. So, you can change the rules, the question is how much can you and still call it American Football?

The other concerns are not really exclusive to the sport: machismo exist everywhere, the ultra-capitalidt model of club ownership is truly American, and so on. So the defense of those depends on your own moral compass. ;-)

 

[Core Imposter]

It serves a social purpose. All sports do. It gives young men a chance to belong to something bigger than themselves. Which, in the midst of the decline of faith, is vital. Some percentage of kids would end up in gangs without it and until we address the drug culture, we need all the help we can get. The pros outweigh the cons imo.

 

[Narz]

What the rest of the world calls football also caused brain damage from heading the ball.

Would be nice to see more non-competitive physical activities in school.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

What I do not understand is why people make a moral outrage out of everything. If consenting adults want to partake in an activity on their own time and of their own free will than let them. And if you don't want to watch just change the channel. And I say this as an European who is generally peeved about the americans misusing the term Football.

 

[Senethro]

Its a spectrum between this and gladiatorial death matches. You'd do better to say what is the acceptable level of risk, than pretend that the risk doesn't exist and this is the interference of the nanny state.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Its a spectrum between this and gladiatorial death matches. You'd do better to say what is the acceptable level of risk, than pretend that the risk doesn't exist and this is the interference of the nanny state.

What does the government have to do with anything? This seems to me like a classic case of people who have no actual problems in their life looking for things to be outraged about in order to stave off boredom and thus inventing moral outrage out of thin air about something that was just fine for generations.

 

[Senethro]

What does the government have to do with anything? This seems to me like a classic case of people who have no actual problems in their life looking for things to be outraged about in order to stave off boredom and thus inventing moral outrage out of thin air about something that was just fine for generations.

I see you're skipping ahead to your own moral outrage about others moral outrage. It would definitely be better to be able to make a positive case that sports can be safe and free from coercion.

The clue is that in who does what sport. Where do aristocrats show up? Horse stuff. Where do boxers come from? A similar demographic to that which enlisted soldiers are drawn from. That should give you pause.

If your activity is safe and free from coercion, why would young men from a particular economic group appear there? Why is doping a de facto standard practice? (They are not permitted to fail) What do their post-career health histories look like? (Variable to bad)

And while our attention is naturally drawn to the elite sportsmen who might arguably be being fairly compensated for the harm they are undergoing, what about everyone between college sports to the second tier?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I see you're skipping ahead to your own moral outrage about others moral outrage.

I am not outraged. There is nothing to be outraged about. It is just human nature to, when robbed of any real existential problem, waste our mental energy on inventing new ones. To be outraged over that would be akin to being outraged over the fact that people are evil, cruel, selfish or vain. Or that gravity attracts and water is wet. I am at most disappointed.

It would definitely be better to be able to make a positive case that sports can be safe and free from coercion.

Some can be made safe and others can't. Sports with high amounts of physical activity which involve contact between opposing players can not be made safe without completely neutering them to the level of Olympic Karate. At which point you might as well cancel them because you removed all that made it a fun sport.

The clue is that in who does what sport. Where do aristocrats show up? Horse stuff. Where do boxers come from? A similar demographic to that which enlisted soldiers are drawn from. That should give you pause.

Why? I see nothing objectionable with having different demographics trending toward different types of activities based on social and economic factors.

If your activity is safe and free from coercion, why would young men from a particular economic group appear there? Why is doping a de facto standard practice? (They are not permitted to fail) What do their post-career health histories look like? (Variable to bad)

I am yet to hear any stories of someone having a gun put to their head and being told to sign up to play or get shot. Just because someone is poor does not mean he is forced to partake in dangerous sports. There are plenty of other ways to make a living that offer less risk. Of course they also offer far less reward. But that is only fair.

If people want to go chasing a dangerous dream as opposed to living minimum wage I absolutely support their right to do so. But it is their choice to make and not some sort of coercion.

And while our attention is naturally drawn to the elite sportsmen who might arguably be being fairly compensated for the harm they are undergoing, what about everyone between college sports to the second tier?

I feel the need to point out that the problematic aspects of american university sports are all to do with the organization, compensation and other factors that have nothing to do inherently with the sport actually being played. If you applied those same rules to chess, competitive solitaire or dwarf tossing they would be no less problematic. Seriously, how a country that presumes it self to be part of the civilized world allows that sort of stuff is beyond me.

So if you want to direct anger and outrage at that part of the story I support you.

 

[Senethro]

To be outraged over that would be akin to being outraged over the fact that people are evil, cruel, selfish or vain.

I mean, I guess I am. A little. I think its very odd not to.

I am yet to hear any stories of someone having a gun put to their head and being told to sign up to play or get shot. Just because someone is poor does not mean he is forced to partake in dangerous sports. There are plenty of other ways to make a living that offer less risk. Of course they also offer far less reward. But that is only fair.

I don't think you could show it is fair in theory, or as is practiced. In fact, I would expect to see that risky occupations are not well compensated and that coercion is the primary driver there.

I feel the need to point out that the problematic aspects of american university sports are all to do with the organization, compensation and other factors that have nothing to do inherently with the sport actually being played. If you applied those same rules to chess, competitive solitaire or dwarf tossing they would be no less problematic. Seriously, how a country that presumes it self to be part of the civilized world allows that sort of stuff is beyond me.

So if you want to direct anger and outrage at that part of the story I support you.

Nor do I think you could show a significant boundary between the american situation, and other nations.

 

[Voidwalkin]

So, you can change the rules, the question is how much can you and still call it American Football?

Not much. You really have to be willing to tolerate risk of injury. As long as tackling remains, relatively high risk is present. Blocking, too. You can't take either out without fundamentally altering the nature of that sport.

Football without physicality isn't really football.

The clue is that in who does what sport. Where do aristocrats show up? Horse stuff. Where do boxers come from? A similar demographic to that which enlisted soldiers are drawn from. That should give you pause

There are class dimensions here. Generally, holders of opinions that physical sports are barbaric or troublesome are held by bougie, well to do people, who often shun anything remotely aggressive(which football is), while people with membership in the actual communities these athletes come from tend to love the sport and revere successful players.

TBH I suspect many critiques of football are basically motivated by distaste for an aggressive sport netting participants social prestige, wielding health concerns secondarily, if not insincerely, as a cudgel.

 

[Senethro]

There are class dimensions here. Generally, holders of opinions that physical sports are barbaric or troublesome are held by bougie, well to do people, who often shun anything remotely aggressive(which football is), while people with membership in the actual communities these athletes come from tend to love the sport and revere successful players.

TBH I suspect many critiques of football are basically motivated by distaste for an aggressive sport netting participants social prestige, wielding health concerns secondarily, if not insincerely, as a cudgel.

And who owns the means of sports pageantry?

 

[Voidwalkin]

And who owns the means of sports pageantry?

You may be interested to know that many owners actually played in their youth. The famous owner of the Cowboys, Jerry Jones, was athletically gifted enough to play collegiate football. Most owners played as long as their talent allowed them to.

Many of the players you'll see on Sundays(or Saturdays tbh) are from reasonably well to do families that spent big money to give their son every advantage, sometimes in the range of hundreds of thousands, and are passionate fans of the sport. The current face of the league, Mahomes, is from a reasonably well to do family. The notion that players are overwhelmingly from poor disadvantaged communities isn't accurate.

There is a genuine, organic love of football in America across classes. It just so happens that the urban, well off bourgeois are far more likely to shun it, potentially the only demo in which that belief might be a majority. Country money still loves it overwhelmingly.

 

[Senethro]

You may be interested to know that many owners actually played in their youth. The famous owner of the Cowboys, Jerry Jones, was athletically gifted enough to play collegiate football. Most owners played as long as their talent allowed them to.

Many of the players you'll see on Sundays(or Saturdays tbh) are from reasonably well to do families that spent big money to give their son every advantage, sometimes in the range of hundreds of thousands, and are passionate fans of the sport. The current face of the league, Mahomes, is from a reasonably well to do family. The notion that players are overwhelmingly from poor disadvantaged communities isn't accurate.

There is a genuine, organic love of football in America across classes. It just so happens that the urban, well off bourgeois are far more likely to shun it, potentially the only demo in which that belief might be a majority. Country money still loves it overwhelmingly.

Yeah, I'm not convinced. It still looks like similar incentives to military enlistment being offered to many (tertiary education access) but without even a VA advocacy/support and health plan afterwards.

And somewhere else, someone gets rich off it all.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Well I don't particularly like American football so I wouldn't mind seeing it demise as-is. I think wearing all that padding only increases the incidence to take greater risks and be susceptible to more injuries, ironically. If that's the case, you might as well play rugby where you're not expected to behave like a tank.

 

[lymond]

-cultural and societal concerns. These range a gamut, but usually center around the macho culture that surrounds fans and players, or focus on player immoralities.

Issues like the above can be found in almost any major sport....around the world. Conversely, many positive cultural and societal benefits can be identified with sports. I would not put these concerns solely on American Football alone, and not saying that is your intent. But I think that this point is a far-distant concern of the sport itself.

Deaths from football statistically lean heavily toward an athlete's pre-existing/unknown health conditions and heat stroke/cardiac arrest, which I believe is the #1 cause of death in American Football. Deaths, of course, are still extremely low. With that said, many football players can suffer lifelong injuries from minor to major. I have a few football injuries myself that I feel sometimes to this day. Granted, that could be said of other sports as well but football is certainly one of the most violent.

The long-term stuff though, especially the CTE, will likely be the factor that might make the game change one day, either systematically or culturally/socially. I do believe that youth football has had gradually decreasing participation over the years - ofc, there may be other factors for that but I certainly think the danger is one. My parents (or really my Mom as Dad was a football player - and a good one) would not let me play youth football as much as I wanted to. I finally got to play high school football after some fussing..ha. And that was before all the CTE stuff came out. Mom just did not want me to get hurt.

But is "morally" defensible? I'm not sure that is the right term to use here. Morality is not the issue, except for that adjunct that goes with any sport that may or may not be reprehensible.

Anyway, love me some football. Go Hokies, Falcons, and Dawgs!!!

 

[lymond]

Well I don't particularly like American football so I wouldn't mind seeing it demise as-is. I think wearing all that padding only increases the incidence to take greater risks and be susceptible to more injuries, ironically. If that's the case, you might as well play rugby where you're not expected to behave like a tank.

Florugby Analysis Even Flo Rugby concluded that Rugby is more dangerous than football, although the study did conclude that football is susceptible to more severe injuries related to your point.

Your point on padding and great risks has legitimacy. However, in recent years rules have been added or changed to mitigate that risk. The "Targeting" Rule was an important one, for example.

Hard to believe that murican football was once played with little to no padding and no helmets at all.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I guess we should clarify what we mean by more dangerous. Of course the lack of helmets means bruises and cuts in rugby comparatively, but with that said, greater (and worse) long-term damage does indeed come with American football...

 

[lymond]

I guess we should clarify what we mean by more dangerous. Of course the lack of helmets means bruises and cuts in rugby comparatively, but with that said, greater (and worse) long-term damage does indeed come with American football...

This is true.

Oh..meant to add to my first post. I could see myself as a proponent of doing away with youth football or at least the contact. I mean, kids here start at like age 6 or 7 in leagues. I wanted to play at that age myself. I'd be fine with starting kids at like age 12 in middle school or even in high school at age 13/14.

Instead, have kids play flag football, which is honestly just as fun. I've played plenty of flag football my whole life. Kids could still learn formations, plays, and tactics in flag football. FF can have some minor incidental contact but is very safe.