You AMERICANS are SISSIES, unlike us non-Americans who get concussed and LIKE IT.
You're funny. I like you (concussed or not)
But, yeah, basically this. I mean, is concussion
really so serious an occupational risk for (junior) soccer-players that they even
need to wear helmets? It's not (supposed to be) a contact sport, after all.
It's not like boxing, or gridiron, or rugby*, where hitting your opponent(s) as hard as you can is pretty much the whole point of the exercise. Or ice hockey, where, never mind high-flying pucks, on-ice fights are (apparently, so I've heard) an integral part of the game. And a soccer ball's large and inflated and moves relatively slowly — unlike a cricket- or a baseball, say — but even in those sports, only the batsmen/keepers are at any
real risk of taking one to the head — and they're also the
only players on the field who usually wear helmets.
Much as I hate the term 'slippery slope', it seems to apply here. Life cannot be lived 100% risk-free, so learning — and more to the point, teaching your kids — which potential risks are
really worth worrying about, would be more sensible than trying to do away with the most infinitesmal risks that one can think of, in the most paranoid of parental imaginariums.
e.g. Driving is far more dangerous than soccer: literally
thousands of people die in car accidents annually in the US alone. But I'm willing to bet that the soccer-parent types pushing for soccer-helmets (if such parents exist?) are nonetheless still quite happy -- possibly even insistent on -- driving their sprogs (in their SUVs) to and from the practice-field...
*IMO, voluntarily choosing to play rugby may be a good indicator that someone has taken a couple to the head already — so frankly, if they took a few more, who would even notice? Or in my case, care.