Just read a jarring piece by Malcom Gladwell’s in the latest issue of the New Yorker on the emerging connection between playing football and developing serious brain injury later in life. One study Gladwell cites finds a significantly higher proportion of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (C.T.E.) in the brain, a malady caused by trauma, than in the rest of the population. The problem Gladwell discovers, is in the accumulation of micro-traumas to the brain, rather than the accumulation of concussions as was previously believed.
It’s particularly disturbing to read this article as a football fan. At its best, the sport is a celebration of strength, courage, teamwork, and intelligence. Further, it is deeply woven into the American psyche. Television ratings for American football far exceed that of all other sports. FOX, CBS, NBC and ABC/ESPN have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to secure television deals. Personally, my earliest memories are of watching the Miami Dolphins with my dad. As a 12 year old, I sobbed uncontrollably when the Dolphins gave up a 10 points halftime lead to the Washington Redskins in Super Bowl XVII (damn that John Riggins!!!!) Even academics wax poetic about the muscular ballet of football…check out these two Stanford Humanities professors going on about the aesthetic beauty of the sport.
While it appears that research on brain trauma is in its early stages, it seems the toll the sport takes on its participants is far greater than even they realize. From a policy perspective, it opens up the question of paternalism. When should the state step in to save individuals from themselves? The lure of current riches – both monetary and psychic – draws individuals to enter into contractual arrangements that, in many cases, leaves them worse off than if they had not played. Because they have imperfect information about future outcomes, then exchange future health for current fame and fortune. Should we allow them to?
A more vexing question is whether we as Americans have begun to construe access to football spectating as a social right? Social rights are typically those goods that government provides to help secure our well being. Examples are education, health care, etc. Typically, once Americans consider something a social right, government has a difficult time withdrawing it….see Medicare. Having gone to college in the South as I did, I’d be hard pressed to envision what the vast majority of people would do on a Fall Saturday afternoon if there were no college football to watch. I can’t imagine a politician that would even touch the question of banning football. I’m afraid we have developed such a deep, inviolable attachment to the sport that getting rid of it would be akin to getting rid of universal public education? I say this as someone who still watches the Miami Dolphins and marvels at the brilliance of the wildcat offense. But now when I watch, I’ll do it with both admiration and apprehension.
Comments 5
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist — October 19, 2009
Isn't this also true for boxing? A lot of boxers have suffered some form of brain trauma because of punches to the head...
When should the state step in to save individuals from themselves? The lure of current riches – both monetary and psychic – draws individuals to enter into contractual arrangements that, in many cases, leaves them worse off than if they had not played. Because they have imperfect information about future outcomes, then exchange future health for current fame and fortune.
I don't think the state should step in. That's like saying the government should step in and prevent people from drinking themselves to death, stuffing themselves and becoming obese, or whatever. I think we're all responsible for our own actions. But it would be helpful if there are programs set up for athletes to cope with brain trauma. it would also be helpful if athletes are warned beforehand about the dangers of playing in an aggressive sport like football, rugby, boxing, etc, just so they're prepared for what health consequences might happen.
rkatclu — October 19, 2009
Paternalism is very bad at accounting for the fact that individuals value things differently. I think this subjective dimension (e.g. how much playing football means to me) should be respected within reasonable limits (i.e. the harm principle). However, as the previous commenter suggested, objective information (e.g. how much playing football increases your risk of brain injury) is helpful in providing a context for individual decision-making.
Does the risk of injury extend to youth sports as well? That would, to my mind, pose more of an ethical problem.
BB — October 20, 2009
House Judiciary will be having a hearing on football brain injuries on the 28th of October.
A. Liz — November 11, 2009
I love football but I wonder whether I can ever watch it again and feel like an ethical person. I would argue that football is never really a matter of the player's free will. As Gladwell suggests, it is parents who bring their children to football, or at the very least, allow it. Football players start as minors, universally. And how could any decent parent allow a child to take these inherent risks? For what? Amusement and an extremely outside chance at a payday? If the studies in Gladwell's article are sound, I think to allow a child to play football amounts to child abuse.
That said, it will take my best to keep myself from watching Patriots/Colts this Sunday. Football will just have to wither away as, hopefuly, parents refuse to allow their children into the game.
BEDSIDE MANNERS: Fallen Gridiron Warriors | Girl with Pen — February 24, 2011
[...] As research studies work to document the ways in which this sport consistently results in life-changing injuries (and sometimes life-ending conditions), we owe it to boys and men to challenge the status quo. But, how can we hope to do this if, as one political science blogger suggested, ”Americans have begun to construe access to football spectating as a social right“? [...]