Watching Football (American Style)?

During the playoffs and the roll up to the Superbowl, I began to question whether watching football was something I wanted to do anymore. My thoughts began to firm up while I was watching a clip featuring Fox News' manly man, Pete Hegseth. In the clip, Hegseth, while standing in a bar full of drinking men, and holding a football, berates Justin Timberlake for saying that he wouldn't allow his son to play football. Justin Timberlake is not on a crusade to end football, but he did answer a question from a reporter about the subject of his own kids playing football.

After spending a couple of seconds berating Timberlake's son, Pete Hegseth came out with these gems:

"This is indicative of the way elites see football... and tough sports, and rough... and manhood, frankly. This idea that you learn things when you get hit. You learn things in the huddle when you get knocked out"

That's right. Hegseth thinks you learn things in the huddle after you get knocked out. I noticed that the closed captioning for the video says "knocked down" probably because what Hegseth actually says is insane.

The fact of the matter is that even former football players are saying that they want to at least delay the age at which their kids play tackle football. There is no reason to criticize parents for being prudent with their kid's health and even less reason to call some parents kid a wuss to make a point.

This season I listen to football players complain about not being able to really whack each other in the head because of the new rules. I also watched a number of starting quarterbacks take vicious shots to the head, after which they were reinserted back into the game as quickly as physically possible. I have to conclude that whatever the NFL says about being concerned about player health, the "protocol" for head injuries is a joke. Player health is really secondary to points, touchdowns, and "Sports Center" quality knock out hits.

In reality, there is probably nothing that can be done to substantially reduce the incidence of CTE in football anyway. Most of the damage to the brain occurs in the routine impacts that don't even cause a concussion.

I find that I cannot in good conscience watch tackle football at any level anymore and I cannot imagine what would cause me to change my mind. I don't plan to crusade for the end of football, or even to ask folks to join me. I don't plan to explain to my friends why I am not watching football unless provoked, although I will tell my wife. I am telling you guys, but I am not going to try to convince you that I am right. But I am not watching the lions eat the Christians anymore.

No, I did not watch the Super Bowl a couple of days ago. It was on. My wife watched it, but I used the time to fix a couple of irritating bugs in a computer program I am working on. I didn't feel any withdrawal pangs.

Yup. And I don't watch boxing anymore and I don't watch professional wrestling and I don't watch most all of the new flavors of combat sports.

If others wish to watch or support or participate in such "sports" that is fine but for me and mine it is a non-starter and certainly not manly.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

NoNukes writes: I find that I cannot in good conscience watch tackle football at any level anymore and I cannot imagine what would cause me to change my mind. I don't plan to crusade for the end of football, or even to ask folks to join me. I don't plan to explain to my friends why I am not watching football unless provoked, although I will tell my wife. I am telling you guys, but I am not going to try to convince you that I am right. But I am not watching the lions eat the Christians anymore.

The question that keeps popping into my head is if these players would be playing football if there wasn't a financial incentive to do so. I don't know about your region of the country, but where I live there really isn't that many people playing tackle football in rec leagues. There are tons of rec leagues for softball, golf, basketball, tennis, flag football (i.e. non-contact), and many other amateur events for other sports (cycling is popular).

We have set up a system where people are putting their long term health on the line in order to make money. I don't see any way around the conclusion that fans are complicit in this act. Will I keep watching football? Yep. Is it wrong? Probably. Would I let my kids play football, if I had any? I really don't know, but I would strongly encourage them to play a different sport.

I salute your moral fortitude while admitting its absence in myself. Good luck to you, sir.

NoNukes writes: I am telling you guys, but I am not going to try to convince you that I am right.

I think you're as right as the guy who still watches football.

I think you're right for your and your life.
And I think the guy who still watches football is right for him and his life.

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with people willingly, consensually playing football while being aware of the risks.

I certainly agree that there's an issue right now in the "consensually" part since it seems rather obvious that the league is not being honest or forthcoming or proactive with all the information it possibly could about knowing or learning the subject of injury while playing football.

But if it's possible to work this out correctly, then I see no issue in playing football.
Of course, if it's not possible to work this out honorably, then I would not be playing in the NFL if I had a choice.
But back to the other side - I think it's at least apparent to the NFL players (and everyone else) enough that they know if the league is being shady or not. Which means they can consent to playing in "a shady league where personal safety is concerned" if they want to, or not.

But I don't see a moral reason to boycott the NFL for everyone.

Only a personal reason, which is just as valid, but different in the details.

I haven't watched football in a while. But that's mostly because I stopped being in football pools and stopped playing the fantasy stuffs, as well as I got rid of cable TV (Netflix only!).

I did pay $20 to a streaming service to watch the game at home this year.
I don't feel bad about it.

I have no horse in the race of what happens to football.
I won't really care if it goes on for ever.
I won't really care if it goes bankrupt this off-season and there's never another game again.

I think the issue of consent for the players being aware of what they're getting into is between the players and management and everyone individually. I think there's enough information to know it's "dangerous" and enough information to know the league is "at least a bit shady." But if someone thinks those risks are worth the rewards they get out of it (be it money or teamwork or even just joy-of-the-game) I think that's up to them as an individual.

I think there's enough information out and about that it's not really possible for the league to be hurting players "unknowingly against their will." Which I think is what's actually required in order for there to be some sort of larger-than-individual-choice moral issue going on.

Footballs has, been, and always will be a dangerous sport regardless of whether this particular information on concussions is dealt with honestly and fully openly or not.

I think the choice of what to do about that is on an individual-level.

...or something like that

Stile writes: I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with people willingly, consensually playing football while being aware of the risks.

I have worked on research projects that use human subjects, so we get a lot of training in bioethics, HIPAA, privacy, and all those kinds of things. One of the interesting parts of bioethics is the ways in which you can undermine consent as part of the agreement between researcher and subject. One such problem area is compensation given to the subject to offset their time and expenses. If you give them too little you are devaluing their time and willingness to contribute to your research. If you give them too much money, you are incentivizing them to take risks that they would not otherwise take which is a violation of consent. With those rules in mind, most subjects are paid between $10 and $15 per hour for their time, including time used to travel to and from a research location if that is part of the study.

With that in mind, can we truly say that NFL players are giving their honest consent when you hang millions of dollars in front of them? That's a very important moral question.

Taq writes: With that in mind, can we truly say that NFL players are giving their honest consent when you hang millions of dollars in front of them? That's a very important moral question.

I agree it's an important question.

And my answer is "no" we can't truly say NFL players are giving their honest consent.
-but not because of the millions of dollars
-but because "we" are not "them"
-and, I do not think this is a reason to stop NFL players from playing or from giving their honest consent
-I do agree that this is something they should consider while evaluating their consent

If you give them too little you are devaluing their time and willingness to contribute to your research. If you give them too much money, you are incentivizing them to take risks that they would not otherwise take which is a violation of consent.

I agree with both these points.

And in developing some sort of ruling-government-type-standard... I would find them invaluable.

However, when discussing actual-real-feelings-of-people... the only source is the people themselves.

If you give them too little you are devaluing their time and willingness to contribute to your research.

Yes, but who gets to decide what is "too little?"

The honest answer is "the one deciding to accept the money."
And, yes, their judgment might be clouded by the small amount of money.
Or... maybe it's not, and their judgment of what's "too little" is different from someone else's.

If you give them too much money, you are incentivizing them to take risks that they would not otherwise take which is a violation of consent.

Again, yes, but who gets to decide what is "too much?"

The honest answer is, again, "the one deciding to accept the money."
And, yes, their judgment might be clouded by the large amount of money.
Or... maybe it's not, and their judgment of what's "too much risk for the money" is different from someone else's.

How can we objectively detect who's risk analysis is impaired and who's is not?

I don't know if there is a way.
And I certainly agree there's no way for a governing-body to enact some sort of practical standard that will work for everyone as I've described... and therefore any standard will necessarily have to ignore such intricate details.

My point is simply that it is possible for people to make such decisions without concerning the money, regardless of the fact that some people may have their risk-analysis impaired.

And, for such an issue, my opinion lies more with personal-responsibility rather than big-brother.
That's why I'd be against any sort of forced control method.
Not that I'd really care... I wouldn't start a petition against it if forced-control was started... it's not a huge deal to me.
But, it's still "a" deal, and that's where my opinion lies on it.

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with people willingly, consensually playing football while being aware of the risks.

I am not sure I agree with that. Folks who play the game are not just risking their own health. It's more complicated than you suggest here.

But if it's possible to work this out correctly, then I see no issue in playing football.

I don't believe such a thing is possible, and beyond that, I don't believe that the folks who watch football want anything but brain accelerating into the skull hits when an opposing receiver comes across the middle. Rather than give up a first down, fans want that ball jarred loose at any cost. Well as much as I love watching linebacker Luke Kuechly make plays, I find that I cannot applaud that kind of success anymore.

I think there's enough information out and about that it's not really possible for the league to be hurting players "unknowingly against their will."

There is no choice in the matter. You have to hit other players or get out of the game and do whatever else you learned how to do in college or elsewhere. The incentive to participate in professional football is the money the NFL can get out of me and you, directly or indirectly. Well, they are not getting my money or my eyeballs any longer.

But I don't see a moral reason to boycott the NFL for everyone.

I'm not going to get started on that line of reasoning. Do whatever you will.

Hi NoNukes,

Did you in the past enjoy watching football?

If football could be played safely ( I realize that's probably impossible)
would you watch it?

I agree that it is a violent sport.

Do you perhaps watch other contact sports without the same convictions?

I watch it because it to me is exciting and amazing to see the level of athleticism the players display. I watch because of this silly indoctrinated fan loyalty of myself and tribe.
It to me, is fun to watch. Yep ancient Rome would be right at home.

I have daughters so the thought of them playing has not come up.
I was a soccer dad and a basketball dad though.
Would I allow a son to play? Probably not.
I am probably a good example of hypocrisy as one could get.

I salute your convictions.

Again, yes, but who gets to decide what is "too much?" The honest answer is, again, "the one deciding to accept the money." And, yes, their judgment might be clouded by the large amount of money. Or... maybe it's not, and their judgment of what's "too much risk for the money" is different from someone else's.

That doesn't make any sense. Who would decide they were being offered too much money for something?

Did you in the past enjoy watching football?

Yes.

If football could be played safely ( I realize that's probably impossible) would you watch it?

I don't believe that to be possible.

Do you perhaps watch other contact sports without the same convictions?

No. I don't watch them.

Stile writes: Yes, but who gets to decide what is "too little?"

In the case of research involving human subjects, the compensation put forward in the research proposal is judged by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that consists of administrators, scientists, and people from the community.

The honest answer is "the one deciding to accept the money." And, yes, their judgment might be clouded by the small amount of money. Or... maybe it's not, and their judgment of what's "too little" is different from someone else's.

Let's say you are studying a drug that can have serious side effects, and you are looking for people to participate. You first try to find participants in an upscale San Jose suburb, but you find that very few people want to participate even though you are offering a rather large sum of money to participate. You then find a rundown part of town (does San Jose have slums?) and offer the same large sum and you start getting lots of people signing up.

Is that moral? According to modern bioethics, it isn't moral. You can get your study shut down, and even have your grant eligibility taken away for 5 or 10 years. Is this going way overboard? Perhaps. Scientists have take the position that they need to take every step they can to be ethical researchers given the violations that have occurred in the past (e.g. the Tuskegee syphilis studies). However, it does raise the idea that you can undermine consent by preying on peoples' desperation and greed.

My point is simply that it is possible for people to make such decisions without concerning the money, regardless of the fact that some people may have their risk-analysis impaired.

But we can't know if all those people in that group are not being taken advantage of. If we create a system or environment that can lead to abuses it is immoral, even if there are some who are not abused.

Hi Taq,

Do you feel that the enormous salaries of professional football players is leading many to take known risks of permanent brain injury due to such a tremendous incentives;that they would otherwise not take and is therefore unethical?

If a athlete is being baited to participate in a dangerous sport with large sums of money, does that fit the same bar of ethics as IRB approved consent for a subject taking a investigational drug?

Should there be a salary cap to un-incentivize sport participation?

Or should sports that cause severe injury by the nature of playing be banned in your opinion?

Perhaps we are about to enter in a era where foot ball and rugby and hockey will be a thing of the past.
100 years from now people will be like wow can you believe this was once a thing, like bull baiting and the Colosseum.

.

1.61803 writes: Do you feel that the enormous salaries of professional football players is leading many to take known risks of permanent brain injury due to such a tremendous incentives;that they would otherwise not take and is therefore unethical?

I certainly think that this could be the case for some. I think it would be reckless to say that this is the case for all football players.

If a athlete is being baited to participate in a dangerous sport with large sums of money, does that fit the same bar of ethics as IRB approved consent for a subject taking a investigational drug?

I think they could be directly comparable. At the same time, that does not necessarily mean that we should draft laws that control this behavior. Ethics and law are not necessarily the same thing. What we have found over time is that a perfectly ethical society does not always match up with a working human society. We do allow for unethical behavior in our laws, and I am not sure that we should use laws to ban all unethical behavior.

Perhaps we are about to enter in a era where foot ball and rugby and hockey will be a thing of the past. 100 years from now people will be like wow can you believe this was once a thing, like bull baiting and the Colosseum.

Gladiatorial games might be a good example. Where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable risks in sports? While American football players may not be dropping dead on the field, they are dropping dead off the field. Junior Seau committed suicide not long after leaving the league, and he shot himself in the heart so that scientists could study his brain. It is hard to ignore the implication that Seau was suffering from deep depression that could have been caused by CTE. Just to shift sports for a second, there have been a shocking number of deaths at the Isle of Man TT motorcycle races and there were tons of deaths in F1 during the 1960's. Is that any different than 1 out of 50 gladiators dying from wounds in the Colliseum?

Where do we draw the line? I think that is an interesting question.

NoNukes writes: Well, they are not getting my money or my eyeballs any longer.

As a personal choice for yourself, I think this is very well grounded and defensible.
It seems like the exact thing you should be doing with the way you feel about the topic.

I don't believe that the folks who watch football want anything but brain accelerating into the skull hits when an opposing receiver comes across the middle. Rather than give up a first down, fans want that ball jarred loose at any cost.

You are also free to believe what you want.

And I am free to believe what I want.

I believe it's quite possible to watch football and also not want people to get hurt, and also understand that the game is dangerous and it's likely someone will get hurt.

It's also possible for me to show that your believe is incorrect.
All I have to do is provide evidence that 1 person watches football and wants something other than "brain accelerating into the skull hits."

Well, I submit football player wives, their children, their other family members and friends.
I submit myself and lot of other football-watchers (some avid, others not-so-much) who think trick plays are fun to watch as well as want to see their team win (Go Dolphins!) but would rather players not get hurt doing it.

For you to show that my believe is incorrect, you would have to show that it's strictly impossible for someone to watch football because they enjoy the sport and all the non-hurting-other-people aspects of it instead of wanting to see people get hurt.

Although it's possible in reality, I think showing such a thing is impossible to do in any practical sense.

Do whatever you will.

I think we should all, always, do whatever we will.

I think it's important to allow people who want to get money for playing football and accepting the risk of getting hurt to be able to make that decision. So that they too can "do what they will."

It's no decision I would make.
I wouldn't play in the NFL for any amount of money (let alone me not being skilled enough).
But I don't think there's anything at the level of preventing others from deciding to do so.

caffeine writes: Who would decide they were being offered too much money for something?

I understand that doctor's can take a shot at it... on an individual basis... given that there are obvious, definite signs of, say "addiction."

Like if they took a dude off the street who was trying to get any amount of money he could to buy more video games... but he couldn't afford them... and he was offered 2 million dollars to play 1 game in the NFL... and he obviously has no football skills... then I think it's a pretty clear scenario that the money is affecting his judgment. Although, I would argue that even this isn't a definitely-known case.

But I would say that, in general and concerning actual NFL players/prospects... such a situation where it is obvious to any 3rd person (doctor or not) is extremely rare.

I'm saying that given the general environment of the NFL, the only person who can honestly judge such a thing is the NFL players themselves.

On top of that, if the NFL player's judgment is skewed and they don't know it... it very well may be impossible for anyone else to tell.

That doesn't change the fact that the NFL players themselves have the "best chance" out of anyone and everyone to make such a judgment correctly.