Friday, October 16, 2009

Should Football Be Banned?

By Michael Dorf

A New Yorker article by Malcolm Gladwell is provocatively titled, "Offensive Play: How Different Are Dogfighting and Football?"  Gladwell's answer: Not that different.  The piece is worth reading in its entirety but for the benefit of those who choose not to, here is a very brief summary of the main points.
1) Medical evidence now shows that a large proportion of professional football players suffer traumatic brain damage that seriously impairs their ability to perform basic life functions, changes their personalities, and may shorten their lives.
2) Although concussive impacts play a role, much or most of the brain damage results from repeat non-concussive blows to the head that are endemic to the game, especially for linemen.
3) Neither better helmets nor any of the sort of rule changes that might be adopted are likely to change these outcomes.
4) Shifting from tackle football to two-hand touch or flag football would change the outcomes, but Gladwell (and I) would consider that tantamount to banning what we know as American football.
5) Like dog-fighting, professional football exploits the "gameness" of the fiercest competitors--i.e., their willingness to keep on going long after the pain and injury should have made them quit.

With respect to the dog-fighting analogy, there is of course an important difference: Human beings consent to become professional football players, whereas dogs trained to fight to the death do not so consent.

But putting aside the comparative question, it is not clear that consent should count for much in the football context anyway.  We forbid dueling with pistols, even if the duelists have given fully informed consent.  Only the most radical libertarians would suggest that informed consent is a sufficient basis for any voluntarily undertaken activity.

So, should football be banned?  As Gladwell notes, correctly, it won't be, so there is not much practical point to answering the question.  But practical or not, it is worth asking why football won't be banned.  At least part of the answer, I think, is its cultural pervasiveness.  People who grew up loving football (as I did and as most American males and many American females did) take the fact that it is simply part of the landscape as a kind of reassurance that it's okay.  Sure, there are occasional tragedies.  The event that sticks out for me was Jack Tatum's paralyzing 1978 hit on Darryl Stingley.  But that was encoded as a reminder that football is a violent game with risks, not as evidence that football is a form of Russian roulette.  By comparison, the lethal knockout of Duk Koo Kim in 1982 probably turned more people off to boxing, because injury seems to be the point of boxing in a way that it is only a side effect of football.

Gladwell's point, I think, is that we need to start thinking of brain damage as part of the point of football.  If players started exploding on the field, say, then the unthinkable might become thinkable, and we would consider banning football.

Finally, speaking of dog-fighting, I'll be on WHYY (the NPR station) in Philadelphia on Monday at 10 am talking about the Stevens case in the Supreme Court.


Grivo242 said...

Football won't be banned, but it might be made safer. An idea I've heard is to change the substitution rules, requiring some players to play both offense and defense. Because this would emphasize endurance and versatility, less people on the field would be specialized human impact inflicting machines.

Michael C. Dorf said...

Interesting idea. That would make football more like rugby. Once we're going that route, we might want to replace football with rugby (although I have no idea how that would occur). I haven't seen data on brain injuries for rugby players, but having played the sport recreationally during my year in New Zealand, I'd be surprised if they were even as common as soccer brain injuries (from heading the ball). The lack of helmets in rugby totally changes the angle at which tackles are made. There are still occasional incidental blows to the head from opposing players and the ground, but the force is greatly diminished relative to football.

purple said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
michael a. livingston said...

I think we have our attack ad for when Michael is appointed to the Supreme Court now.

Michael C. Dorf said...

n response to purple: The point of the Gladwell article appears to be that a rational person would not regard the money to be made as an NFL lineman as justifying the financial and intangible costs. Indeed, given the toll that football takes even on big-time college players who hope to, but don't make it to the pros, for them the cost-benefit analysis is a very clear loser. Nonetheless, people clearly DO IN FACT make the judgment that it is worth playing football, so there would have to be a strong element of paternalism in a move to ban football.

Which brings me to Michael Livingston's suggestion that my nomination to the Supreme Court could be derailed by the ad "Dorf Would Ban Football." All I can say to that is: My Giants will whup your Eagles!

michael a. livingston said...

But my (our) Phillies will whup your Yankees . . . and undoubtedly be purchased by them in the offseason!

Calvin TerBeek said...

Is it such a "clear loser"? Many people who play D-1 (excuse me, FBS) and even D2 and D3 (or whatever they're calling that now) say they wouldn't give up the experience for anything--and only about 1% of these players, if that, have even a legitimate *chance* of making an NFL roster. As Kyle Turley said in the article, he loves football so much he do it all over again even w/ the health consequences he now faces. Perhaps it is a clear loser economically, but that's not the only reason why people play football.

狗熊克星 said...




smallawei said...





gaohui said...


برامج said...

of-course no its just need to be saver

Coach Bags & Chanel Handbags said...


cheap wow gold
Tera gold
Tera account
Tera gold
Runescape gold

chengnuo said...



soolo said...

Football won't be banned, however it could possibly be produced safer. An notion I've noticed will be to alter the substitution rules, requiring some avid gamers to hold out the two offense and defense. to the reason that this would emphasize endurance and versatility, much less people these times inside the area will be specialized human being effect inflicting machines.

cambridge satchel
cambridge satchel bags
cambridge leather satchel
cambridge satchel company bag
the cambridge satchel