The Moral Status of Football

The Morality of Football

• ‘I offer a three-pronged attack on the ethical acceptability of American football, both amateur and professional, based on
• (1) harm to the players,
• (2) objectification of the players, and
• (3) harm to others done by the players,
• leading to the conclusion that the sport, as currently constituted, is morally unacceptable.’

The Harm in Football

• In the video Malcolm Gladwell discusses point (1) the harm to the players and point the (3) the harm to others done by the players.
• Lets start with (1).
• The suggestion is that football is a very dangerous sport. And ‘dangerous’ in the sense of Russell – of it posing a significant risk to basic human capacities.
• ‘According to one survey of NFL retirees, almost half said they suffered from “severe pain” as a result of playing in the league, and chronic pain can be a risk factor for depression and suicide.’

​

Brain Injuries

But more than pain and injuries to the body, the major concern is brain injuries. In particular ‘chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a deformation of the brain, evident upon autopsy, caused by sustaining repeated concussive blows to the head.’

‘The repeated brain trauma triggers progressive degeneration of the brain tissue, including the build-up of an abnormal protein called tau. The brain degeneration is associated with common symptoms of CTE, including memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment, impulse control problems, aggression, depression, suicidality, parkinsonism, and eventually progressive dementia.’

​

​

​

​

Brain Injuries

Evidence is still coming in, but it’s clear that there is a great risk of CTE from all levels of football.

“The evidence is strong. In a 2017 study, all but one of 111 deceased former NFL players who donated their brains for research had evidence of CTE. Among former college players, 48 out of 53 showed the signs, as did three of 14 who played only in high school.”

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/24/concussions-nfl-football-brain-trauma/)

​

​

​

​

The Harm Principle

• In previous classes we talked about the Harm principle -- the idea that we should only interfere with the decisions of competent, consenting adults if they are harming others.
• Someone might use this principle to suggest that there is nothing wrong with football. Sure, it’s dangerous, but the players are consenting, and who are we to stop them.
• Responses to this:
• (1) Maybe we should still stop kids from playing.
• (2) Can players properly consent given we don’t have all the information about brain injuries.
• (3) Slavery Analogy.

The Slavery Analogy

• Mill accepts that there are some limits to the harm principle. The idea is that we should allow for as much liberty as possible up until you start to harm others.
• But should you have the freedom to sell yourself into slavery? Mill thinks the answer is no – because if you sell yourself into slavery you will no longer have freedom, and so freedom is maximized by not allowing you to sell yourself into slavery.
• Sailors thinks that similar reasoning applies to football. If you get serious brain injury, then you lose your ability to make free choices. So, we maximize freedom by not allowing people to play football.

The Slavery Analogy

Of course, football doesn’t guarantee that you’ll lose your ability to make free choices. But Sailors thinks that its likely:

‘More recently, brain tissue tested after the death of 128 former players, who had participated at the professional, college, or high school level, showed evidence of CTE in 101 cases (Breslow 2014). That’s a 79% rate of occurrence. Even the N.F.L.’s own actuaries, who have a vested interest in downplaying the number as much as possible, have publically stated that they expect 28% of all players to be affected by brain trauma to the extent that they should be compensated by the league.’

Is this a good argument? Do we really maximize freedom by not letting people play football?

​

​

​

The Plantation Problem

Let’s consider the second objection Sailors has to football. The focus is on the way in which players are exploited.

She applies it mainly to college football, but also to the NFL.

​

​

The Plantation Problem

The concern is that huge amounts of money are made using the work of, predominantly black, athletes. But they don’t get a cut of that – or at least they didn’t previously.

‘In 2010, Auburn University’s quarterback, Cam Newton, was the subject of an investigation by the NCAA on suspicion of soliciting payment in return for his athletic services. While evidence of making any money at all would have gotten him suspended, during that season, he ‘wore at least 15 corporate logos – one on his jersey, four on his helmet visor, one on each wristband, one on his pants, six on his shoes, and one on the headband he wears under his helmet – as part of Auburn’s $10.6 million deal with Under Armor’

We will talk about these issues more and how the rules have changed in later classes.

The Plantation Problem

One response: College athletes are paid – in room and board and education.

But is this justification to prevent them being paid any more?

Do they really get an education?

Why the big difference between the ‘pay’ of athletes and of coaches?

.

Objectification in the NFL

• ’Former professional lineman, Keith McCants, reported undergoing 29 surgeries, most self-financed, for injuries related to football. McCants speaks bluntly of his objectification, saying, ‘I thought I joined an organization, the NFL, that would take care of its own. Turns out the minute you can’t perform anymore, the NFL abandons you. They know there are a hundred fresh young men ready to fall for the same thing’ and ‘They treat us like horses.... When one breaks down, just bring in another animal. And the worst part is, we let them do it’ (Easterbrook 2013, 259–261).’

What is the best defense on behalf of football? Presumably it’s to do with the consent of the players. Does consent make everything morally acceptable?

The Culture of Football

• Sailors’ third objection is to do with the culture of the game leading to players doing harm.
• ‘By its very nature, football emphasizes and values aggression and violence, both traits that are linked with masculinity.’
• ’In addition to competitiveness, aggression, violence, and winning, the characteristics of the masculinity celebrated in this view include a troubling attitude of superiority to women (Sabo and Panepinto 1990, 115). Because locker rooms, playing fields, and training rooms are all-male territories, women manage to be visible in the football environment only in supporting roles, like cheerleaders, WAGS (wives and girlfriends), and fans.’

​

Violence

• ‘Messner has argued that success in aggressive sports, like football, requires a loss of empathy for opponents, and points to studies that suggest that ‘male athletes who learn to accept that their participation in sports will routinely result in injuries to others are more likely to engage in physical aggression outside of the sport context’’
• ‘After running background checks on all football players on the top 25 teams in the 2010 preseason poll, Sports Illustrated and CBS News issued a report showing that 204 players had criminal records. ‘Nearly 40 percent of the alleged incidents were serious offenses, including 56 violent crimes (assault and battery, domestic violence, sexual assault and robbery)’’

​

​

Violence

• Though does football in fact provide an outlet for violent behavior – reducing it overall?
• And what are other explanations for the fact that football players have criminal records at a higher rate? Perhaps injustices in policing?
• We continue discussing these issues in the next few classes.