Originally Posted by
Joel
Again: Dementia pugilistica is so common in boxing that BOXING IS IN ITS NAME, and has been since the condition was first clinically diagnosed nearly a century ago (ironically, at the very time the infant NFL was formed.) As to why boxing continues to exist anyway, I'm sure part of it's due to the money made off boxing, but part of it has to do with the legal principle of Assumption of Risk continually (if indirectly) referenced in this thread: When people give their INFORMED consent to an action, the likely consequences are their responsibility because they knew before hand that those consequences WERE likely.
That's what's gotten the NFL, like tobacco companies before it, into a big legal bind: Both went out of their way to not only deny but actively discredit severe medical consequences newly presented to the general public but well known by the businesses for decades. I'm a one-sport guy, so can't speak to hockey, but do find it implausible that medical consequences known to pro boxing since the '20s and to pro football since the '50s remain completely unknown by pro hockey.
GEM was not the first to raise the point about the effects of all this on youth football, and thus on the future of pro football since youth football IS its future. I'd already referenced in this thread, but also wasn't the first to "discover" it either: It's been a growing issue for a while as more parents become aware of CTE and thus refuse to sign injury waivers, which is well documented. Continuing the previous analogy, young boxers are a much smaller percentage of the population than a century ago, and modern America doesn't collectively hang on every exploit of Holyfield and the rest as their fathers and grandfathers did the careers of Joe Louis nor even Ali.
Going forward, I expect football, as boxing and smoking before it, to be legally treated as something whose FUTURE participants are presumed aware of its serious health risks because, while FORMERLY concealed, they are NOW widely known. The NFL certainly seems to hope so: That's why it offered 10% of its annual revenue (i.e. BEFORE (other) expenses) in a one-time settlement with all past and present players to make the problem go away. The NFLPA accepted that settlement and (after rejecting a previous figure as too small to cover total medical costs) so did the presiding judge, so that should be that, and future players will be on their own, but knowingly.
I also expect that to impact the quantity and quality of American athletes playing football at each level, just as the number of new boxers and smokers is steadily falling.
To your final questions: No, this is not a small subset of NFL players, even if the specimens at the NFL "brain trust" overrepresent victims, and I'm honestly unsure of the proper ethical response as a fan. I increasingly lean toward the view that the PROPER ethical response is clear, and I'm merely reluctant to accept it because pro football has been such a central part of my life practically since birth. I can say it's as no worse than boxing as long as all players know the risks, but I've personally always said that I refuse to watch cockfights, bear baiting, boxing and all other blood sports, so that wouldn't really change my particular ethical duty.