Would you let your son play football?

[EricFeczko]

Focusing soley on CTE is part of the problem here. Large epidimiological studies (such as the ones cited in this article) have shown that concussions, which induce a loss of consciousness, are a risk factor for dementia, and playing football increases the risk of such concussions. The problem with CTE is that the disorder is difficult to dissociate from other forms of dementia.
 
It is also important to note that dementia typically occurs much later in life, regardless of the type of dementia. While it is possible (and has happened) that a child would develop a dementia, it is extremely unlikely. Therefore, in terms of risk factors we are generally talking about a very protracted effect.

 

[Was (Not Wasdin)]

This is an extraordinary reasonable way to handle it and I commend you for it. Other than tossing the ball around outside with me, my boys (11 and 9) haven't shown any interest in playing. I am so thankful for that because I don't think I would be as reasonable as you. I'm about the furthest thing from a helicopter dad as there is. Climb the trees as high as you want, take the really difficult hiking trails, go jumping off the rocks into the quarry. But I think the combination of the injury risk and the physical aggression toward other human beings, makes me not want them to play football.

 
FWIW, we said no to our older son.  He wanted to play his freshman year, and we told him that if he spent the summer getting in better physical shape he could play.  He didn't, and so we told him no.  He doesn't take it seriously enough, and the younger one does.  He understands that it is a physical sport, and is pretty focused when he is on the field.  The older one isn't (not entirely his fault, but I don't care) so we didn't let him play.  I hate to say no when a kid wants to play a sport, but he was not physically or mentally prepared.  

 

[catomatic]

No, No and Yes. My son is only six and based on his general constitution and love for Soccer/Baseball I don't foresee this being a real issue for us, but, after reading this Gladwell piece, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play it became clear to me that the sub-concussive events that occur on nearly every play have an equally dangerous, cumulative effect to the actual and more dramatic concussions.
 
This is why football is so much worse than hockey. I've played hockey my entire life and yes, I've had a few (at least two) concussions along the way, but I'm not using my head as a battering ram on every play, nor is my head colliding with the glass on every play. I honestly don't think the sports are comparable in this way at all.
 
I know that the Boogaard situation (and that crazy summer of enforcer deaths) was an eye opener but there were a lot of other factors in the demise of those men, too. I don't mean to minimize the Savards or the Lindros' but for the average NHL player, it's a much safer game than the NFL. In Gladwell's piece the impacts measured for college linemen on every play were on the order of a car collision—sub-concussive, yes, but in the long run, extremely damaging. My son won't play football while I have anything to say about it, but if his love of skating continues to develop and he decides he wants to play competitive Ice Hockey, I'll be more than fine with it.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

I said yes, but I will need to have a very good feeling about the coaches before my son participates. I think EE's point's about the huge impact that the discipline and camaraderie that comes from a sport like football can have on the development of a young is very valid. But it takes good coaches with perspective and true care for the kids, rather than themselves, to really gain that benefit. I had both types of coaches as a kid, and I would rather he didn't play my favorite sport than have him exposed to the wrong kind of football coach. For some reason, football coaches seem to always have an outsized level of influence in young men's lives, and I need to know that he is being exposed and influenced by the right type of person. 
 
As for the health risk
 

 
 
This is why football is so much worse than hockey. I've played hockey my entire life and yes, I've had a few (at least two) concussions along the way, but I'm not using my head as a battering ram on every play, nor is my head colliding with the glass on every play. I honestly don't think the sports are comparable in this way at all.
 
I know that the Boogaard situation (and that crazy summer of enforcer deaths) was an eye opener but there were a lot of other factors in the demise of those men, too. I don't mean to minimize the Savards or the Lindros' but for the average NHL player, it's a much safer game than the NFL. In Gladwell's piece the impacts measured for college linemen on every play were on the order of a car collision—sub-concussive, yes, but in the long run, extremely damaging. My son won't play football while I have anything to say about it, but if his love of skating continues to develop and he decides he wants to play competitive Ice Hockey, I'll be more than fine with it.

 
I am familiar with the Gladwell article, and he makes a powerful argument, but I don't think we have the info we need to make definitive comparisons of risk between sports. We are all still working off of our own personal experience sample and anecdotes based on very few people at the absolute peak of the sport. My brother played incredibly low level professional hockey until he was 22 and high school and youth football and would disagree strongly that hockey (both inline and ice) is fundamentally safer than football. He was concussed multiple times in Hockey, and wrecked an ankle playing hockey where as six years of football left him unscathed. The sample size of his hockey experience, both in line and ice, is much greater than his time on the football field, but I think that the risks of properly coached football are comparable to hockey. 

 

[catomatic]

I said yes, but I will need to have a very good feeling about the coaches before my son participates. I think EE's point's about the huge impact that the discipline and camaraderie that comes from a sport like football can have on the development of a young is very valid. But it takes good coaches with perspective and true care for the kids, rather than themselves, to really gain that benefit. I had both types of coaches as a kid, and I would rather he didn't play my favorite sport than have him exposed to the wrong kind of football coach. For some reason, football coaches seem to always have an outsized level of influence in young men's lives, and I need to know that he is being exposed and influenced by the right type of person. 
 
As for the health risk
 
 
I am familiar with the Gladwell article, and he makes a powerful argument, but I don't think we have the info we need to make definitive comparisons of risk between sports. We are all still working off of our own personal experience sample and anecdotes based on very few people at the absolute peak of the sport. My brother played incredibly low level professional hockey until he was 22 and high school and youth football and would disagree strongly that hockey (both inline and ice) is fundamentally safer than football. He was concussed multiple times in Hockey, and wrecked an ankle playing hockey where as six years of football left him unscathed. The sample size of his hockey experience, both in line and ice, is much greater than his time on the football field, but I think that the risks of properly coached football are comparable to hockey. 

I'll agree with virtually everything about the coaching/social/emotional aspects but the hockey-football equivalency still seems very off to me. The point Gladwell was trying to make is that "unscathed" is not something you can really determine. As I said, I've had my share of concussions, I've lost consciousness on the ice twice, in fact. But what I took from Gladwell is that being on the line, or taking a lick to the helmet every time I carried/caught the ball is a higher rate of knocks to the head and a pretty high probability of taking the crown of a helmet to the side of my head—where you're particularly vulnerable to brain injury. Events like those are happening to somebody somewhere in the game of football on every single play. Not so in hockey.

 

[crystalline]

It seems likely that genetic risk factors impact whether or not you will get CTE.  Note that many many football players, who have taken many head hits, do not get CTE.  Some of that variation is likely random chance, but if you put me up against a wall I'd bet we'll find genetic risk factors.  
Right now we don't know what those genetic risk factors are, so it is functionally random chance.  But not every football player will get CTE.
 
That said, there's NO WAY I'd allow a son of mine to play football if I can convince them not to.  

 

[Devizier]

It seems likely that genetic risk factors impact whether or not you will get CTE.  Note that many many football players, who have taken many head hits, do not get CTE.  Some of that variation is likely random chance, but if you put me up against a wall I'd bet we'll find genetic risk factors.  
Right now we don't know what those genetic risk factors are, so it is functionally random chance.  But not every football player will get CTE.
 
That said, there's NO WAY I'd allow a son of mine to play football if I can convince them not to.  

 
Well, that applies to lung cancer, too. But the fact remains that not smoking is the best health decision you can ever make.
 
I would argue that we won't be able to fully understand the risks involved in football for a long time.

 

[brandonchristensen]

My oldest is a ginger. He will make a good mascot. Or a mascots assistant.

 

[crystalline]

This is about the most blatant sellout of a doctor that I have ever seen. Talk about one's opinions being influenced by where one's salary comes from.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/05/12/brigham-nabel-calls-nfl-commit-more-money-medical-research/CbAH76AuVMoHeRF7w3DZYL/story.html

Brigham president and NFL medical consultant says football is getting safer all the time and she would let her sons play football.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

Researchers are having much more difficulty obtaining grant money now than ever before and the NFL's money supports a lot of research and employs a lot of people. Who would you rather that money come from, the NFL or the US Government (who, quite frankly, doesn't have the money to pay for it)?

 

[Devizier]

The U.S. government issues on the order of 28 or so odd billion dollars for medical research. Yes, funding is tight, because the budget hasn't increased over inflation in quite a while, but there's no one in that stratosphere. Hughes comes closest and they're at roughly one billion, last I checked.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

That's fine but it's not my point: better to spend the NFL's money than the taxpayers'. And investigators are having much trouble obtaining federal grant money. If you think otherwise, you're wrong.

 

[Devizier]

Everyone is having trouble getting NIH money.

But to address your specific point, it never helps your credibility to have a conflict of interest.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

OK, but there's no such thing as free money and research benefits tremendously from the NFL's money.

 

[GoJeff!]

No way. I'm not even doing touch football just to minimize interest in real football when they are older. Honestly, I have trouble seeing widespread participation in tackle football lasting another generation.

 

[Reverend]

OK, but there's no such thing as free money and research benefits tremendously from the NFL's money.

 
As Oil Can... Somethingorother posted in another thread, people really overestimate how much money the NFL actually brings in in revenue each year.
 
NFL money is a drop in the bucket, produces warped but high profile results, and spends the money in ways that benefits a small minority of the people it employs and may even likely bring harm to the majority (i.e. the players) in addition to countless others.
 
I'd rather they gave nothing.

 

[EricFeczko]

 
As Oil Can... Somethingorother posted in another thread, people really overestimate how much money the NFL actually brings in in revenue each year.
 
NFL money is a drop in the bucket, produces warped but high profile results, and spends the money in ways that benefits a small minority of the people it employs and may even likely bring harm to the majority (i.e. the players) in addition to countless others.
 
I'd rather they gave nothing.

This is getting away from the discussion itself, but the advantage the NFL provides is not money. The advantage of the NFL is that one can longitudinally measure a population of people who develop concussive histories over time.

The NFL could promote a program that encourages NFL players to participate in publicly-funded research, which would greatly benefit the research and lead to better grants submitted to the NIH (due to better resources for recruitment), One can put in place strict criteria to ensure that PHI is maintained and any data would be de-identified prior to sharing.

 

[Reverend]

This is getting away from the discussion itself, but the advantage the NFL provides is not money. The advantage of the NFL is that one can longitudinally measure a population of people who develop concussive histories over time.

The NFL could promote a program that encourages NFL players to participate in publicly-funded research, which would greatly benefit the research and lead to better grants submitted to the NIH (due to better resources for recruitment), One can put in place strict criteria to ensure that PHI is maintained and any data would be de-identified prior to sharing.

 
Sure--if they're willing to. Which raises the issue of: Who is "They"?

 

[EricFeczko]

 
Sure--if they're willing to. Which raises the issue of: Who is "They"?

I actually think huge 100 million dollar projects are a really bad idea. Unless one has a very specific purpose that can only be done through a huge expense of money (e.g. mapping the human genome, landing on the moon), most of these large scale grants end up producing less than what is originally proposed. Furthermore, the heart of empirical research is replication. You can't replicate studies if you put all your eggs in one basket (e.g. Harvard). I'm glad the NFL didn't sign off on it.

Instead, it looks like they are doing some of what I expect. Smaller NIH-NFL grant awards with clear established goals that are given to multiple independent labs. I hope that a second stage would be to devise an imaging consortium that would pool the de-identified data together and release it for public analysis.
 
As an aside, I find it disgustingly elitist that some would consider pulling funding (e.g. the NFLPA or NFL) because NIH wouldn't fund a grant that would only improve the health of NFL players. The whole point of understanding CTE is to help prevent, diagnose, and treat anyone with CTE, which would clearly benefit NFL players.

 

[OCST]

 
As Oil Can... Somethingorother posted in another thread, people really overestimate how much money the NFL actually brings in in revenue each year.
 
NFL money is a drop in the bucket, produces warped but high profile results, and spends the money in ways that benefits a small minority of the people it employs and may even likely bring harm to the majority (i.e. the players) in addition to countless others.
 
I'd rather they gave nothing.

hi handsome. Haven't we met ?

 

[crystalline]

This is getting away from the discussion itself, but the advantage the NFL provides is not money. The advantage of the NFL is that one can longitudinally measure a population of people who develop concussive histories over time.

This could be done in college football players too.

 

[In my lifetime]

Disclosure - High School coach and father of 5, 3 boys who played HS football, 2 college football and 1 college lacrosse. All 3 were recruited by D3 or Ivies and went to much better colleges as a result. I am also a physician.

Football today is much different then even 5 years ago. I coach for a very competitive football program in a state where football is not life -- CT. Practice is now about drills, teaching, form tackling and blocking, strategy and repetition of plays. There is no 100% live scrimmaging. As a result, we have 0, 1 or 2 concussions per year in practice for a varsity program of 60 players. And none of those are concussions have been anything more than low grade. This compares to 5 years ago where the number would have been 10 and 10 years ago where the number would have been 30.

In games, there are an additional 5-6 concussions per season in my estimation. Of course, this is harder to control but not impossible. I am a firm believer that every time a helmet is the initial point of contact that a flag should be thrown. Unfortunately, these hits are flagged about 20% of the time in our league. Also, unfortunately I think among coaches I am in the minority, albeit growing minority, that this should consistently draw a flag (and yes it is in the rules). Why flag it? And isn't it unavoidable sometimes. Many times a flag is thrown regarding helmet to helmet contact, I hear -- the player was going down and it couldn't be avoided. Really? Then why are you hitting a player who is going down and certainly why are you hitting him in the head. In addition, intent is immaterial except that in the very rare instance whan a player truly intends to hit another above the neck, and in that case they should be tossed.

So we have come a long way way --- but there is still a long way to go.

On the positives of football. My 3 sons would tell you that of everything they have done in their lives up to this point (all under 25 and unmarried) football has been the most demanding, but most rewarding thing they have ever done. It teaches a level of commitment that is rare in today's society. It requires hard work for many hours with a reward that is 99.9% realized only by the participant and his teammates. The dedication required far exceeds the external rewards. This is invaluable to young men as they enter their productive professional portion of their lives. Players typically leave football with 20 or so lifelong friends.

A well coached football team is a family and teaches important family values and like a family provides both lifelong friends and a support system. Ask any employer who is given the choice between hiring 2 identical candidates, one a dedicated athlete and especially football player vs. the general population, they would choose the football player because of the ability to work as a member of a team.

So for the 70% who won't allow your children to play football, you mean well and are trying to be good parents, but you are robbing them of a tremendous opportunity to reach their potential. Instead get involved and work with people who are involved coaching your children to make sure they properly protect every athlete. It goes far beyond proper equipment and extends to teaching safe fundamental skills in a controlled environment.

 

[crystalline]

On the positives of football. My 3 sons would tell you that of everything they have done in their lives up to this point (all under 25 and unmarried) football has been the most demanding, but most rewarding thing they have ever done. It teaches a level of commitment that is rare in today's society. It requires hard work for many hours with a reward that is 99.9% realized only by the participant and his teammates. The dedication required far exceeds the external rewards. This is invaluable to young men as they enter their productive professional portion of their lives. Players typically leave football with 20 or so lifelong friends.

A well coached football team is a family and teaches important family values and like a family provides both lifelong friends and a support system.

I think the core question is:
Can they get this same experience in another team sport with lower risk of brain injury?

There are valuable lessons taught by a kid's commitment to a team, and by their commitment to improving their athletic ability through hard work and focus in a sport. Does that sport have to be football?

 

[Reverend]

hi handsome. Haven't we met ?

 
You know I love you for your mind--I remembered what you said, right?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

My answers would be "yes-yes", with no change in attitude.
 
Growing up is dangerous. There are a lot of things designed to hurt or maim you (mostly, cars and bicycles). I assume the fear is mainly around brain damage, because High School wrestling is a more dangerous sport - combining training/execution that's designed to punish young muscles, ligaments and bones with regimes that are designed to have teenagers starve themselves beyond anything reasonable. Still, trauma to the head is relatively rare.
 
Kids are going to have head trauma throughout their adolescence. They're going to get into fist fights. They're going to run into trees. They're going to fall down stairs. I guess the problem with football is its emphasis on head butting - even with protective helmets (which probably and ironically make things worse).
 
I'd hope that coaches keep an eye on these things (stated by others), but as a parent - I'd want to be personally involved without being a school marm. I'd like to see how my kid is being coached and how he's being hit (or doing the hitting). I'd attend some practices. I'd attend games.
 
If I had fear of brain trauma, I'd try to instigate my own controls as an alternative to simply forbidding the activity. I'd learn everything I could about concussions, their outwards signs, testing, and even the necessity for scans. 
 
If my kid wanted to play a violent sport, it's their choice. It would be my responsibility to monitor the situation and determine if their long-term well being was unduly impacted.
 
Or I'd tell them not to join the Marines.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Fascinating thread and thoughtful responses. Thanks everyone.

I votes yes/yes/no change but that's only because if my son (almost five) really really wanted to play and I fot food vibes from the coach, I would say yes (mother would still need to be convinced) so I guess technically that's a yes but I would really try to steer him elsewhere.

Of course I'll probably have to refer back to this thread or start a new one in a couple of years.