The Future of Football: NYTimes Links Big Tobacco with NFL Concussion Study

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
It's completely over dramatic. I think this is like tobacco in the 70's, in that people "knew" it was bad for them, while the science continued to back this up over time. It's not news that pro football players live shorter lives. That's literally been known for a decade. Who is surprised by this CTE, concussion, or dementia news? I feel like these were known quantities.

But we're not killing the players. The players, making the decision to play the game for a variety of reasons, including fame and wealth, are killing the players. Football is a risk, but it's also a way for some players to make a tremendous living, a living that would unlikely to be replicated in any other field. And this is why some players make a lot of money in 5-8 years and then pack it in. Calvin Johnson being the latest example.

This is about where I am - the specifics are different, but its been pretty well known for a long time that professional football players live short lives - these guys enter into this career knowing that - and knowing that if they're really good, its going to provide them with life altering money - for possibly multiple generations of their family. There are plenty of folks out there willing to make that sacrifice, and plenty of people who do it for way less money.

I've got much more of a problem with the NCAA graduating these kids (the ones who aren't good enough) with degrees in basket weaving than I do with the NFL

I have a hard time having much sympathy for the plight of NFL players - especially on things like healthcare, pensions, etc - they've consistently fought putting money aside for any purpose - its always about maximizing current salaries, and almost always about maximizing the salaries of the top few earners in the league, and with the salary cap, that comes at the expense of everyone else. They're incredibly short-sighted (and the fact that guys retire at about 33 doesn't help that, I'm sure) .


I had a neighbor as a kid - was about 6'3 300 in 7th grade- went to BC on a full ride - got drafted in the 7th I believe - spent 3 or 4 years floating around in NFL Europe, practice squads, and a season or two on the 46-53 part of the roster for a couple NFL teams. Never was on an active roster. I think he made somewhere around $1M over the course of his 3-4 year career, which clearly isn't enough to live the rest of your life on, but is a pretty damn substantial chunk to start your adult life with. He's an accountant now (IIRC), and makes less money than I do, but lives a whole lot better, because he never had a mortgage, never had college loans, never had car payments. He'll probably save as much in interest as he made (vs your normal life path). Even just a couple years in the NFL is life-altering money
 

awallstein

New Member
Nov 17, 2014
101
Pertinent empirical inquirires:

Are there players who will come up well short with regard to their NFL aspirations who will nonetheless suffer lasting debilitation resulting from High School, College football experience?

If so, would the disappearance (or diminishment) of the NFL prevent this impact?


A Yes to both of the above gets us an awful lot closer to the slave gladiator pit, or at least to DDB’s Russian Roulette analogy.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,429
It's more than just compassion or empathy. At least the point I'm trying to make is. The question is whether you're actually part of the cause, or at least a significant part.

I get that some people think that's a ridiculous sentiment, and/or that it is simply empirically untrue. That's a fine debate, and one at least on this board I appear to be losing (although the truth is I'm not actually staking out that position yet, just trying to discuss it to see if it fits).

But that's different from saying, "even if I was part of the cause, I wouldn't give a shit because I like football." Maybe you're also saying that. And I guess that's ok too -- it's a personal decision and I'm not judging. At least not yet. But cognitive dissonance is a mother fucker, so I try to at least ask myself the right questions.
Ok, so...this is fine too.

Word it however you want. I don't give a shit about it. I mean, I'd love for concussions to be eradicated from the game, as long as it doesn't effect the game I enjoy watching. I also will be redirecting my kids away from football when the time comes. But the idea that I should waste even a minute of my time on something like this doesn't work for me. I have a full time job and a career path that needs a lot of focus. I have a wonderful wife. I have a kid (with number two due in a few months) that I enjoy providing a lot of attention to. I have a mortgage and bills to pay. I have an awesome family - both on my side and my wife's side - that I try to dedicate time to. I have the daily grind to take care of (yard work, house work, gym, cooking, cleaning, blah blah blah).

I'm sure a lot of that rings true for quite a few of us around here. For me, I have enough shit in my life that getting a distraction from the grind with something like football works for me. I know I enjoy it, so I don't care if it fucks with other people. They're not my problem. My wife, kid, family, friends are my problem. If my kids end up playing a sport like football where concussions are a problem, I will certainly be paying closer attention, but nothing I do between now and that point - barring rededicating my life to the cause, which ain't fucking happening - mean much of anything.

It's why I get what SF121 is kind of saying. I have no tie to football other then "Have beers, watch my team, enjoy the game". The fact he derives so much of his time/attention/career from it adds a more complicated layer.

To me, all this stuff just blends into the background at some point. If you replaced a "No more concussions!" sign with "A Political Revolution is Coming" or "Make America Great again" sign, it would look the exact same to me. Trump, concussions, Sanders, DeflateGate, Brussels all replaced Spygate, San Bernardino, Clinton email servers all replaced the Boston Marathon Bombing, Bruce Jenner, Duke lacrosse all replaced...

I just don't fucking care. Or maybe I do care, just not enough to have it pervade my thoughts or actions (like watching football). Call it shortsighted, selfish, cognitive dissonance - although I think I've been pretty consistent about this - or whatever you want. I guess my libertarianism spreads from politics to other parts of my life too. I care about my little circle in life. The rest can fuck right off.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
I'm kind of in both camps on this issue. At this point (and arguably for the last decade or so), these guys know exactly what they are getting themselves into, and they are choosing to be okay with it because of the potential for fame and fortune. Therefore, I'm totally comfortable with myself for watching a sport that I love to watch, knowing that some of these guys will have lifelong, debilitating injuries as a result of it.

I also think the NFL is a fucking wasteland of disgusting human beings who have purposely lied, concealed, and ignored all of this information and kept it from their employees for a very long time. I hope they get their asses sued and lose billions and billions of dollars, and that the NFL implodes at some point (after B&B retire).
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Yeah, I'm guessing your body has built up quite an immunity to aspirin, Jim. Really is remarkable how dumb some of these owners are.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
I can't find it after a bit of searching, but there was an article in Sports Illustrated, I think as far back as the early nineties, where they memorably said if you wanted to simulate what it was like being a football player at home, go into your driveway and fifty times a day, every single day, run head-first into the garage door from different angles and at different speeds and from different distances.

That really stuck with me and I have not been nearly as big of a football fan ever since. If anyone remembers the article I mean and can find it, I'd love to see it again.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,582
South Boston
The price is right, bitch. His post was absolutely fantastic.
It was stupid.

soxfan121 wasn't complaining about people not giving up watching football. He was complaining about the people who are so shocked and horrified at the state of the game that they feel morally compelled to tell us that they feel morally compelled to give it all up . . . but right after Brady and Belichick retire.

He's right. It's a position that is the worst of all worlds.

The bit about watching the Patriots being analogous to cigarette, drug, and alcohol dependence was pretty special, too.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
I can't find it after a bit of searching, but there was an article in Sports Illustrated, I think as far back as the early nineties, where they memorably said if you wanted to simulate what it was like being a football player at home, go into your driveway and fifty times a day, every single day, run head-first into the garage door from different angles and at different speeds and from different distances.

That really stuck with me and I have not been nearly as big of a football fan ever since. If anyone remembers the article I mean and can find it, I'd love to see it again.
I remember that article, too. It was discussed widely on talk shows of the time. The public take away was that the players are brave, deserve our respect and that they play a tough sport. Not much was actually done in response to it as I recall.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Pertinent empirical inquirires:

Are there players who will come up well short with regard to their NFL aspirations who will nonetheless suffer lasting debilitation resulting from High School, College football experience?

If so, would the disappearance (or diminishment) of the NFL prevent this impact?


A Yes to both of the above gets us an awful lot closer to the slave gladiator pit, or at least to DDB’s Russian Roulette analogy.
Of course there's no way to know for sure what causes an individual's brain injuries, but Pete Frates played football as well as baseball, and another example is Alabama's Kerry Goode.

Former Alabama running back Kerry Goode announced on Facebook Tuesday morning that he has been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) — also known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

ALS is a neurodegenerative disease that, according to the ALS Association website, affects the nerve cells that control a person's muscles.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Yeah, I'm guessing your body has built up quite an immunity to aspirin, Jim. Really is remarkable how dumb some of these owners are.
Go with what you know. In this case it's pills. Lots of pills.
 

williams_482

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 1, 2011
391
It was stupid.

soxfan121 wasn't complaining about people not giving up watching football. He was complaining about the people who are so shocked and horrified at the state of the game that they feel morally compelled to tell us that they feel morally compelled to give it all up . . . but right after Brady and Belichick retire.

He's right. It's a position that is the worst of all worlds.

The bit about watching the Patriots being analogous to cigarette, drug, and alcohol dependence was pretty special, too.
Is it morally wrong to make a decision based off of morals and other factors?

Personally, I think there is a pretty good chance that I will stop watching football once the Patriots stop being good. If I had been raised in a part of the country where the local team sucked, I don't think I would have gotten into football in the first place.

This is not because I will suddenly "see the light" once watching games becomes less fun, or abruptly decide that now is the moment when I should follow my moral principles. It is because that is the point at which my distaste for watching people get hurt will finally overwhelm the enjoyment I get out of all the other parts of the game. I doubt I am alone in this respect.

I'd probably be a better person if I found the brutality of NFL football so unpleasant that even winning football was unpleasant to watch. Perhaps more so if I were strong enough to say "this game is awful" and walk away in spite of how much fun it is. If the fact that I don't and I haven't makes me a shitty human being, then I begrudgingly accept my place.
 

DaDudeAbides

Euthyphro
Jul 31, 2015
7
"Is it morally wrong to make a decision based off of morals and other factors?"

"Personally, I think there is a pretty good chance that I will stop watching football once the Patriots stop being good. If I had been raised in a part of the country where the local team sucked, I don't think I would have gotten into football in the first place."

Their point is that you are not actually making a morally based decision, because if you were, context wouldn't matter. Football either goes against your moral code or it doesn't. Stopping when your team is no longer good has nothing to do with morals, it just shows that you're a fair weather fan. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but there is something wrong with refusing to admit it under the guise of a moral code.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
That's great for a black and white moral universe. I hope we can agree that the NFL, like most things, falls in a spectrum of gray. And in a world where there is room for things that are between "perfectly moral" and "perfectly immoral", or perhaps where (like KFP) you don't view professional sports in moral terms at all, there is probably also room for judgment calls on when you've had enough, what circumstances become a tipping point for you, and when you're prepared to give up something to which you have an emotional attachment.

Fair-weather fan is an epithet people use to condescend to others who are unwilling to watch a losing team. Maybe throwing it around makes you feel better about your own fandom, I don't know. On a site full of sports fanatics who watched the Red Sox in the early 90s and in 2012, one which gathers NFL fans who faithfully follow the Redskins, Raiders and Browns, it probably rings a little hollow. But if you think the plans some people have here to stop watching when they can no longer marvel at the greatness of Belichick and Brady have to do solely with not wanting to watch a losing team (when everything about Kraft's history suggests the team will probably continue to win, though perhaps not as spectacularly), rather than it being a natural breakpoint for their emotional attachment, well, I think you're not seeing the whole story.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,622
That's great for a black and white moral universe. I hope we can agree that the NFL, like most things, falls in a spectrum of gray. And in a world where there is room for things that are between "perfectly moral" and "perfectly immoral", or perhaps where (like KFP) you don't view professional sports in moral terms at all, there is probably also room for judgment calls on when you've had enough, what circumstances become a tipping point for you, and when you're prepared to give up something to which you have an emotional attachment.

Fair-weather fan is an epithet people use to condescend to others who are unwilling to watch a losing team. Maybe throwing it around makes you feel better about your own fandom, I don't know. On a site full of sports fanatics who watched the Red Sox in the early 90s and in 2012, one which gathers NFL fans who faithfully follow the Redskins, Raiders and Browns, it probably rings a little hollow. But if you think the plans some people have here to stop watching when they can no longer marvel at the greatness of Belichick and Brady have to do solely with not wanting to watch a losing team (when everything about Kraft's history suggests the team will probably continue to win, though perhaps not as spectacularly), rather than it being a natural breakpoint for their emotional attachment, well, I think you're not seeing the whole story.

Being a band wagon fan isn't a bad thing. It's the denial I find amusing. This caring about player safety once Brady retires is truly ingenious.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
It is not being a band wagon fan to say that your fanship for the NFL (and to a lesser degree the Patriots) has waned but that your fanship for Brady and Belichick remains. I liken giving up on football once Brady/Belichick retire to not renewing your subscription once the contract runs out.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,966
Boston, MA
Being a band wagon fan isn't a bad thing. It's the denial I find amusing. This caring about player safety once Brady retires is truly ingenious.
It's not either or. As a fan of football, my interest in watching the brilliance of Brady/Bellichick outweighs my discomfort with a game that results in its main participants being impaired for life. However, the mafia-like running of the league, and the utter disregard by the game's stewards for player safety (Jerry Jones, Jim Irsay, Roger Goodell, etc) leaves me looking for a convenient out. Brady's/Billichick's retirement is that out.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
Being a band wagon fan isn't a bad thing. It's the denial I find amusing. This caring about player safety once Brady retires is truly ingenious.
Speaking only for myself:
  • Do I care about NFL player safety? Yeah, sure, a little. In the abstract. Nobody likes watching injuries or hearing about suicides.
  • Do I care about players having all the medical information necessary to make an informed decision about risks and reward? Moderately. There are ~1700 players in the NFL. In 1965, 42% of US adults smoked tobacco. Today it's ~15%. I'm not sure I can equate the two to any meaningful degree.
  • Do I care about all the HS and College players who are never going to make a dime from football, sacrificing their brains and bodies to no meaningful end other than "Teamwork" and "school spirit"? Yeah, a decent amount actually. There's a big-based pyramid for every entertainment profession, I guess, but nobody's misleading and injuring all the failed standup comics out there.

    However:

  • Do I care about the lack of consistent officiating in the NFL making a mockery of the notion of fair competition? HELL yes, as a fan seeking entertainment.
  • Do I care about a proliferation of commercials and paid placements and miserable lowest-common-denominator announcing that make the game nigh-unwatchable? HELl yes, as a fan seeking entertainment.
  • Do I care about the NFL being casually permissive of domestic violence, HGH use, painkiller addiction and other drugs? HELL yes.
  • Do I care about the NFL avoiding helping ex-players avoid bankruptcy and destitution, and fighting tooth-and-nail against even minor shit like paying cheerleaders minimum wages? Yeah, absolutely.
  • Do I care about the NFL being petty and vindictive in a way that deprives my team of a level competitive playing field due solely to incompetence and ego on the part of league management and ownership? HELL yes, it saps my enjoyment of a competition no less than players throwing the game for gamblers would.
But sure, it's a bandwagon thing.
 

DaDudeAbides

Euthyphro
Jul 31, 2015
7
I can't tell you what your morals are, but from your actions (watching NFL games), one would conclude that grown men playing football is acceptable to you, otherwise you wouldn't watch it.

There are plenty of amoral people playing and running the league and some of their actions distress me more than they should, but I find nothing immoral in regards to adults willingly playing a professional sport and being paid to do so. I think KFP (making my assumptions based on basic libertarian views) and I both view sports in moral terms and that's why we can enjoy it without feeling any guilt. NFL players are adults who can make their own decisions and risk assessments and because those decisions don't negatively impact others it would go against our moral code to push our personal beliefs on them regardless of how altruistic our beliefs may be.

People have limited time so I personally don't view being a fair weather fan with negative connotations, so my apologies if you thought I was insulting you. I don't like the NBA, but I like the Celtics and watch them more often when they're winning so I consider myself a fair weather fan. With that said, please reread your quote below and tell me again how I'm throwing the term around to make myself feel better rather than calling somebody out for trying to take a moral highroad that doesn't exist.

"Personally, I think there is a pretty good chance that I will stop watching football once the Patriots stop being good. If I had been raised in a part of the country where the local team sucked, I don't think I would have gotten into football in the first place."

Essentially it sounds like you're not a football fan, due to the degree of violence, but the fact that you were part of a community that had a perennial winning football team, that dislike was dwarfed by positive feelings and memories, which you suspect won't be the case when they're no longer perennial winners. That's like saying you're morally against murder, but when I offer you $100 million to kill somebody, you do it. Murder was never against your moral code, but before you got paid to do it, the cons outweighed the pros. Morals, by definition, aren't as flexible as you want them to be.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
This is absurd

The National Football League is demanding The New York Times retract an article published last week about the league's research into concussions among pro football players.

In a letter that was sent to the Times' legal counsel Monday and obtained by POLITICO, an attorney for the NFL, Brad S. Karp, called the story "false and defamatory" and issued a "demand that the story immediately be retracted."

In a line that seemed to threaten the possibility of further legal action, he wrote: "We also request that the Times's reporters and editors who worked on this story preserve their notes, correspondence, emails, recordings and work papers and all other electronic and hard copy documents generated or received in connection with their work."

In an exhaustive front-page story on March 25, journalists Alan Schwarz, Walt Bogdanich and Jacqueline Williams reported that the NFL's concussion research was flawed, likening the league's "handling of its health crisis to that of the tobacco industry, which was notorious for using questionable science to play down the dangers of cigarettes."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sports editor Jason Stallman said the Times sees "no reason to retract anything."

In a statement to POLITICO, Stallman said, "Our reporting showed that more than 100 such concussions — including some sustained by star players — were not included in the [NFL's] data set, resulting in inaccurate findings." He also noted that a co-owner of the New York Giants has direct ties to the tobacco industry and that "the N.F.L. and the tobacco industry shared lobbyists, lawyers and consultants."

The NFL attorney argued in his letter that the Times piece was based on a "grand total of five pieces of circumstantial evidence, none of which—taken together or individually—comes close to establishing any meaningful 'tie' that reasonably can form the basis of the Times's knowingly false and incendiary charge."

Asked whether the NFL would sue if its demand for a retraction is not met, Lockhart said, "We won't prejudge the reaction of The New York Times. We make a strong argument for a retraction, one we expect to them to take seriously."

High-profile investigative pieces like this one tend to invite intense push-back.

Last year, a Times exposé on the treatment of New York nail salon employees brought angry protesters to the paper's headquarters on Eighth Avenue in Manhattan. And after its investigation into the workplace culture of Amazon, company spokesman Jay Carneyposted a rebuttal on the publishing platform Medium, to which executive editor Dean Baquet responded in his own point-by-point Medium post.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/03/8595089/nfl-demands-retraction-times-article-player-concussions
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
This is sort of a textbook example of how threads can devolve into people talking past each other. Context matters when dealing with what any particular person said.

I floated the proposition that maybe we are complicit in players hurting themselves and that we, the fans, now have the information to be aware that our continued support is causing serious brain injury. It was in that context that SF121 made his point. Effectively, that if that's one's position, waiting until Brady retires is cowardly and reflective of some moral deficiencies. I think that's surely correct, if one accepts my premise.

But the thread made it clear that many do not buy my premise, and instead have some discomfort about player injuries and the NFL (in general and its shitty behavior on this specific issue) but don't think our support as fans is killing players. If that's your position, then it's not exactly morally repugnant to say your discomfort has you to the point where there's not really going to be a good reason for you to keep watching once this generational player and coach are out of the game.

But these are two different points and premises, and some are trying to engage one point using the others' premise to criticize, and so we're all talking past each other.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,966
Boston, MA
It's amazing what would happen if the NFL took to the Wells Report the level of scrutiny it has taken to the NY Times article. Just take the NFL lawyer's quote: "[the Times took a] grand total of five pieces of circumstantial evidence, none of which—taken together or individually—comes close to establishing any meaningful 'tie' that reasonably can form the basis of the Times's knowingly false and incendiary charge." and apply it to whether or not Tom Brady was involved in a scheme to deflate footballs. It's an utter joke that the Brady litigation exists.

As the Price is Wrong noted above in post 521: I too "care about the NFL being petty and vindictive in a way that deprives my team of a level competitive playing field due solely to incompetence and ego on the part of league management and ownership."
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
DDB,

I see it this way. Our continued support as fans contributes to NFL players' brain injuries about as much as our continued existence as taxpaying Americans contributes to the US government's programs of extraordinary rendition and torture. Yes, in theory our funds support it, but in reality there are many layers of decisionmaking between us and the people deciding to do or not do the damaging thing, and we have no authority to change the way it's done. Our moral culpability is orders-of-magnitude less than the people who are in a position to dictate what happens and how it happens. To my way of thinking, the NFL's intransigence in the face of evidence, and their continued casual disregard for the well-being of their players, is mere additional grist for the mill of why watching their product makes me uncomfortable. I've articulated various other reasons above, so I won't reiterate them, but I consider this to be just one of several issues weighing on my fandom, not a single overriding issue.

Now, I suppose if it was the National Gladiator League and people were being literally murdered on-screen for my entertainment... well, let me explore that hypothetical for a second. I'm confronted with bloody corpses on my TV, throngs of cheering crowds full of bloodlust. Is my stomach turned? Do I think of the families of those who died for "the glory of the game"? Of the futures wasted? To what end does this spectacle bring me any joy, or prove admirable athletic qualities? I would, frankly, probably be too disgusted to watch. So with the NFL, is it really just slow-motion murder? The murder happens behind the scenes, if at all. Is it inevitable, or just occasional and unpredictable? Every game we watch, are half the participants being 1% murdered? What's my threshold for being so disgusted that it becomes a moral thing for me? That's an interesting question to which I have no idea the answer.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
I see it this way. Our continued support as fans contributes to NFL players' brain injuries about as much as our continued existence as taxpaying Americans contributes to the US government's programs of extraordinary rendition and torture.
Seems to be the general consensus. As I said, I'm not sure I agree, but I'm still thinking about it and I don't think your position is unreasonable.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
The NFL wants a retraction for an erroneous report (or so they claim)? They're adorable. DFG aside, it appears that they're going to try to continue to pull a Trump and bully this concussion story away through the use of threat of legal action. I, too, would welcome a shitshow trial on this subject. The concussion discussion isn't going away so it's funny watching them to continue to try to sweep it under the rug.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
I think KFP (making my assumptions based on basic libertarian views) and I both view sports in moral terms and that's why we can enjoy it without feeling any guilt. NFL players are adults who can make their own decisions and risk assessments and because those decisions don't negatively impact others it would go against our moral code to push our personal beliefs on them regardless of how altruistic our beliefs may be.
Do people really think of watching sports in moral terms? (I'm more of a "huiman drama of athletic competition" kind of guy.) And I'm not sure what any of this has to do with pushing any personal beliefs on players, either. When I stop enjoying it -- or when the enjoyment of watching is outweighed by something else -- I'll stop. (I already listen to more football on radio than I used to if its still daylight and the weather is nice.) I think all this morality stuff is BS.

[DDB] floated the proposition that maybe we are complicit in players hurting themselves and that we, the fans, now have the information to be aware that our continued support is causing serious brain injury. It was in that context that SF121 made his point. Effectively, that if that's one's position, waiting until Brady retires is cowardly and reflective of some moral deficiencies. I think that's surely correct, if one accepts my premise.
I think its possible to agree with the premise (which I think is close to undeniable; if everybody just said "not gonna watch, listen, bet, etc." the NFL would have a problem.) without being considered morally deficient if the end of the BB/TB era marks the end of serious fandom. People get into watching sports for a million different reasons. Interest wanes for a million different reasons. Ranking those reasons -- or the weight people give to them -- on some sort of morality scale seems a little heavy-handed. It's pretty close, IMO, to ranking who the "real" fans are.

I listend to a lot of Ted Nugent in high school. Now, if he comes on the radio, I reflexively change the station. But I'll still watch Midnight Cowboy or Deliverance even though Jon Voight is in them. And I usually mutter "miss it, scumbag" when I see Tiger Woods lining up a putt on TV. I don't recall any inner debate over any of these positions.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
Will NFL follow up this demand by suing NY Times for libel?
What the NFL maybe is playing for here is some kind of face saving that allows them to claim victory. They have to know this story probably received extensive editorial scrutiny, and so the chances of a retraction are probably low, but maybe what they will get is that the Times publishes some sort of rebuttal to the NFL's rebuttal, which allows the NFL to pick out a sentence here or there and claim victory. "See, they admit it's circumstantial."

But if they don't get that, I think they pretty much have to go through with a lawsuit now that this is public. Or at least they really have to think hard about it. To not sue now will be cast as an admission. I think ten years ago, suing would have been unthinkable. But now, I'm not sure it's a bad move for the NFL.

The problem with taking on an entity like the Times in a defamation case for investigative reporting in a prior era was that it would be the equivalent of waiving a red flag in front of a bull. Journalists can be petty and competitive and there are a lot of hacks out there, but one thing I think they always take as close to religion is rallying the troops to not be bullied by meritless claims of defamation. Suing the NYT for a piece like this could generally be expected to pit yourself against the entire press, or a large segment of it -- a pretty stupid thing for a media-dependent organization to do. But the NFL in 2016 doesn't have these concerns so much. They have embedded reporters. They have an embedded network. They have a decade or more of 24 hour news coverage where the big lie works and even ludicrous or harmful counter-points are given equal footing to fill those 24 hours.

The other downside is losing. But they can spin that, especially given the embedded reporting. And losing takes time. In the meantime, they get to point to their lawsuit as evidence of their conviction that the Times is full of shit. And that buys them time for more spin.

Plus, they gain something very significant, which is what I think this is really all about. A lawsuit is a warning shot across the bow. This is a message to the Times and anyone else that if they keep digging into this issue and criticizing the NFL, a well-funded and cohesive behemoth is going to bring its full weight down on them. The Times can take it. Others? Not so much. If they sue, it's either because they really do have some evidence catching the NYT in a naked lie, or because they are trying to chill further reporting on this issue.

Edit: Libel is the cause of action, of course -- not defamation.
 
Last edited:

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Plus, they gain something very significant, which is what I think this is really all about. A lawsuit is a warning shot across the bow. This is a message to the Times and anyone else that if they keep digging into this issue and criticizing the NFL, a well-funded and cohesive behemoth is going to bring its full weight down on them. The Times can take it. Others? Not so much. If they sue, it's either because they really do have some evidence catching the NYT in a naked lie, or because they are trying to chill further reporting on this issue.
I agree with all your points, especially this one. You're also right on that the NFL isn't very scared because they have their own propaganda machine: embedded network, embedded reporters, the ability to put out whatever message they want, unchallenged, and repeat it until the public believes it.

But I also think taking on the Times is a bad choice, on balance. The Times is just the kind of organization to fight a lawsuit hard. And I think a lawsuit will keep concussions/tobacco in the news, just enough, even with the NFL's spin.

I think an NFL owner's best move is to issue a denial, file no suit, really really hope that the concussion settlement is upheld, and try to exit their business at peak value. Or at least sell 49% to investors to cash out now. If that settlement is overturned, the NFL is screwed. They will never get another deal even close to that good from the players. Over the past 9 months the genie has come much further out of the bottle. Without that settlement in place, the NFL faces existential legal risk. Even with it, they face existential reputational risk. But I don't think NFL owners want to exit, so you'll see increasingly futile and ridiculous efforts to spin away the risk of concussion.

Too bad we can't claw back Goodell's salary after the league implodes over the next few decades. Getting $40M per year to preside over a short term bubble inflation seems just like the kind of moral hazard that American society should discourage.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
This is just another PR move by the NFL. Threatening THE NEW YORK TIMES will convince a sufficient number of people that the NFL hasn;t done anything wrong to keep the NFL in clover. When the victim of a smear campaign goes public, the knuckle-dragging response is "Well, why didn't you sue?" *That's* the audience this move assuages. Not the audience that looks at facts.
The NFL wont sue the Times because it doesn't have to.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
This is just another PR move by the NFL. Threatening THE NEW YORK TIMES will convince a sufficient number of people that the NFL hasn;t done anything wrong to keep the NFL in clover. When the victim of a smear campaign goes public, the knuckle-dragging response is "Well, why didn't you sue?" *That's* the audience this move assuages. Not the audience that looks at facts.
The NFL wont sue the Times because it doesn't have to.
But if you threaten to sue, and the NYT doesn't back down, do you think the threat alone is enough? I know fuck all about PR, but it seems to me it completely cuts in the opposite direction -- the "why didn't you sue" folks still have the same question.

And actually, though it may be antiquated, I'm kind of in the camp that thinks when a story comes up to not sue, at least in some cases, is an admission -- especially if the entity is well funded and can afford it. Maybe they say, "actual malice is too tough." But now that the NFL has drawn this line in the sand, if they don't sue, my working assumption would be that every last word in the NYT article is true.
 

williams_482

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 1, 2011
391
Essentially it sounds like you're not a football fan, due to the degree of violence, but the fact that you were part of a community that had a perennial winning football team, that dislike was dwarfed by positive feelings and memories, which you suspect won't be the case when they're no longer perennial winners. That's like saying you're morally against murder, but when I offer you $100 million to kill somebody, you do it. Murder was never against your moral code, but before you got paid to do it, the cons outweighed the pros. Morals, by definition, aren't as flexible as you want them to be.
It would seem that by this definition, it is impossible to knowingly commit an immoral act, on the basis that carrying out that act means it must not have been against your moral code.

This seems to be an exceptionally narrow definition. Can a person only truly consider themselves morally opposed to murder if there is literally no circumstance under all possible scenarios, however extravagantly improbable, where they would be willing to kill another person in cold blood?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
The NFL won't sue the Times. The article states a few innocuous facts, then indulges in innuendo to smear the subject of the article. It's the sort of shitty journalism that I normally expect from Rupert Murdoch's tabloids, but it's not actionable.

The conventional wisdom in public relations is that a smear that isn't forcefully and immediately rebutted is generally accepted as true by the public. I assume that's why the NFL hit back hard against the allegation that they were in kahoots with the tobacoo industry. That decision to hit back probably gave the article more attention than it otherwise would have received, but they surely anticipated that and presumably decided it was a price worth paying. Continuing the pissing match in court isn't needed from a PR perspective and will only serve to draw more attention to the article, even leaving aside the lack of a meritorious reason to sue (which isn't always enough to stop would-be plaintiffs from filing libel complaints, especially if they see a benefit in chilling other coverage).
 
Last edited:

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Michael McCann ‏@McCannSportsLaw 15m15 minutes ago
Michael McCann Retweeted Stephanie Haberman

Will NFL follow up this demand by suing NY Times for libel? Would love to see what's revealed in pretrial discovery.


Please file a libel suit NFL.... I want to see what comes out in discovery
It would be absolute legal malpractice to sue the NY Times for libel in this case. Therefore, I expect this to happen.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
Seems to be the general consensus. As I said, I'm not sure I agree, but I'm still thinking about it and I don't think your position is unreasonable.
Likewise, I don't think taking a strong moral stance against an inherently violent sport that ruines lives is unreasonable either. My father, as I said, gave up boxing for such reasons, and doesn't watch football for such reasons. I get it. People can make different calculations about where they come down on how to weight it all; that's why I objected so strongly to SF121's blanket characterization.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
But if you threaten to sue, and the NYT doesn't back down, do you think the threat alone is enough? I know fuck all about PR, but it seems to me it completely cuts in the opposite direction -- the "why didn't you sue" folks still have the same question.

And actually, though it may be antiquated, I'm kind of in the camp that thinks when a story comes up to not sue, at least in some cases, is an admission -- especially if the entity is well funded and can afford it. Maybe they say, "actual malice is too tough." But now that the NFL has drawn this line in the sand, if they don't sue, my working assumption would be that every last word in the NYT article is true.
Possibly. But you may be in the minority in ever believing that "every last word" in a NYT article could *ever* be true. And I think the NFL (Lockhart) is capitalizing on that.

I think here that the NFL's response gets alot of free media attention saying the words "the Times was wrong" (something plenty of people are readily willing to believe) over and over. There's enough interested parties for whom that's enough to never think of the issue again. (and, to be precise, did the NFL explicitly threaten a lawsuit if the article wasn't retracted?). It reminds me a little of the "did GW Bush *really* serve?" debacle. The CBS/Dan Rather Letter ended the issue as far as the public and media at large was concerned. It's different because the Rather Letter was a real thing. But as far as the facts were concerned, the service issue was still in dispute. Here, whatever shortcomings the NYT story has, the issue is still real; but as I said, I think the NFL PR salvo will shut it down (at least this small corner of the "concussion debate") in the minds of a lot of people.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
I can't tell you what your morals are, but from your actions (watching NFL games), one would conclude that grown men playing football is acceptable to you, otherwise you wouldn't watch it.

There are plenty of amoral people playing and running the league and some of their actions distress me more than they should, but I find nothing immoral in regards to adults willingly playing a professional sport and being paid to do so. I think KFP (making my assumptions based on basic libertarian views) and I both view sports in moral terms and that's why we can enjoy it without feeling any guilt. NFL players are adults who can make their own decisions and risk assessments and because those decisions don't negatively impact others it would go against our moral code to push our personal beliefs on them regardless of how altruistic our beliefs may be.

People have limited time so I personally don't view being a fair weather fan with negative connotations, so my apologies if you thought I was insulting you. I don't like the NBA, but I like the Celtics and watch them more often when they're winning so I consider myself a fair weather fan. With that said, please reread your quote below and tell me again how I'm throwing the term around to make myself feel better rather than calling somebody out for trying to take a moral highroad that doesn't exist.

"Personally, I think there is a pretty good chance that I will stop watching football once the Patriots stop being good. If I had been raised in a part of the country where the local team sucked, I don't think I would have gotten into football in the first place."

Essentially it sounds like you're not a football fan, due to the degree of violence, but the fact that you were part of a community that had a perennial winning football team, that dislike was dwarfed by positive feelings and memories, which you suspect won't be the case when they're no longer perennial winners. That's like saying you're morally against murder, but when I offer you $100 million to kill somebody, you do it. Murder was never against your moral code, but before you got paid to do it, the cons outweighed the pros. Morals, by definition, aren't as flexible as you want them to be.
You know, then, what morality is? By definition? Such that you can explain it to us?

My word! Surely, DaDudeAbides, most people do not know where the right lies; for I fancy it is not everyone who can rightly do what you are doing, but only one who is already very far advanced in wisdom.
 

DaDudeAbides

Euthyphro
Jul 31, 2015
7
Well in my opinion an immoral act is all about perspective. Some people oppose gay marriage and view it as immoral, but the homosexuals getting married don't see it that way. So typically an immoral act is an act committed by one individual/group and labeled immoral by another.

Rev, I appreciate the snark, but if you think NFL football is acceptable (i.e. moral) to watch when the Patriots are 12-4, I don't see the morality in no longer watching because they're 4-12. Maybe your moral development is indirectly correlated to the Patriots winning percentage? Otherwise I'd assume the enjoyment you get from watching a losing team isn't worth your time, which would be more logical.
 

awallstein

New Member
Nov 17, 2014
101
Does football contribute more total misery to the universe, or total flourishing? This is the ultimate moral calculus, and none of us can be entirely certain of the answer.

Since I suspect it results in more harm than good, I'd like to give it up. However, I'm choosing to wait until my own personal pleasure can be expected to diminish. This individual (non-concerted) disengagement will have a significantly more pronounced effect on my own pleasure than on the total universal balance.

If this makes me a moral monster, so be it. But I'd suggest such an indictment involves far too clear a conception of "moral", or a far too capacious understanding of "monster", or both.
 

DaDudeAbides

Euthyphro
Jul 31, 2015
7
Personally, I think there is a pretty good chance that I will stop watching football once the Patriots stop being good. If I had been raised in a part of the country where the local team sucked, I don't think I would have gotten into football in the first place.
I'm not sure what stipulates "stop being good" so I just inverted last season's record as 4-12 would definitely not be good. And again, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think it falls under taking a moral stand either. I think I'm just hung up on the "I'll stop watching the NFL when the Patriots are no longer good... for moral reasons" as obviously the posters make a lot of good points in regards to the issues with the sport and especially with the league. So I'll assume I'm just an idiot arguing semantics and this will be my last post on the subject to avoid further adding to the noise.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
You know, then, what morality is?
So that's where we're at now, Rev? You blow through for a little quickie? A little, wham bam thank you m'am (or sir), drop a little Socrates on the masses, and then you're like leaves in the wind?

Guess it's better than nothin'.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
So that's where we're at now, Rev? You blow through for a little quickie? A little, wham bam thank you m'am (or sir), drop a little Socrates on the masses, and then you're like leaves in the wind?

Guess it's better than nothin'.
I like you and all, but this post is a disgrace. Leaves in the wind?

Dust. Wind. Dude.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
Wow, the NY Times piece really got under the NFL's skin.

This is one of those situations where they're likely better off just ignoring it - Streisand Effect and all - but the big bad bully NFL can't possibly do that. I'd bet that a majority of people think that the NFL obviously tried to hide or at least delay findings of links between football, head trauma, and after effects. You're not going to make that sentiment go away. You're only going to make things worse.