The death of football

[naum]

It always struck me as odd that European soccer nations feature a much more capitalist sports ownership and organizational structure whereas American sports franchises are rife with socialism -- from stadium subsidies to NFL model of revenue sharing that guarantees teams turn a profit before even the first game of the season is staged.

[ghost]

It always struck me as odd that European soccer nations feature a much more capitalist sports ownership and organizational structure whereas American sports franchises are rife with socialism -- from stadium subsidies to NFL model of revenue sharing that guarantees teams turn a profit before even the first game of the season is staged.

We've got to fucking ban this shit soon.   

I always knew that baseball was a commie plot.

[Segoris]

In Australian Rules Football recently they have been trying to get on top of this by putting a few new rules in place, limiting certain types of tackling, and making it so that any played that is concussed is not allowed to return to the field of play for that game. T

They tried having a similar rule in the NFL, the Steelers and a couple other teams found a way around it where someone didn't have a concussion - they have "concussion like symptoms" and were able to play if they still wanted or were needed to.

As for rugby as an alternative - I'd be fine watching some rugby - in the NFL's offseason. It isn't enough of a replacement imo.

[Chimpy]

Fuck if we had Super Rugby quality play inaleague in the US I would drop watching the NFL in a heartbeat. No more three hours to watch a game simply because they want to try and sell me more lite beer I will never buy in a billion zilion years.

[Segoris]

I'm sure the peaceful time without the advertisements and pandering for ratings would last a long time after a move to the US too

[Speedy Cerviche]

It always struck me as odd that European soccer nations feature a much more capitalist sports ownership and organizational structure whereas American sports franchises are rife with socialism -- from stadium subsidies to NFL model of revenue sharing that guarantees teams turn a profit before even the first game of the season is staged.

Cuz European soccer doesn't have competition, it's just miles ahead of potential rival sports like Hockey, Rugby, etc. So there's no impetus to change it. It's pretty terrible the way in the national premier leagues, only 1-4 teams actually have any kind of shot at winning and everyone else is just happy to be there. In North America you have 4 major pro sport leagues, and a bunch of other credible rivals (nascar, boxing, college football, college basketball, MMA, MLS). There is very fierce competition for sports viewers, and leagues work to achieve a basic parity in competition for maximum fan retention. Some of course do this better than others, but basically everyone recognizes it's not healthy to just have a handful of teams dominating from start to finish every year.

[HaemishM]

UEFA is ostensibly TRYING to fix some of those disparities in the Premier/Top Tier leagues with their Financial Fair Play rules. It's just very very bad at legislating anything that doesn't line the pockets of its existing cartel, just like FIFA.

[Speedy Cerviche]

IMO the endgame in Europe will be the formation of a new super league that more closely resembles a North American league. The super teams will leave their national leagues and just play other super teams all year. A lot more money in Man U. vs. Barcelona matches than Man U. vs Wigan. The super teams just have really outgrown their national leagues, and are now loaded to the brim with international band wagon fans/huge TV followings.

[HaemishM]

Basically, the Champions League only a full season of it?

I think the Wigans of the world would wither and die should that happen, though I guess the survival of the Dag & Reds of the world would seem to indicate otherwise. It would certainly kill the Premier Leagues as global brands though. The BPL without Man U. would be a pale shell of its former self, and the SPL without the Old Firms wouldn't last a year.

[Ginaz]

Basically, the Champions League only a full season of it?

I think the Wigans of the world would wither and die should that happen, though I guess the survival of the Dag & Reds of the world would seem to indicate otherwise. It would certainly kill the Premier Leagues as global brands though. The BPL without Man U. would be a pale shell of its former self, and the SPL without the Old Firms wouldn't last a year.

I bit off topic, and not that I know jack or squat about soccer, but from what I've heard, a big problem with the EPL is that it lacks a lot of actual British players.  They seem to "import" most of their star players from other countries while it seems to other nations top leagues still primarily consist of home grown players.  Maybe thats why England hasn't done well in competitions like the World Cup.

Ok, back to not caring about soccer again.

[HaemishM]

Actually, that's partially true. The other problem is that there are almost no English star players who play internationally, so the England national team really only consists of guys who play each other.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Basically, the Champions League only a full season of it?

I think the Wigans of the world would wither and die should that happen, though I guess the survival of the Dag & Reds of the world would seem to indicate otherwise. It would certainly kill the Premier Leagues as global brands though. The BPL without Man U. would be a pale shell of its former self, and the SPL without the Old Firms wouldn't last a year.

Yeah it would kill the premier leagues themselves as global brand, but their brand is being propped up by the appeal of the super clubs anyways. People in China, USA and Africa are tuning in to watch Man U, not Wigan, and those revenues are subsidizing the latter. The owners of these clubs have crunched those numbers, they know how much they are leaving on the table, follow the money and a move to an all-year champion league seems inevitable, especially when some of these super clubs are publicly traded entities who have profit obligations to their shareholders.

The premier leagues would have less prominence after this sure sure but I think would still do fine.  A lot of fans would probably appreciate their leagues becoming more local, and less monetized, thus more accessable. In North America we see this with the popularity of college/high school sports in the US, and junior hockey in Canada. Cheap tickets, local kids, something the local community really is a part of. At the end of the day, some bloke in Blackburn just wants to put on his colours, have some beers and watch his town's soccer team on Saturday, what does he care if the league is a 4$ billion operation or 500 million? he might even appreciate it more if his team actually had a reasonable chance to win someday.

[caladein]

Strictly speaking, some bloke in Blackburn probably wants to put on his colors, have some beers, and murder the entire side judging by the end of this Blackburn/Wigan game.

[naum]

Yeah it would kill the premier leagues themselves as global brand, but their brand is being propped up by the appeal of the super clubs anyways. People in China, USA and Africa are tuning in to watch Man U, not Wigan, and those revenues are subsidizing the latter. The owners of these clubs have crunched those numbers, they know how much they are leaving on the table, follow the money and a move to an all-year champion league seems inevitable, especially when some of these super clubs are publicly traded entities who have profit obligations to their shareholders.

The premier leagues would have less prominence after this sure sure but I think would still do fine.  A lot of fans would probably appreciate their leagues becoming more local, and less monetized, thus more accessable. In North America we see this with the popularity of college/high school sports in the US, and junior hockey in Canada. Cheap tickets, local kids, something the local community really is a part of. At the end of the day, some bloke in Blackburn just wants to put on his colours, have some beers and watch his town's soccer team on Saturday, what does he care if the league is a 4$ billion operation or 500 million? he might even appreciate it more if his team actually had a reasonable chance to win someday.

But again, they can do this because the clubs there are bigger than the leagues. Their allegiance is to their fans and shareholders, not the EPL (or Bundesliga, La Liga, etc.) overlords.

And if worldwide fans clamor for a super-league, they can set it up. The "national" leagues don't have to go away, it'll be just tier-2, or can serve as a "qualifying round" (lesser tier) for teams to fed into such a super-league, similar to how Champions League works now. Just another node on top of the existing hierarchical pyramid.

It's a state that is unfathomable to most American sports fans were franchises are entirely subservient to the league. But it wasn't always that way -- up until the 1950s, baseball worked that way -- the "minor" leagues were not "farm" clubs for major league teams, they were "minor" only in the sense they were in smaller venues and paid less for talent.

But it's not something that's going to change in U.S., as professional sports are inextricably linked now with infusion of government resources.

[Khaldun]

Maybe if Junior Seau is found to have evidence of CTE it'll be the straw to the camel's back. I doubt it.

[Nebu]

Maybe if Junior Seau is found to have evidence of CTE it'll be the straw to the camel's back. I doubt it.

Yeah... then they will end boxing, MMA, and rugby too.  It's blood sport and people enjoy watching it.  Same as it ever was. 

[Paelos]

Maybe if Junior Seau is found to have evidence of CTE it'll be the straw to the camel's back. I doubt it.

Yeah... then they will end boxing, MMA, and rugby too.  It's blood sport and people enjoy watching it.  Same as it ever was. 

They will make efforts to put safety gear as a higher priority though. How many hockey players were losing eyes or brain function before mandatory helmet changes? How successful was MMA before they added in the new rules? The NFL is going to have to make some major changes in their helmets and padding rules. The tech is out there, it's just that all players don't want to wear it.

[Nebu]

Do you have any idea how hard it is to play football at a high level while also wearing safety gear?  Even if they require the gear, players will shortcut and dodge the rules to maintain whatever edge they need to keep their job on the field.  All Seau has shown is that football is a dangerous sport and we need to ensure that players know exactly what they're getting into up front.  The best that we can hope for is better medical treatment of players, better retirement plans (with healthcare), and harsh penalties for teams and owners that force players back on the field too quickly. 

[Segoris]

I think it's Brandon Marshall and London Fletcher who are doing some of the best things for players and the issues at hand. The former is speaking out against the stigmas surrounding mental health issues, the latter is advocating for the league to form mandatory counseling sessions for players leaving the game to help transition into post-NFL life. Will this prevent head injuries? No, but I'd guess that, with the exception of rule changes that significantly change the game, these suggestions will do more for players health than most other suggestions when they finally catch on (Marshall's suggestions will catch on faster, but I do hope Fletcher's catch on quickly).

As for knowing what players are getting into - at this point they know. Pretty much any report I've seen in the last few months about players commenting on head injuries all say the same thing - players knew what they were getting into and would make the same choice to do it again given the chance. What Seau taught others is that drastic life style changes away from such an emotional game that takes a heavy toll on your mind and body for anywhere between 10-30 years of people between the ages of 10 and 40 is tough to transition and there's more to think about than most realize.

[Paelos]

Do you have any idea how hard it is to play football at a high level while also wearing safety gear?  Even if they require the gear, players will shortcut and dodge the rules to maintain whatever edge they need to keep their job on the field.  All Seau has shown is that football is a dangerous sport and we need to ensure that players know exactly what they're getting into up front.  The best that we can hope for is better medical treatment of players, better retirement plans (with healthcare), and harsh penalties for teams and owners that force players back on the field too quickly. 

The players that shortcut the rules get suspensions and lose game checks. Show an unwillingness to get with the program, and there will be actions against the teams in addition to the players. Hit them in the wallets, and the owners as well. I don't give a shit if it's hard, or takes away an edge. If you don't that and actually take the fact that we know these players are on HGH seriously, we are literally a person dying on the field away from Congress stepping in like they did for baseball.

[Merusk]

Frank Deford introduced a new elephant in the room this morning. 

High School and Junior Football.

We're spending a lot of time debating the head injuries of professionals and beginning to consider semi-pros (Because face it that's what College is) while ignoring this is systemic and inherent in the sport.   As such, when is the first investigation into those junior leagues going to happen and what is it going to find?

[Segoris]

IMO, I wouldn't call that an elephant in the room but rather a rant with some merit to be considered. The 'numbers' he states seem greatly bloated, good thing he only calls them estimates, but does not state who is estimating or what they're estimating based on. Especially since the risks are exponentially lower for the lower level of play.

Another thing I have a problem with, he's trying to lay blame on the NFL for what happens in leagues below the NFL level. Are they responsible? I don't think they should be, since even back 20+ years ago when I first started my interest and involvement of football, a lot of these risks were known but people still chose to play, even with parental consent (which is the level where I think the lawsuits will lose a good amount of their merit if the low level leagues start taking a pro-active approach though IANAL of course). I think those leagues should be responsible for taking a pro-active stance on warning of risks, but the NFL would be smart to provide assistance and statistical research for those lower level leagues.

[Paelos]

The NFL is responsible for it's use of performance enhancing substances, and balking at testing for them. That kind of behavior does have a trickle down effect when you're trying to make it into the big league.

[ghost]

That's what the article from Grantland that I posted in the thread starter was all about.  It's just a matter of time until some state gets sued or some little league organization gets sued.  Football could be sitting in a dramatically different landscape in 20 years. 

[caladein]

Especially since the risks are exponentially lower for the lower level of play.

The impact speeds may be lower but there are a number of factors that make football at the amateur level more dangerous in my understanding.  A few immediate ones are: younger/developing brains are more vulnerable to damage, advances in safety technology may be cost-prohibitive at the lower levels, and education/diagnosis/monitoring is a lot less likely to be be done by a trained professional.

Also that impact speeds below which obvious symptoms develop may be just as dangerous long-term.

[Nebu]

The biggest problem at the lower levels is the lack of proper medical supervision.  If you're a star player, the coach will invariably leave the decision of playing to the player.  Most coaches have the "gut it out" mentality and transfer this onto the minds of impressionable kids.  High school ball is getting faster each year but the equipment and medical care haven't even come close to keeping pace.  The money just isn't there to support it. 

[ghost]

You also have these 300 pound monsters that go on to play D1 college ball that are going up against kids much smaller and much less athletic in high school ball.  There's a greater discrepancy in the ability/size of the athletes.

[Segoris]

I can agree with the issue of the younger/developing brains and lack of on-hand medical staff.

If technology is cost-prohibitive the kids don't play. It's in their rules that certain pads/equipment must be worn. So cost-prohibitive isn't really the issue of being dangerous, it's the issue of being one of the minimum barriers of entry into the game.

As for education/diagnosis/monitoring - in the pre-high school level, lack of diagnosis and monitoring is an issue, but that is the level where hits are the weakest and I'd almost bet there are more concussions on playgrounds than on the field at that age.

Once players reach high school levels, I don't think I've seen a game without a trainer medical professional on sight (and many schools even have a professional available during practices in a trainer's office), these were usually interns or local doctors, but I also think that there are a large amount of high schools that don't have this luxury. However, with proper education and training to both lower level refs and coaches this issue can be reduced greatly. One thing to note - at highschool and lower leagues, there is a bigger concern on spinal injuries than head injuries due to players not being in the habit of keeping their heads up when they tackle (which also reduces hits to the top of the helmet and keep them on the facemask). That issue is still scarier to me than head injuries at the lower levels.

The NFL is responsible for it's use of performance enhancing substances, and balking at testing for them. That kind of behavior does have a trickle down effect when you're trying to make it into the big league.

That is a whole other issue imo. Trickle down of bad influences (such as using the substances) shouldn't be blamed on the NFL, balking at testing for them should be though.

[Paelos]

If the ticket to getting the big NFL money is requires taking banned substances, and the NFL doesn't test for them, then yes, they are responsible in my book.

[Segoris]

That isn't the ticket though. The NFL isn't shoving substances into kids' systems, and many players (afaik the majority) make successful NFL careers without illegal substances so it isn't required.

Also, to say that an end goal (the NFL) is responsible for people who are dreaming of being in the NFL one day using illegal substances, then where does that responsibilty start and end for other professions who have any risk of bodily or mental harm? If a kid practicing to be a chef, who then ends up cutting off a finger practicing knife cuts, is the chef the kid dreamed of being like responsible? If that same kid used coke to practice (who doesn't know a kitchen worker that uses coke?) and then cuts off a finger while high, or even overdoses, is the end goal (chef the kid aspires to be like) responsible? If a little league baseball player is beaned in the head (while he's even wearing a helmet) and is paralyzed, is the MLB responsible? If that pitcher who threw the ball was using illegal substances, now is the MLB responsible? They may sound like stupid comparisons, but why should this mentality only apply to the NFL?

Edit: clarity and adding more to the comparisons

[Paelos]

It applies to anybody who is trying to break into a unionized labor force. If certain illegal activites are required to perform at that level, then yes, they are responsible for people trying to attain that level using those methods.

To me it's a bright red line that you can draw at any unionized force. If, for example, traffic controllers were unofficially required to take amphetamines to stay awake for longer shifts at the top Airports, and they earned a million a year to do this, then I would say the union is at fault for not better policing their members and alo for encouraging illegal standardized practices at other non-affiliated airports to break into their union.

The key here is that the NFL players don't want to be tested because they know for a fact they are dirty. They are using every legal means to keep that edge on their illegal activity. If you want into that union, you are going to be forced to perform at that level. That kind of size and speed doesn't happen overnight. It happens at the lower levels. I can draw a very clear line between the unreasonable expectations of the NFL players trickling down the the next crop of players coming up.

[Segoris]

But you're using a key word of "required" when many NFL players do just fine without substances. Additionally, the argument was about players working to be able to join that union, not actual union members, there is a major disconnect at that level to me. The NFL should indeed be responsible for its players who are union members, not for the people who dream of one day becoming one of its players. There are far too many people who dream of becoming an NFL star, the NFL can't be held responsible for every single person who decides to put themselves into harm's way for the small chance of achieving that dream.

[ghost]

The missing bit of information here is exactly how many of these players use PEDs.  There is no way that the number that we hear about is the actual number, but I seriously doubt it is that high.  For the NFL to be held culpable I would think that it would have to be a requirement to use PEDs to perform at that level, and that's clearly not the case. 

[naum]

The missing bit of information here is exactly how many of these players use PEDs.  There is no way that the number that we hear about is the actual number, but I seriously doubt it is that high.  For the NFL to be held culpable I would think that it would have to be a requirement to use PEDs to perform at that level, and that's clearly not the case. 

This doctor and "foremost authority on PED and sports" estimates 90-95% of NFL players are using PEDs.

“There has been no decrease in steroid use in the last two decades. They’re just more sophisticated now.”

He also said that there have been so many spinoffs of drugs that the testers can’t keep up.

“The drugs are readily available and they work. Multi-millionaires can get whatever they want.”

“The major sports have drug testing systems that amount to the fox guarding the hen house.”

“I find the claim that we are now in the post-steroid era of Major League Baseball to be hilarious.”

“Steroid fatigue has set in. The leagues don’t care because they know their customers don’t care.”

“You can deny that your favorite athletes or favorite teams use steroids, but you can’t deny that they’re getting concussions.”

“The media are  the same on the issue now as they were during the baseball steroid era–a bunch of sycophants who look the other way.”

[Paelos]

Naum's article states my belief and concern. I think the vast majority of NFL players are using them, so much so that it's a standard practice to be involved at the NFL level. That's where my concern about the lower levels comes from. If you create a barrier to entry based on illegal methods, you are responsible for people using those methods to attempt to get in.