By Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D., Professor, Sport Management, Drexel University
Contributing Writer
On Jan. 25, 2018 the Aspen Institute Sport and Society Program hosted a roundtable discussion entitled “The Future of Football: Reimaging the Pipeline” that featured an array of perspectives from panelists representing various sectors of the football community. Representatives included an executive from a football governing body (Scott Hellenbeck, USA Football), former National Football League (NFL) players (Chris Borland, San Francisco 49ers linebacker who left the game after one season; Dominique Forxworth, former president of the National Football League Players Association and writer with The Undefeated), physicians (Dr. Robert Cantu, Legacy Foundation; Dr. Andrew Peterson, University of Iowa team physician), coaches (Tom Green, athletic director and head football coach, Eleanor Roosevelt High School; Buddy Teevens, Dartmouth head football coach), and a parent (Jennifer Brown Lerner, Aspen Institute). Held in the Aspen Institute’s new offices in Washington, D.C., the timing of the program was contemporaneous to legislators introducing bills in New York and Illinois calling for bans on tackle football in youth leagues and in schools (Associated Press, 2018; Belson, 2018; Kenning, 2018). The New York bill, which at present does not have any co-sponsors, would prevent children ages 13 and under from playing tackle football while the Illinois bill sets an age standard of 12 years.
The primary focus of the program centered on the question of whether allowing youth sport athletes to start playing tackle football at age 14 was a feasible and realistic way to ensure the sport’s future in light of growing awareness regarding the health risks associated with the game. Numerous positions were taken on the issue. Some argued that such a step would alleviate concerns about placing children at risk of harm when their brains are still developing. Pointing out that numerous NFL players (current and former) did not start to play tackle football until they went to high school, there was some sentiment that delayed exposure to the sport would not undermine the ability of players to succeed and for the quality of the game in the elite levels to be served. Others pointed out that, in the absence of a national policy, a determination of age restrictions on a state-by-state basis could potentially create a more dangerous situation as athletes moved up the pipeline to college.
Notably, Foxworth and Borland, the youngest members of the panel and the ones who played the game, both rejected the framing of the question itself. Embedded in the title of the program was an assumption that the pipeline to the game needed to be preserved. While Foxworth did not argue outright for an end to the game, he indicated that he did not expect that he would allow his son to play given the unavoidable toll the game takes on the health of people who play it. He talked about the need to reframe expectations for men in terms of how they express their masculinity and the pressures that boys and men experience in the sport to be “tough” and the penalties associated when accused of being “soft” (i.e., coaches who punish players with more drills when their teams are seen as not being tough enough). He also spoke about the racial dynamics at play and the issues associated with the fact that there are far fewer alternatives for young black males to play sports other than football that provide the social capital, access to upper mobility, and proving ground that football offers. As such, he along with other panelists, pointed out that while the sport is flawed, it ought not to be removed without something of significance to replace it.
Borland, in turn, questioned the fundamental moral basis on which the game is premised, challenging the idea that whatever lessons learned by playing football are exclusive to it and could not be learned by playing other sports or from other activities. Among the panelists, Borland uniquely situated the concern about injuries in football as a public health issue. He commented, “I’m somewhat incredulous that we discuss the reasonability of hitting a 5-year-old in the head hundreds of times. It baffles me.”
Much of the discussion focused on promoting flag football as an alternative at the youth level and developing public policy to facilitate that step. Tom Farrey, the director of the AI Sport and Society Program, indicated that following the program, audience members and participants would be given an opportunity to complete a survey and offer their perspectives on the issues. Based on responses, a report is expected to be issued in the future.
For those interested in the Future of Football: Reimaging the Pipeline program, it can be viewed online here: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/future-football-reimagining-games-pipeline/
References
Associated Press. (2018, January 25). Illinois lawmaker proposes bill to ban tackle football for children under 12. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/01/25/illinois-youth-football-law-concussions
Belson, K. (2018, January 24). New York legislator renews effort to bar tackle football for children. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/sports/youth-tackle-football-ban.html
Kenning, C. (2018, January 25). Lawmakers in Illinois, New York propose tackle football bans for youth. Reuters.com. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-football-youth-tackle/lawmakers-in-illinois-new-york-propose-tackle-football-bans-for-youth-idUSKBN1FF09V
