In Defense of Football (and Other Crucibles)

Why playing football is worth the risk—and the risk isn’t as risky as you might think.

November 1998, just before my last home football game. Thanks mom and dad for letting me play and supporting me along the way.

Football

I love football. And since high school and college football are now upon us, let me reflect for a moment on the game that I love and how it has nourished my soul.

As I read The New York Times early last week, I was reminded why I sometimes ask myself, “Why do I subscribe to this paper?!”

In hit pieces here, here, and here, the NYTs attacked football as too violent, and therefore, unsafe.

In this article, the Times encourages parents to reconsider allowing their sons to play youth and high school football, citing the harmful cognitive effects of the game. But instead of citing studies of high school football players, they cite “new research” about former N.F.L. players who had—but didn’t necessarily suffer from—C.T.E. (Keep in mind that nearly every person with Stage-1 and Stage-2 C.T.E. won’t suffer symptoms.)

The reason the Times cited the NFL study is because there is little to no evidence about the long-term cognative risks of high school and college football. (And keep in mind that 0.01% of high school players will ever play a down in the NFL.)

Facts about High School Football 

Taking five minutes to conduct my own research I found two Mayo Clinic studies here and here that examined high school football players from 1946 to 1970, when “headgear was less protective than today.” Despite the collisions and increased risk of head injury, researchers found that these high school football players had "no increased risk of dementia/MCI, parkinsonism, ALS, or overall neurodegenerative disease compared with athletes in other sports.” 

But it doesn’t end there.

After sharing the misapplied NFL C.T.E. stat to scare parents about high school football, this Times’ article declared that football practices should not include tackling—praising the Ivy Leagues (of course) for “banning full contact practice.” Next, the article called “two-a-day” practices—once a character-building crucible every summer—as nothing more than “a relic” from the past.

I think the NYTs motive to attack football is a cultural one. Football is a hyper-masculine and macho sport. And as someone who has read—and in many ways enjoyed—The New York Times for decades, I believe they often show an anti-masculine bias.

That said, I’m not here (believe or not) to bash The New York Times. I’m here to praise the virtues of football. I’m here to say that despite the inherent violence of the game, for those who play high school, and even college football, the evidence shows very minimal (if any) long-term cognitive risk—even for those of us who tackled in practice and forged our way through "two-a-days."  

And now that we’ve established a scaricity of evidence for the long-term cognitive risks of playing highschool and college football, let’s not forget the virtues this game offers young men. Mainly, that the game is a crucible and a right of passage in an era that desperately needs more crucibles and rights of passage for our young people.

Crucibles 

We live in the safest and easiest time in human history. We no longer hunt what we kill and a summer without air conditioning is unthinkable for most. But looking back upon our ancestors and our evolution, it’s not in our nature to be so soft. That’s because in our heart of hearts, we’re warriors—especially as teens and young adults. And during those formative years, our self-esteem is built upon our willingness to set goals, accomplish goals, face danger, endure pain, and join and defend a team (or tribe).

When young people lack crucibles—and don’t take physical, moral, or artistic risks; don’t exercise physical, moral, or artistic courage; and don’t unite for a common cause—they’re denying who they truly are as human beings. They’re denying their barbarian nature to overcome obstacles and flourish as human beings—just as nature intended. This lack of crucibles sadly ends with far too many teens and young adults today feeling empty, alone, lost, and lacking the empowering feeling of accomplishment and fellowship.

All that said, do young men really need football to overcome the aforementioned ailments of our digital age? Of course, not. Any sport, art, or endeavor that pushes a young person to set goals, take risks, show courage, and unite with others will do.

But football is one of those options that will do. And because it’s not as dangerous as some want to portray, then I say it's worth the inherent orthopedic risks. That's because football aligns with the violent, physical, and tribal nature inherent in young men. As a result, football helps young men flourish as nature intended with vigor, wonder, and fellowship.

“At the end of the day,” Hall of Fame Running Back, Curtis Martin said in his Hall of Fame Speech, "football has taught me so much. If my kid can learn what I learned from this game, I’d let him play. I think it’s worth the risk.”

Without football, my life would have turned out much different. Football is the reason I gained acceptance to the US Naval Academy, which sent me on a path in life that led to serving my country, meeting my wife, finding my career, discovering my art, and befriending so many awesome people along the way.

Not only that, through football I discovered my secret weapon for life: effort. I also gained mental and physical toughness, the confidence from setting and achieving goals, lifelong habits like discipline and exercise, and above all, dear friendships that will last a lifetime.

So was it worth the risk? You're damn right. Football introduced me to my soul—that cosmic energy that shines whenever I do anything I love with vigor, wonder, and fellowship.