![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Recently, there have been discussions about whether or not inter-collegiate football should be eliminated in the US. This article philosophically assesses the arguments for its elimination as well as the arguments proffered against its elimination. While a variety of arguments are discussed, a new one is brought into the foray of philosophical investigation, one that combines the unfairness and economic arguments: the health care and medical costs to others argument. It is believed that this argument is sufficient to justify the elimination of inter-collegiate football.
Se han producido recientemente bastantes discusiones sobre si el fútbol universitario debe eliminarse en los Estados Unidos. Este artículo evalúa los argumentos a favor de su supresión así como aquellos ofrecidos en contra de ella. Aunque se discuten varios argumentos, se introduce uno nuevo en el discurrir de la discusión filosófica, el cual combina los argumentos de la injusticia y el económico: los costes de los cuidados médico-sanitarios para los otros. Se defiende que este argumento es suficiente como para justificar la supresión del fútbol universitario.
In letzter Zeit gab es Diskussionen darüber, ob Fußball zwischen Colleges (inter-collegiate football) in den USA abgeschafft werden sollte. Dieser Artikel nimmt eine philosophische Analyse der Argumente pro und contra dessen Abschaffung vor. Während eine Vielzahl an Argumenten dargestellt wird, wird auch ein neues in diesen Ausflug philosophischer Analyse eingebracht, das Aspekte der (Un-)Fairness und ökonomischer Argumente verbindet: das Argument der Gesundheitswesenskosten sowie der Kosten der medizinischen Versorgung, die auf Andere fallen. Es wird postuliert, dass dieses Argument ausreicht, um die Abschaffung dieser Art des Fußballs zu rechtfertigen.
Récemment, il y a eu des discussions quant à savoir si le football universitaire devrait être éliminé aux États-Unis. Cet article évalue philosophiquement les arguments en faveur de son élimination ainsi que les arguments contre son élimination. Bien que divers arguments soient discutés, un nouvel argument est introduit dans l'enquête philosophique, qui combine l'injustice et les raisons économiques : l’argument des soins de santé et des frais médicaux à la charge des autres. On pense que cet argument est suffisant pour justifier l'élimination du football universitaire.
近来，美国对是否取消大学校际足球赛有着一场热议。本文对赞同取消和反对取消的论点进行了哲学论评。在众多观点的讨论外，作者对结合不公平性和卫生保健与医疗费用等经济性进行分析的新论点做了尝试性的哲学考察，相信该论点足以确证校际足球赛的取消。
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to both the Editor of this journal, Mike McNamee, and to two anonymous referees who provided incisive insights that assisted in the improvement of this article.
Notes
1. A version of this argument is recognized in Simon (Citation2004, 151). A related exploitation argument in inter-collegiate athletics is explored in Corlett (Citation2013b).
2. However, while it is true that fans of team sports often go to see the star athletes perform, if it were not for many of the non-star athletes on the team, the stars would not exist as stars: someone has to perform the often under-appreciated work of those who block for running backs and quarterbacks, for instance. So when I write ‘monies earned by mostly a relatively few star student athletes,’ I do not mean to ignore such a fact. There is a real sense in which the non-star athletes are being exploited more than one might initially think. For without many of them, the ‘star student athletes’ would not exist as stars and draw so many fans and so much revenue for colleges and universities as they sometimes do.
3. However, this point is vitiated to the extent that many inter-collegiate football players are required to log what amount to full-time work hours nearly year-round, making what once seemed to be adequate compensation for their work significantly less so. In light of this, at the very least, the NCAA would do well to voluntarily (without a possible eventual court order in light of the current Northwestern University case—see note 4) increase significantly the amounts of stipends allowed to inter-collegiate student athletes in order to make day-to-day life more tolerable for them within the notoriously strict guidelines for institutional and non-institutional support of such athletes.
4. http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10366061/northwestern-players-attempt-unionize-likely-fail-impact-far-reaching and http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=240245908 (accessed on 1 January 2014). Recently, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Northwestern University football players on scholarship are university employees, thereby, according to some, paving the way for a legal argument that such student athletes should have the right to unionize in order to negotiate better working conditions http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-0326/business/chi-northwestern-unionbid-20140326_1_labor-law-football-players-collegesports (accessed on 1 April 2014).
5. This position is discussed below with regard to the academic argument for the elimination of inter-collegiate football.
6. This general tack of the economic argument is found in Corlett (Citation2013b).
7. I do not have in mind here community colleges, for instance, that do not have the research expectations of their faculty that other four-year colleges and universities impose on their faculties.
8. One recent example of administrative excesses is discussed in Forde (Citation2012).
9. For a reply to Brand’s insightful article, see Corlett (Citation2013c).
10. I have in mind those who would base their argument on some version, strong or weak, of the ‘Incompatibility Thesis’ according to which ‘intercollegiate sports are incompatible with the academic functions of colleges and universities’ (Simon Citation2004, 140).
11. This general position is found in Brand (Citation2006).
12. A version of this argument can be found in Simon (Citation2004, 144f). My version focuses on the punishment of those duly convicted of fraud and corruption with respect to inter-collegiate athletics.
13. Many would argue that the NCAA is not sufficiently tough on fraud, and that it is sometimes arbitrary in which programs and athletes are punished and how they are punished.
14. Also see the Committee on Publication Ethics: http://publicationethics.org/?utm_source=All+Subscribers&utm_campaign=52d9693898-COPE_Digest_January_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6eb8aec9d3-52d9693898-263883822 (accessed on 1 February 2014).
15. For more extensive versions of this argument, see Corlett (Citation2013a, Citation2013d).
16. Such safety measures did not stave off the class action lawsuit that the NFL recently lost to thousands of former players and their families. The settlement was a substantial $765 million according to Belson (Citation2013). Also see Fainaru-Wada and Fainaru (Citation2013, 7, 348–349). However, not even the technology of the ‘Revolution’ football helmut has convinced medical neuroscientists who study CTE that it can effectively and significantly prevent CTE resulting from playing football (Fainaru-Wada and Fainaru Citation2013, 134f).
17. For a definition and discussion of ‘public good,’ see Olson (Citation1965, 14f). While football, like other sports, is a collective good for those for whom it is a good, it is not a public good in the broader sense.
18. Yet, how can NFL football be expected to cover such costs when taxpayers read about lucrative tax advantages the NFL has enjoyed since its historic merger with the AFL decades ago and begin to demand that the NFL be treated by the IRS as the profit-making business that it most certainly is? So even though the NFL might be able to adequately cover the costs of health care and medical expenses for the time being if it chose to do so, it is unlikely that it will be able to do so in the future if taxpayers, who currently demand less waste, fraud, and corruption in government, decide to target the NFL’s lucrative tax advantage. According to Republican US Senator Tom Coburn (OK), ‘Taxpayers may be losing at least $91 million subsidizing these tax loopholes for professional sports leagues that generate billions of dollars annually in profits. Taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize sports organizations already benefiting widely from willing fans and turning a profit, while claiming to be non-profit organizations. In 2010, the registered NFL nonprofit alone received $184 million from its 32 member teams. It holds over $1 billion in assets. Together with its subsidiaries and teams—many of which are for-profit, taxed entities—the NFL generates an estimated $9 billion annually. Each of its teams are among the top 50 most expensive sports teams in the world, ranking alongside the world’s famous soccer teams. Almost half of professional football teams are valued at over $1 billion’ … ‘League commissioners and officials benefit from the nonprofit status of their organizations. Roger Goodell, commissioner of the NFL, reported $11.6 million in salary and perks in 2010 alone. Goodell’s salary will reportedly reach $20 million in 2019. Steve Bornstein, the executive vice president of media, made $12.2 million in 2010. Former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue earned $8.5 million from the league in 2010. The league paid five other officials a total of $19.2 million in just one year. In comparison, the next highest salary of a traditional nonprofit CEO is $3.4 million.’ And Coburn writes: ‘Hardworking taxpayers should not be forced to provide funding to offset tax giveaways to lucrative major professional sports teams and leagues. Based on publicly available information about the NFL and NHL alone, barring major leagues from using the non-profit status may generate at least $91 million of federal revenue every year.’ (Coburn Citation2012).
19. For data on the 2008 reported figures concerning the categories of funds generating revenue for the top inter-collegiate football programs, along with their respective costs, see http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue (accessed on 1 April 2014).
20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UzO4DJBoWw (accessed on 30 March 2014). Kudos for the producers and writers of this fine commercial!
21. Recently, the NFL settled a class action legal suit involving thousands of ex-NFL players and their families in the amount of $765,000,000: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/sports/football/judge-announces-settlement-in-nfl-concussion-suit.html?_r=0.
22. One of the latest rule changes contemplated by the NFL is that it is considering removing kick-offs from the game as it is deemed that the very nature of kick-offs poses special risks to athletes on kick-off special teams. See Gregory (Citation2012).
23. I assume here that most parents of high school football players would not be willing or able to pay the costs of significantly high health care insurance for football players, and that high school districts would not be willing or able to do so. Indeed, a growing number of US parents are already openly disallowing their sons to play competitive football at the high school level. (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8297366/espn-survey-finds-news-coverage-concussions-leads-majority-parents-less-likely-allow-sons-play-youth-football-leagues) So even though the relevant brain sciences have not definitively weighed in on the matter of whether or not competitive football causes CTE, growing numbers of parents have already pulled their sons from the sport entirely. The likelihood that most parents would disallow their sons to play competitive football should the relevant brain sciences find that football-caused CTE is significantly high, one would reasonably think. This seems true even in light of the fact that some high schools have instituted a ‘pay to play’ system wherein increasingly high fees are assessed to the parents of student athletes. But this scheme will prohibit many of the top would-be athletes from ever competing due to their inability to pay such fees. At best, the future of the high quality of football performance is dubious.
24. I am grateful to an anonymous referee for this journal for noting that some of the points I make in this section of the article, most of which was composed in 2011–2012, are found in http://grantland.com/features/cte-concussion-crisis-economic-look-end-football/ (accessed on 30 March 2014).
25. Insofar as the NFL paying its fair share is concerned, it has recently been revealed by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) ‘The National Football League, for example, pulled in more than $9 billion last year, yet is technically a “non-profit” organization, costing the federal government tens of millions of dollars every year in lost revenue’ (Karl et al. Citation2012). Perhaps the least the NFL could do is pay its fair share of taxes as the profit-making business that it is, or donate that money to cover the medical costs of its current and past personnel.