This topic interests me greatly because football has been apart of my life for so long. I played the game for over eleven years and it is tremendously entertaining. Recently, football has been under attack because of the dangers of brain damage that includes concussions and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). Since the dangerous discoveries, parents have had their minds flooded with doubts on whether they should let their child start playing football. Many iconic figures, such as President Obama and Lebron James, have stated that they would not let their son play football. This strikes home to me because I see a sport that is very important to me diminishing under attack. It may not seem like it is on the decline, as the majority of Americans gather to watch the Super Bowl, but statistics say otherwise. High school football participants have dropped 2.4 percent in the last five years and youth leagues like Pop Warner have taken an even bigger hit (New York Times). This research topic affects my values deeply because besides my parents, football has taught me the majority of the values I hold true to this day. I believe I am qualified to write about this because I have much experience with football as a player and fan. Even though I am not a doctor, I do gather as much research that I possibly can on brain damage in football. I am in great favor of working towards minimizing risks to make the game safer and I do not deny the research on brain damage that football has caused but that should not stop kids from playing the game.


The article starts with a brief recap of concussion talks going on with football recently and then mentions about how there is no consensus on whether parents should let their child play football. The article then shows responses from many former and current NFL players/coaches and also other iconic figures discussing about if they will/would let their child play football. The responses are varying and the article is informative.

In this article, the focus is partial because it does not really go into depth of statistics and does not say much about CTE. It is more focused on just gathering everyone's opinions and views on the discussion of brain damage and whether or not they would let their child play football.

The author of the first article is not well known but he is a father that publishes for fatherly.com. He does not give his opinion and quotes people for the majority of the article but to his credit he can relate to the subject because he has children of his own. There is no bias because the author simply talks about the recent discussion of concussions in football and lists many people's opinions on whether they would let their child play or not. He shows a wide-range of people's opinions.


The author's argument is clear in the title, which says to not let your kids play football. He starts off by comparing football to smoking, using the example of how we as a society have made smoking a negative activity and we must do the same to football. He argues that a child has not reached the age of consent and it is the adult's moral duty as a society to protect the vulnerable. By letting their kids play, parents are putting them at serious risks.  

This article does not take the benefits of football into account. Comparing football to smoking cigarettes in my opinion is faulty. Cigarettes do not teach the values that such a sport like football can. Yes football is dangerous but the article does not give it a single positive feature.

The author has some credibility because he publishes for The New York Times. Beyond that, I do not know if he ever played football or any other sport. He is one sided and completely against football. The article does not mention a single benefit received from football. To the author, football is just as nasty and dangerous as smoking cigarettes.


The article gives five reasons why a parent should let their child play football. First the author starts out by mentioning his career as a sports agent how his clients believe the game is much safer now. The author acknowledges that most of his retired clients are beaten up and have suffered probably at least one concussion. Even with that being said, the majority of them have young sons and every single one of them is encouraging their children to play football.

The article gives examples by using the word of a former player, using statistics of how much the NFL is spending on player safety, and also mentions how the brutal part of football is dying out. By that he means helmet-to-helmet contact, long practices, and barbarian style coaches. 

The author is a sports agent who has worked closely with the game and its players, which gives him creditability to write about this subject. While the question is whether parents should let their children play the game, former players give very good insight, as they are ambassadors of football. The article is not very biased. The title is a bit biased but beyond that, the author accounts for brain damage and counter arguments against his view. 

The research question is extremely arguable because it has to do with child safety. Parents value their children more than anything so any potential danger to their short or long term health is taken seriously. A common agreement in all of the sources is that football is a dangerous sport. The disagreements are if children are too young to play or not and if football has progressed to be safe enough for todays standards. The different perspectives affected my own because I got to read from a dad, a sports agent, and a professional journalist. Those diverse perspectives gave me even more of a personal connection to this research question. I have already revised my research question a few times and feel comfortable with it.
