The NFL and NCAA both claim that the safety of players is their number one priority but is this really true and does it really matter? I would argue that both organizations have demonstrated that each does indeed have the player's safety as a main concern. The NCAA recently enforced a targeting rule in order to protect defenseless players. The targeting rule does not allow blows to the head to a defenseless player and violation of this rule can result in ejection from the game. The NFL also enforces a similar rule. This is just one example of how both institutions are changing the game in order to protect player's lives. 

This is an issue that I am very passionate about because it has directly impacted my life. I was once a football player, but I am no longer able to play the game that I love due to a football injury to the back that still affects my daily life. I believe that the ending result of a football game is not more important than the well-being of a person. Players that have not experienced serious injury as a result of playing do not understand the nagging effects it can have on all aspects of life. I personally have not looked at life the same since I found out my playing days were over. Although I was very disappointed that I would no longer experience the thrill of the game, I realized that long term repercussions of the injury were not worth the thrill. Because I have personal experience with the issue of player safety, I believe I am uniquely qualified to argue the importance of safety. I have experienced both sides of this argument, so I bring real-life, credible experience to the discussion. My goal is to bring awareness to football athletes and all athletes that there is a life after the game. I do not want anyone else to experience the pain I have, so I will share my view as to why the game should have player safety as a top priority. Players are the lifeblood of the sport so protecting the health of current and future athletes in the prime of their career and in life beyond the game should be a key issue for all associated with the game. 

The article by Greg Bishop, "Despite Good Intentions, New Targeting Rule Creates Problems" details the positives and negatives to the targeting rule that was enforced in 2008. It describes the arguments of both sides with those in favor of the rule being most concerned with the player's safety, while those oppose argue that it is against the tradition of hard hitting football and its toughness. The people who oppose the rule value the game's original integrity, and sense of toughness it brought to its players on and off the field. However, those who are for the rule argue that these type of hits can seriously injury a player and affect that player's life way beyond the game. The author who wrote this article has written for three different major newspapers, including the NY Times, and won 10 Associated Press Sports Editors awards. In other words, he is very knowledgeable and respected in his field of work. 

John Marshall is a writer for the Associated Press and has written numerous articles on controversial topics in the sports world. He recently wrote an article for 'collegefootball.org' in 2015, "Targeting Penalties Remain Roughly the Same from Last Year" that argues how the targeting rule in the NCAA is having too big of an impact on the result of the game. If you are given a targeting penalty, you are automatically disqualified from competition. Some argue that this is too harsh a punishment to the player and to the team. Others would offer a rebuttal to that argument by saying that the harsh punishment is what needs to be done to have a lasting effect on the player's actions. Both parties have valid arguments, but the side you decide to defend directly reflects the values you have. On one side there are those who are against the rule, valuing the overall outcome of the game, but those who agree with the rule show that they are most interested in the individuals overall livelihood.  

A very recent article was written in the NY Times by one of their top writers, Ken Belson, about what the NFL is doing to make the game safer. The article has a very appropriate title, "Roger Goodell Insists Football Is Safe: 'There's Risk in Life'" because it consists of many quoted statements from the Commissioner of the NFL himself, Roger Goodell, on his views of player safety. He makes claims that the NFL is continuing to improve player safety through new rules, technology, and spending millions of dollars on further research. There are those who will argue that players are retiring earlier due to the rising number of diagnosed concussions, and other safety concerns.  Mr. Goodell and others believe that players retire when it feels like it is time due to many factors, not necessarily due to fear of the damage to their bodies. 

While this is and will continue to be a heavily debated topic, it is not a simple matter of right and wrong. It is an argument that has been discussed every season with new problems or opinions arising every year. The primary arguments which are "pro" player safety are that a player's life is more important the ending result of a game and that the player must live a life after football and being injured significantly reduces quality of life. Those who disagree claim that these new rules are destroying the tradition of the game and excitement. Football is at the heart a competitive, physical sport but both the NFL and NCAA are thriving even with the new rules against targeting in place. That those organizations are still enjoying record attendance and exciting games even with rules to protect safety in place suggests that the arguments that the fun and integrity of the game will suffer aren't entirely accurate. Since the game can't be played without players and given the documented health risks like concussions, not only should the NFL and NCAA care about player safety but I would argue it is critical to the longevity and continued success of the sport.
