Journal
JOURNAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPORT
Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages 443-462Publisher
ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00948705.2015.1079132
Keywords
children; football; dangerous sport; chronic traumatic encephalopathy
Funding
- k polytechnic university
Ask authors/readers for more resources
In recent years, Pop Warner, the world's largest youth football organization, has seen its numbers decline. This decline is due to concerns about new research establishing a link between football and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a debilitating neurodegenerative disease. Hundreds of thousands of parents are now struggling with a difficult ethical issue: should kids play football? Since parents have an obligation to help children develop the capacities required for autonomous choice, the risks posed by football establish a strong presumption against allowing kids to play the game. I consider whether this presumption can be defeated by the arguments for allowing kids to play dangerous sports offered by John Russell in his papers 'The Value of Dangerous Sport' and Children and Dangerous Sport and Recreation'. While Russell does not argue that kids should be permitted to play football, and agrees that some sports may be too risky for children, he argues that kids should often be allowed to participate in extraordinarily risky sports. I contend that the reasons given in support of this position fail to defeat the presumption against allowing kids to play football. Thus, in the absence of further argument, or radical changes to the game, children should not play football.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available