essay for and against banning violent sports

Sport and Competition

Why do we accept violence in sports, new research explores the moral tightrope we walk..

Posted October 27, 2023 | Reviewed by Ray Parker

We experience moral ambivalence watching violent sports.
To resolve this, researchers found people use different justification strategies.
These include war metaphors, playing down the violence, and even aesthetic choices of team jerseys.

By Delphine Dion, Professor of Marketing at ESSEC Business School, and Julia Smith, Editor-in-Chief of ESSEC Knowledge

With the Rugby World Cup this fall, fans are flocking to France from all over the world to cheer on their team. France's star player Antoine Dupont captained Les Bleus to the quarter-finals before getting knocked out by South Africa—this after suffering a fractured cheekbone and undergoing major surgery earlier in the tournament.

Rugby players are no strangers to this type of injury—the field is dotted with players wearing "scrum caps" to protect from cauliflower ears, and violent tackles are the name of the game.

Why are we drawn to watching such a violent sport when we know people are likely to get hurt? Delphine Dion (ESSEC Business School), Clément Dubreuil (Kedge Business School), and Stéphane Borraz (NEOMA Business School) explored this question, finding that viewers experience a sort of moral ambivalence and justify the violence as they watch.

Rugby isn't alone in this, either: American football, ice hockey, mixed martial arts, and wrestling are other examples of violent contact sports that continue to enjoy popularity. In these sports, violence isn't just incidental; it's a key part of the game.

Past research showed this violence cultivates emotional contagion and appeals to our baser instincts. This can lead to a confusing experience for the viewers, who enjoy watching even though they know violence is wrong. So what makes violence acceptable—and enjoyable—in sports?

To better understand this contradiction, the researchers conducted 21 interviews with consumers (rugby fans) and nine with professionals in the rugby world and analyzed social media posts.

All's fair in love and war

In their interviews, the researchers found that the interviewees often used war metaphors and vocabulary when describing rugby, a form of "translating" one reality (rugby) to another (war) by dramatizing the violence. This thinking can also be seen in New Zealand's traditional haka, traditionally performed by Maori warriors before a battle.

All of this means that rugby is often seen as a war-like alternative reality, one where violence is fêted and justified. Violence is seen as the players fulfilling their duty and benefiting the community—defending their team and not letting the fans down.

It's just a game

At the same time, this dramatization of violence is linked to de-dramatizing it and justifying it as "just a game." Interviewees noted that it's just for fun and to win, with fans and players playing this up with songs and performances that poke fun at the violence.

For example, the Stade Français has introduced pink, leopard print, floral, and other fun jersey patterns to lighten the mood. While these might be parodies of violence, they also normalize and justify it by suggesting it's not so bad and actually can be funny.

It's how it is

Another way that people justify the violence in rugby is by saying it's the rules of the game. As long as a play is allowed, then it's acceptable. One spectator explains:

You also have to distinguish between the pain inflicted by players who give their best and who are aggressive but play by the rules—which is all part of the game—and the pain that results from the actions of players who deliberately break the rules. [...]. When it is in the course of the game when he is doing nothing wrong, a player who hurts another is doing his job; there is nothing to blame him for.

This is a common experience: When we encounter moral ambivalence, we look to the rules set out by what we see as legitimate institutions, in this case World Rugby. That being said, other spectators expressed concern about rising levels of violence and suggested the rules might need to change to curb this phenomenon.

Instead of accepting the rules, they challenge them and suggest that new ones are needed. People also trust the official representatives, such as the referees, to enforce these rules. If the referees are seen as too lax, the violence is more likely to be seen as inappropriate.

Lights, camera, action

All the world's a stage, and rugby is no different. The game's broadcast plays a big role in how we perceive the match and, thus, the violence. Certain plays are shown repeatedly, in slow motion and with freeze frames, whereas others can be shown only at a distance.

essay for and against banning violent sports

When injured, players are surrounded (and therefore hidden) by medical staff or even covered with a white sheet. When discussing injuries, it's often using euphemistic language: "It stings" rather than "It hurts," for example.

There's a big focus on the "art of the game," with one spectator describing this as:

There is a beauty to rugby. It’s a bit like the Greek aesthetic of masculine strength; it exalts the group spirit. Like the Spartans or Roman soldiers, the beauty of a well-ordered army, where everything is efficient.

This can result in a perception that violence is beautiful. All of this contributes to camouflaging the consequences of the violence and producing a distorted vision of it.

This study suggests that market players (fans, players, broadcasters, etc.) use different justifications to resolve the moral ambivalence of violence by telling themselves that it's like a battle, that there are rules to be respected, and that the game is a thing of beauty. These different strategies allow them to rationalize that the violence in rugby is OK, even though they wouldn't accept violence in another context.

Where to go from here?

While it may indeed be "just a game," the rising levels of violence and associated injuries do give reason for concern. The researchers suggest three strategies to mitigate this:

Contextualizing : Competition organizers and broadcasters should think about how they contribute to normalizing violence, for example, by showcasing the players as warriors. They should avoid using war references and parodies and focus instead on player performance and technique.

Ruling : Since many market players justify the violence by referring to the rules, governing bodies should commit to regularly reviewing the rules to prevent high levels of injury. One example is spear tackles, a once widely accepted move that is now banned to protect players.

Broadcasting : Policymakers and broadcasters can collaborate and produce a charter of responsibility when showing contact sports. This could reduce the distortion of violence and avoid glorifying it by using direct language that properly describes injuries and pain, offering filters to avoid viewing violent content (particularly for young fans), and accessing additional content that explains the real risk of violence and injuries. This also concerns social media like YouTube, which compiles short, violent, and spectacular sequences taken from rugby games and total millions of views.

Violent sports aren't going anywhere: The Rugby World Cup 2023 has already drawn in 164.5 million viewers, and the tournament isn't over yet. With so many eyes on the sport, it's important to understand how people justify that this violence is acceptable even when it's not in other contexts, giving us insight into the complicated human psyche.

Dubreuil, C., Dion, D., & Borraz, S. (2023). For the love of the game: moral ambivalence and justification work in consuming violence. Journal of Business Ethics, 186 (3), 675-694.

Researchers from ESSEC Business School in Cergy, France.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Support Group
International
New Zealand
South Africa
Switzerland
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Violence in Sports — Violent Sports And Its Negative Effects

Violent Sports and Its Negative Effects

Categories: Boxing Violence in Sports Wrestling

About this sample

Words: 791 |

Published: Mar 14, 2019

Words: 791 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 632 words

1 pages / 647 words

1 pages / 666 words

2 pages / 725 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Violent Sports and Its Negative Effects Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Violence in Sports

Sports have long been revered as a platform for fostering camaraderie, promoting physical fitness, and showcasing extraordinary athletic talent. However, amidst the spirit of competition, a darker aspect of sports emerges – [...]

The increasing amplitude of racism in sport is a contemporary issue within society. Racism, experienced in the form of racial vilification, discrimination and abuse, is embedded in behaviours and attitudes within society. It [...]

Sexual violence is one of the main challenges facing young people today. While the problem has been explored in various areas, the sports industry has remained under wraps. However, according to experts, sexual violence in [...]

Basketball plays a big role when it comes to sports competitions. Most boys have learned this game while they were still young and improved their skills through their PE classes in school. While some are just born with [...]

An uproar of conflict has developed concerning the name of an NFL football team, the Washington Redskins. Although the dispute has less publicly been ongoing for years, the problem has been brought into light by a Native [...]

Basketball, perhaps the most American sport besides baseball, was invented by a Canadian. James Naismith was born in Ontario, Canada and attended McGill University in Montreal (Talion 2010). While born and raised in Canada, [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Why boxing and cage fighting should be banned – but won’t be

Professor of Law, University of South Australia

Disclosure statement

Rick Sarre does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of South Australia provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

The death of Queensland professional boxer Braydon Smith last week has re-ignited the debate over boxing as a sport in this country. The 23-year-old collapsed 90 minutes after completing a featherweight bout in Toowoomba on March 14 and did not regain consciousness before his life-support was turned off last Monday. The Australian Medical Association used the case to renew its call to ban boxing .

Boxing Queensland president Ann Tindall responded by saying that the sport is no more dangerous than other contact sports. Braydon’s death was a “tragic accident”.

Boxing is dangerous. Boxers face a considerable risk of brain injury every time they step into the ring.

The evidence is not disputed. Highly influential for the supporters of an outright ban was the World Medical Association’s 1983 statement at its World Medical Assembly calling for such a ban. An article six years later in the Journal of the American Medical Association, entitled Why physicians should oppose boxing: an interdisciplinary history perspective, was equally damning.

Boxing authorities responded by mandating shorter bouts and prescribing strict weight divisions. Protective headgear is now required for all organised non-professional competitions.

An allied phenomenon has reared its head in the Australian sporting landscape. For the last decade, American pay TV has been screening the Ultimate Fighting Championship ( UFC ). Drawing worldwide television audiences, this form of virtually unrestrained human combat is drawing great interest in Australia.

The Australian Fighting Championship was held in Melbourne last weekend after the new state Labor government lifted the ban on “cage” fighting or mixed martial arts (MMA) events. Western Australia is now the only state in Australia to ban cage fighting.

Australian legislators have been reluctant to ban MMA entirely, probably because they don’t wish to be seen as evoking a “nanny” state.

Consent does not alter the consequence

Opponents of bans point to other sports that have a high risk of fatalities, such as horse racing, skydiving, motor sport and surfing. The problem for such advocates is that boxing and cage fighting share a unique characteristic: participants set out to “stop” their opponent, a euphemism for the infliction of harm that renders opponents unable to continue fighting. Knocking them unconscious is the ultimate “stop”.

A person arriving on Earth from another planet would find it difficult to reconcile different outcomes from the same scenario: two people throwing punches at each other with great force. In a boxing ring or cage, hundreds of onlookers cheer them on.

The same two people the following week outside a nightclub attacking each other with the same degree of force would be arrested by police, would spend the night in a lock-up and would be penalised with a fine in the magistrates court the following morning.

We explain the legal difference thus: the former involves the consent of both of the participants, and the latter probably does not (even if both protagonists had agreed to “step outside”). But the distinction would be lost on an alien observer.

The National Committee on Violence in 1990 weighed into this debate when considering the means by which Australians could reduce the levels of violence in our society. The authors of the report stopped short of recommending an outright ban on boxing, although a minority report recommended a review by the appropriate medical and sporting bodies regarding the control of boxing and its ultimate elimination as a sport.

Is it civilised to celebrate aggression?

Given its history, its Olympic and Commonwealth Games status, that it involves consenting adults, and the allure it has for millions of fans, there will be no change to the legal status of boxing in the foreseeable future.

Medical specialists and the mild-mannered among us might have hoped that the sport would have declined in popularity by now, either because of the number of deaths and brain injuries it causes, or through its reputation (especially in the US) for corruption. However, it appears to be as popular as ever. The tragic death of young Braydon Smith might, once again, challenge some participants to reconsider their pastime, but it won’t be the state that says that they have to stop it altogether.

Cage fighting elevates these concerns to another level entirely. The gladiatorial battles that drew the masses in the first century to the Roman Colosseum were a reflection of the cruel society of the day. One might question, watching the UFC channel and any other cage-fighting event, how much more civilised we have become in the intervening two millennia. Prime Minister Tony Abbott, himself a well-known pugilist in his Oxford days, in 2010 called for a “kinder, gentler polity”.

We should heed Abbott’s words, not only because of the dangers such fighting poses for its participants, but for the way in which it tends to de-sensitise us to the deliberate infliction of harm and to normalise aggressive behaviour in the minds of us all, especially our youth.

While criminologists may stop short of linking organised violence to the more than 400,000 assaults reported each year in Australia, cage fighting has no place in contemporary society.

Ultimate Fighting Championship
Mixed Martial Arts

Senior Enrolment Advisor

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Reference.com

What's Your Question?

History & Geography
Science & Technology
Business & Finance
Pets & Animals

Should Violent Sports Be Banned?

Some sports involve a larger than usual risk of personal injury for participating athletes. Sports like swimming, in which athletes rarely make contact with equipment or other athletes, may be described as “non-violent,” while high-contact events like football and soccer are classified as “violent sports.”

Those who would ban violent sports are often motivated by concerns over the health of the athletes. The journalist Malcolm Gladwell, among others, suggests that American universities ban the game of football because of the negative effects the sport has on the health of their athletes. The discovery of the disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy in the brains of thousands of former violent sport athletes is the most-cited evidence that these activities have a major impact on long-term health and wellness.

Banning activities like boxing and football would no doubt anger fans of these sports, and some doctors are unsure about the veracity of claims made about CTE in the brains of former athletes. Activities seen by some as violent sports are nothing more than traditional contests of strength and will, as important to a well-rounded education as music or art.

Though medical evidence linking sports like football and boxing to chronic brain disease appears to be increasing, the question of whether to ban these sports will ultimately fall to local, state, or federal governments. The decision on whether to allow a student to participate in a violent sport is currently left up to the parent or guardian of each athlete.

Aggression and Violence in Sport: Moving Beyond the Debate

This paper is the latest in a series of articles published in The Sport Psychologist in recent years on aggression and violence in sport ( Kerr, 1999 , 2002 ; Tenenbaum, Sacks, Miller, Golden, & Doolin, 2000 ; Tenenbaum, Stewart, Singer, & Duda, 1997 ). While these respective articles have presented dissenting views on the nature and prevention of aggression and violence in sport, the present paper proposes that much of the apparent disagreement is semantic in nature. Thus, this paper begins by clarifying some definitional issues before specifying both areas of agreement and continued dissention among recent authors. Major emphases in this paper include the importance of adopting preventative rather than reactive measures to reduce the dangers associated with aggression and violence in sport, as well as the manner in which adult sport norms affect youth sport environments. In addition, several broader issues, which have emerged from these recent published debates, are presented for future consideration.

Articles published in sequence during the last few years in The Sport Psychologist , beginning with the ISSP Position Stand (PS) ( Tenenbaum, Stewart, Singer, & Duda, 1997 ) followed by Kerr’s rejoinder ( Kerr, 1999 ), the reply to this rejoinder ( Tenenbaum, Sacks, Miller, Golden, & Doolin, 2000 ), and ending with Kerr’s (2002) response, indicate that much disagreement exists regarding not only the nature of aggressive and violent behaviors in sport, but also the appropriate strategies for addressing them. The present paper, however, proposes that there is also a good deal of agreement, which has been masked largely by semantic differences, among the authors on both sides of these recent debates. The purposes of this article are: (a) to draw attention to these areas of agreement, (b) to discuss some points of continued dissension, and most importantly, (c) to summarize some topics for further consideration that have emerged from, yet extend beyond, this ongoing debate regarding aggression and violence in sport. Before addressing these aims, however, a few comments regarding possible misrepresentations and misinterpretations of recent published arguments are warranted, as is a brief discussion of definitional and semantic issues.

MISREPRESENTING AND MISINTERPRETING PUBLISHED STATEMENTS

In his most recent paper, Kerr (2002) states that a number of his earlier arguments ( Kerr, 1999 ) were misinterpreted and misrepresented by Tenenbaum et al. (2000) . The latter authors had also implied that Kerr (1999) had fashioned unfair and somewhat careless criticisms of the original PS ( Tenenbaum et al., 1997 ). One consequence of airing a debate in a public forum such as the one provided by The Sport Psychologist is that any arguments put forward are subject to the personal opinions and reactions of the audience. Once published, the content of a paper enters the public domain and is subject to public scrutiny. While authors might reasonably expect the readership of a journal to which they submit their work to act as reasonable consumers, they also accept the possibility that readers’ perceptions of their efforts may not perfectly reflect the intended message. Thus, the author carries the burden of crafting a clear argument, yet yields the right of interpreting the published ideas to the reader.

This being stated, it is not our intention to defend any of the previous authors for skewing the opposing sides’ statements in order to gain favor for their own views, but rather to suggest a different tone be adopted from this point forward. That is, rather than relying on this forum to publicly air a personal debate (while attempting to convince readers that ours is the “true” or “correct” view), our aim is to move beyond the previous arguments and towards a productive discourse on aggression and violence in sport. In this regard, we agree with the sentiment Kerr (2002) has conveyed by stating, “Readers can judge the merits of the arguments and counterarguments by returning to these earlier publications” (p. 69). To provide a further disclaimer, of sorts, we want to make it clear that references made here to Kerr’s (1999 , 2002) previous arguments, and indeed to others’ as well, reflect the present authors’ interpretations of the published articles.

The preceding discussion notwithstanding, there is one purported misinterpretation identified by Kerr (2002) that we would like to clarify. Towards the closing of their reply, Tenenbaum et al. (2000) cited an aggressive and illegal action in a youth hockey game that left the then 15year-old player Neal Goss paralyzed ( Swift & Munson, 1999 ). Kerr accurately refers to this as an “emotive example” (p. 69), which was used by Tenenbaum et al. to refute some of his earlier arguments. After reading Kerr’s latest article, it is apparent that one could interpret this passage as implying that Kerr himself would endorse the illegal action described. This was not the intention, and the present authors wish to make it clear that none of Kerr’s (1999 , 2002) statements would directly support the specific, injury-causing action described by Swift and Munson. The point that Tenenbaum et al. were trying to make was that this, indeed, was a tragic example of the type of behavior that occurs in youth sports as an indirect consequence of norms relating to aggression in adult sport.

DEFINITIONAL AND SEMANTIC CONSIDERATIONS

In the most recent paper, while critiquing the definition of aggression used in the original PS, Kerr (2002) states, “Physically aggressive acts, like blocking in American football, regular tackles in rugby, and body checks in ice hockey, can be ferociously violent actions yet both within the rules of the game and not intended to injure” (p. 70). If one recognizes the operational definition of aggression provided by the PS (i.e. behavior with the intent to injure), then an action executed without intent to injure cannot be classified as aggressive. Such an action would be considered assertive, as the term is used by Tenenbaum et al. (2000) . Readers will note that one need not endorse an operational definition in order to recognize the manner in which a term is used. In the passage cited, Kerr appears to have juxtaposed his preferred definition of aggression with that provided in the PS, with ensuing passages describing sanctioned “aggressive” acts, despite the fact that such acts would not be deemed aggressive, as the term was defined in the PS. Thus, our concern is that Kerr’s criticism of the PS largely reflects an interpretation of aggression in sport as he would have defined the term, as opposed to responding in light of the operational definition actually provided by the authors.

Notwithstanding Kerr’s (1999 , 2002) contention that the traditional definitions of aggression do not apply to team contact sports, a recent review by Anderson and Bushman (2002) presents a definition similar to that contained in the PS. These authors describe human aggression as, “Any behavior directed toward another individual that is carried out with the proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm. In addition, the perpetrator must believe that the behavior will harm the target, and that the target is motivated to avoid the behavior” (p. 28).

Of course, we recognize that the terms “aggressive” and “assertive,” as employed by many sport participants and spectators, carry a different meaning than that assigned by psychologists. Kerr (2002) questions whether viewers would describe the type of intense physical contact exhibited in the Super Bowl of American football as assertive rather than aggressive actions. He contends that referring to such behaviors as assertive, “Lacks credibility and remains unconvincing” (p.72). In the context of discussing such behaviors as a sports fan, Kerr may be correct. The PS’s definitions of these particular terms may not coincide with their usage among many spectators, who would not meditate over this “academic” distinction. Nevertheless, we remain confident that readers of The Sport Psychologist will consider arguments presented in its articles in light of the definitions provided and supported by the authors.

We do believe, however, that the foregoing discussion regarding definitional issues has highlighted a topic worthy of further consideration (thus, it is addressed specifically in a later section of this paper). Namely, when a similar term is ascribed different meanings by sport psychologists than by spectators, players, and coaches, potential problems exist. We believe that a large part of the dissenting views presented up to now reflect differing connotations of the term “aggression,” when used in a formal as opposed to informal context.

A laudable goal would be to arrive at an agreement on terms that capture both what Tenenbaum et al. (1997) refer to as aggression and what Kerr (1999 , 2002) identifies as “unsanctioned aggression” in sport, as well as what these authors refer to as assertive behavior and “sanctioned aggression,” respectively. Kerr (2002) has stated, “Attempting to produce a satisfactory definition of aggression and violence in sport…may not be easy” (p.71). We agree with this statement, yet we also hold that if these definitional issues could be resolved, we might find that much (though perhaps not all) of the opposing arguments presented in past publications have been more a reflection of differences in semantics, rather than in actual viewpoints.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT REGARDING AGGRESSION IN SPORT

An example of an area in which we agree with statements made by Kerr (2002) concerns the necessity of intense, physical actions in several contact sports. Relying on Brink’s (1995) term hard play to describe this type of behavior, which is acceptable within the rules of rugby union, Kerr explains that such behaviors often border quite closely with foul play . Foul play, Kerr explains, is not sanctioned by the rules and is not justified. We agree that in a variety of contact sports, including both individual and team events, the distinction between what Brink has called fair play and foul play is often difficult to discern. In fact, these popular phrases capture the distinction between assertive and aggressive acts, as the terms were employed in the original PS, based upon their usage in the scientific literature.

Contrary to Kerr’s (2002) statement that the PS and Tenenbaum et al. (2000) seem to be arguing for “sanitized” sports (p. 76), this is not our goal, nor was it the goal of the earlier authors. In contrast, we agree that intense, physical contact – whether termed fair play, assertiveness, or sanctioned aggression – is an integral part of many sports. We further believe that steps should be taken to allow athletes to engage and, indeed, to revel in such behaviors without concern that others in the sport environment will react with intent to harm. As Tenenbaum et al. (2000) have stated “Athletes should never be compelled nor expected to proceed with the assumption that it is permissible to intentionally harm another participant” (p.318).

This is the rationale that leads us to support the spirit of the PS recommendations. Realizing that there is a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable acts in contact sports, we support strict enforcement of the rules in order to protect those who play hard while deterring participants from crossing that line. Of course, judging where that line falls is a difficult task: one that usually rests with the officials. Their role in minimizing aggressive behaviors is discussed in a later section. This approach is analogous to the strict enforcement of safety precautions in certain high-risk sports, which allows athletes to “push the envelope” while minimizing the risk of serious injury or death.

There also appears to be agreement among all parties regarding their desire to minimize behaviors that are intended to harm others, though this point may have been diminished in Kerr’s (1999 , 2002) recent publications via the author’s emphasis on rejecting the PS. It is our interpretation that while Kerr objects to using the term aggression to characterize such actions in sport contexts, he does not support behaviors performed with the intent to harm.

Having directed his discussion largely at adult sports, Kerr (2002) claims, “The PS, as it stands, will have little or no credibility among those involved as players, coaches, or administrators in team contact sports” (p. 76). He also states that his motivation for writing both papers was “Based on a real concern that the PS would be seen by those at the cutting edge of sport as just one more unhelpful, unrealistic piece of muddled thinking from academics” (p. 76). After considering these tenacious comments, the present authors tend to agree that many participants, coaches, and spectators will ignore the PS’s recommendations, though not because we concur that the PS itself is catastrophically flawed.

Given his extensive experience playing and coaching rugby union, Kerr (2002) may, in fact, be in a position to predict how this particular community of coaches, players, and administrators would react to any set of recommendations. According to Kerr (1999 , 2002) the culture of Rugby Union in Australia eventually changed as a result of declining audiences, who were frustrated with the aggression, violence, and foul play in the sport. In this instance, changes were secondary to spectators’ self-regulation, which was unfortunate for professional rugby interests, but not tragic.

Unfortunately, despite recommendations to enact proactive changes, for the culture of some sports to change, tragedy must occur. Two examples will illustrate this point. The first concerns amateur wrestlers and their long-held practice of rapid weight loss through severe dehydration and other potentially harmful methods. Despite continual cautions offered by many physiologists, dieticians, and other researchers ( Hursh, 1979 ; Webster & Weltman, 1990 ; Yarrows, 1988 ) that such practices were harmful, participants, coaches, and administrators in amateur wrestling dismissed these warnings, maintaining that “cutting weight” was “part of the sport.” Even a position stand issued by the American College of Sports Medicine (1996) about fluid replacement during exercise had little effect on these practices. It was not until these routines led to three deaths in one year that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in the United States took major steps to change the culture of the sport (see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1998 ). Shortly after these tragedies, the NCAA’s Safeguards Committee, along with the Wrestling Rules Committee, instituted major changes to systematically reduce and eventually eliminate the practice of rapid weight loss. A member of the Rules Committee at the time has communicated to the first author that, “Without those three deaths, we never would have fully addressed this problem. I believe a version of our NCAA rules will eventually be used in every state for high school wrestling too... which is a good thing” (C.M. Horpel, personal communication, August 8, 2002).

The second example concerns NASCAR automobile racing. After the tragic death of Dale Earnhardt, those involved in the sport took steps to require all NASCAR drivers to use the Head and Neck Restraint (HANS) system ( Hubbard/Downing, 2002 ). Though safety specialists had been recommending the mandatory use of this system for some time, and though other deaths had occurred which might possibly have been prevented, it took the death of a high profile athlete to effect serious change to require all participants to protect themselves, despite their willingness not to reduce the risks inherent in their sport. The HANS® Device has been made mandatory in Formula 1 for the 2003 racing season. Other racing circuits, including CART and Formula Atlantic, have made HANS ® mandatory for all its series beginning 2002. A head and neck restraining system is mandatory in NASCAR’s Winston Cup, Busch and Craftsman Truck series, ASA, and ARCA ( NASCAR, 2002 ).

In short, while we agree with Kerr (2002) that the PS, in its present form, may be ignored by some of the very groups at which it is aimed, this, in itself, is not an indictment of the recommendations. Perhaps the culture of some team contact sports will not take steps to curtail aggression, as it has been defined in the PS, until such behaviors cause a serious enough tragedy to occur. Perhaps if the much-publicized aggressive act committed by professional hockey player Marty McSorley (see Kerr, 2002 , pp. 70–71) had resulted in a more tragic outcome, then in addition to penalizing the offender, the National Hockey League would be taking more serious and systematic steps to reduce the occurrence of fights and other forms of violence.

AREAS OF CONTINUED DISAGREEMENT

The role of officials.

Responding to Kerr’s (1999) suggestion that references to officials should have been omitted from the PS and that attacks committed against officials or as a result of their decisions are rare, Tenenbaum et al. (2000) countered by citing studies on officials and aggressive acts. Three of these studies ( Rainey, 1994 ; Rainey & Hardy, 1999 ; Wann, Carlson & Schrader, 1999 ) addressed aggression directed towards officials. Focusing on these studies, Kerr (2002) points out that Rainey, referring to baseball umpires, concluded that though, “Assaults on umpires are not rare…they are not common, occurring to perhaps 1 out of 100 umpires per year” (p. 154). In the Rainey and Hardy study, 5.6% of rugby referees reported being assaulted. Having restated these findings, we will leave it to the reader to judge whether these percentages provide cause for concern. More recently, media reports, though perhaps exaggerated, reveal that assaults occur frequently enough that insurance policies are available to protect youth sports officials from this potential danger ( Greenburg & Bernstein, 2000 ). In fairness, Kerr (2002) did not focus on youth sports in his most recent paper. We should note, however, that debating the prevalence of assaults on officials might be counterproductive for two reasons. First, at present, as Kerr (2002) points out, those who have done the research concluded that many questions remain. Second, this debate about aggressive acts targeted at officials diverts attention from the question of how much influence officials actually have in reducing aggression in general.

Tenenbaum et al. (2000) provide references to some of the literature addressing this more central question. A few studies of sport-related injuries shed additional light on the probable importance of the official’s role. According to Brust, Roberts, and Leonard (1996) , rule enforcement is especially important in contact sports. Brust, Leonard, Pheley, and Roberts (1992) found that for 29 injuries resulting from tactics judged illegal in hockey, only four penalties were assessed. Studying catastrophic injuries, Tator, Edmonds, and Lapezak (1991) noted that rules were frequently not enforced and hockey players were injured as a result of illegal play. Brust et al. (1996) describe 3 hockey games in which injuries occurred as hostile players called each other names and fought, parents expressed anger, and referees’ calls were “hotly disputed.” As officials are charged with enforcing rules, these studies indicate that their proficiency in doing so, or lack thereof, appears to have a meaningful effect not only on the (unsanctioned) behavior of players, but also on the injuries that can result.

As mentioned above, the line between hard play and foul play can be difficult to discern, though doing so is an important challenge for officials, especially those overseeing contact sports. Despite Kerr’s (2002) cautions regarding judging a player’s intent, this is exactly what officials are frequently called upon to do in distinguishing permissible conduct from illegal actions. For example, “spearing” in American football is defined as “Intentionally driving the helmet into a player in an attempt to punish him” ( Adams, 2002 , p. 47). In addition, international rules forbid wrestlers to, “Perform actions, gestures, or holds with the intention of torturing the opponent or of making him suffer to force him to withdraw.” ( USA Wrestling, 2002 , p. 48)

Providing further support for including officials in this discussion, a recent survey of leading scholastic officials revealed most believe that preventing aggression is an important aspect of their vocation ( Sacks & Watson, 2002 ). It is worth noting that, in this study, the term used to query participants on this matter was unsanctioned aggression. Partially as a response to Kerr’s (1999) rejoinder, the researchers wanted to be certain that the officials surveyed would not confuse the word aggression with physically intense actions that are permissible in certain sports.

In their professional publications, officials often use the term “poor sportsmanship” to describe various unacceptable behaviors, including fighting and other forms of aggression. Encouraging sportsmanship has become an increasingly popular topic in these publications during recent years. In a recent edition of NFHS Official’s Quarterly ( Gillis, 2002 ), for example, two of the four feature articles were written by officials addressing sportsmanship.

Another recent article in Referee magazine ( Arehart, 2002 ) presents the view that poor sportsmanship at the professional level has led to similar problems among high school athletes. Mike Pereira, Director of Officiating for the National Football League (of American football; NFL) is quoted as saying, “The pros and college sports have a huge impact on the play of the game at the lower levels. To turn our backs on that is a huge mistake” (p. 25). This reference to the vicarious learning effects of watching adult sport relates to another area of ongoing disagreement.

Effects of Observing Aggression and Violence in Sport

Specific behaviors identified in the Arehart (2002) article that were first noticed at the professional level and then in youth sports include the throat slashing gesture (in American football) and headbutting (in basketball). According to Pereira:

It’s incumbent on the NFL and everybody else (at the pro level) to assume responsibility, to work on our games, to work on those individuals who are creating those highlight clips on ESPN, and try to discourage that so that they emulate a positive role model for young people involved in the game. (p. 25)

This is but one of many references made by those on the cutting edge of sport regarding the detrimental effects that can result when youth observe undesirable behaviors by adult athletes. Writing for Sports Illustrated for Kids, Mickey Rathbun ( Rathbun, 1997 , ¶ 1) states, “When a superstar athlete misbehaves, his antics make headlines and TV news everywhere-including, most likely, in your house. Your child gets a lesson in sportsmanship, whether you like it or not. And it probably isn’t the kind of lesson you like.”

Evidence suggests that some of the recent violence in youth sport settings stems at least in part from modeling effects of observing adult sports. In a well-publicized incident that resulted in the death of a hockey parent, the conflict reportedly began with overly violent play among young athletes during a scrimmage. Prior to being attacked by another parent, the victim is reported to have argued that such actions were part of the game (see Nack & Munson, 2000 , p. 88). One might also speculate that one factor influencing the type of play that eventually injured Neal Goss, who was apparently retaliated upon for his successful performance, is the youth league’s modeling of professional hockey norms (see Swift & Munson, 1999 ).

These anecdotal accounts are supported by a vast body of scientific literature demonstrating the saliency of learning through observing others, and several studies are cited by Tenenbaum et al. (2000) . Kerr (2002) appears skeptical of this literature and criticizes the PS and Tenenbaum et al. for making, “Definite statements about the effects of observing aggression and violence on those viewing sport” (p. 72). He also points out that not all psychologists are convinced of the saliency of learning aggressive behavior from models. While perhaps it is unscientific to make definite conclusions about any phenomenon, we believe that findings regarding learning through observation are among the most consistent in the psychological literature.

Not surprisingly, professional athletes are often perceived as having very valued characteristics and, therefore, are more likely to be imitated by those who observe them ( Singer & Singer, 1981 ). This may be especially harmful if the viewer is young. Research shows that aggressive habits are often learned at an early age and become more and more resistant to change in later years ( Anderson & Bushman, 2002 ; Huesmann & Eron, 1986 ). Additional studies have supported the notion that early observations of aggression may serve as precursors to future aggressive tendencies ( Huesmann, Eron, Klein, Brice, & Fischer, 1983 ; Huesmann, Moise, Podolski, & Eron, 1997 ). In addition, a study exploring 724 male football players and non-players in a Midwestern community found a significant positive relationship between observed illegal aggressive acts and the eventual use of these acts in competition ( Mugno & Feltz, 1985 ). In summary, both scientific research and logical inferences based upon anecdotal reports present an extremely strong case that individuals are more likely to behave aggressively in a sport context after viewing aggressive acts by other athletes.

Limiting Discussion to Adult Team Contact Sports

The possible effects of learning aggressive and violent behaviors by observing adult models in sport has important implications in recent debates, given that Kerr (2002) has restricted his comments largely to adult sport (p. 69). This stated limitation contrasts with the goals of the PS, Tenenbaum et al. (2000) , and the present paper. If, in fact, adult sport were played in isolation from viewers, then it might be defensible to argue that competitors, as consenting adults, should be free to compete as they see fit. However, if the evidence suggests that the actions of adult athletes influence youth sports as well (and we strongly believe this is the case), then it seems rather irresponsible to address aggression and violence in adult sport without considering both the immediate and secondary impacts.

We are also somewhat surprised that Kerr (2002) has confined his comments to team contact sports. While Kerr reports that his own playing and coaching experience is in a team sport, we are puzzled that he ignored individual contact sports. Tenenbaum et al. (2000) list boxing, judo, and wrestling as sports in which physically intense actions are crucial. Certainly, many of the same issues that Kerr (1999 , 2002) has explored are relevant to these individual combat sports as well.

Despite Kerr’s (1999 , 2002) comments (and our acknowledgements above) that the PS will have little credibility for contact sport participants, many organizations and youth leagues have instituted policies that are very much in line with the PS. A recent web-based search, for example, yielded a number of codes of conduct that mirror many of the PS recommendations (see Appleton Area Hockey Association, 2002 ; National Alliance for Youth Sport, 2002 ; Northern California Junior Hockey Association, 2002 ; Positive Coaching Alliance, 2001). In summary, while Kerr prefers to limit his discussion to adult team-contact sports, there has been little controversy regarding the applicability of the PS to other sport contexts.

ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Respecting the culture of a sport.

In the preceding section, we have stated our belief that norms characterizing adult sport have an effect on younger athletes. Given this assumption, one might question whether a desire to preserve the culture of a sport, however violent, is outweighed by a need to prevent undesirable consequences from “trickling down” to youth. As this dilemma is somewhat abstruse and philosophical, considering the number of injuries incurred by young athletes provides some concrete data. In releasing its policy on the practice of checking in youth ice hockey, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reported that 86% of injuries sustained by 9–15 year old hockey players resulted from high-speed collisions ( American Academy of Pediatrics, 2000 ). Since most youth hockey injuries result from body checking, the AAP recommended that hockey players, ages 15 and younger, should not check other players. While it is difficult to prove definitively that these injuries stem from the practices of professional sports, it is likely that the norms of the adult game are a contributing factor.

Notwithstanding these points, those who participate in, coach, and administer adult sports certainly possess the right to do so as they see fit. At what point, then, should an organization such as the ISSP offer statements that would impede upon the will of those parties? This is indeed an issue with moral and ethical overtones, and we would expect responses to this rhetorical question to be colored by readers’ personal philosophies. It is not our purpose to resolve this question here, but rather to illustrate this issue as an overriding concern – one worthy of future consideration – that has emerged from recent debates on aggression and violence in sports. For the interested reader, a number of studies have revealed some interesting associations between moral reasoning and aggressive tendencies (see, for example, Bredemeier, 1985 , 1994 ; Bredemeier, Weiss, Shields, & Cooper, 1986 ).

In lieu of discussing the moral nature of aggression in sport, Kerr (2002) does invoke a legal argument in its favor by citing Smith’s statement, “Volenti non fit injuria – to one who consents no injury is done” (p. 71). According to this premise, athletes who agree to participate in sports where competitors intentionally harm one another are, in fact, justified in doing so. For example, if the norms in professional ice hockey make it permissible for one player to provoke a fight with another, then such behavior is acceptable – at least legally. The same would hold true for athletes who accept the possibility of serious injury or death for the sake of the thrill in various high-risk sports. Legal precedence indicates that permissible behavior by consenting adults becomes unacceptable when an athlete’s “reasonable assumption of risk” has been violated. As for identifying the point at which respect for the culture of a sport conflicts with moral and ethical considerations: that is a task for continued deliberation.

The Purpose of a Position Stand

Another broader issue emerging from the recent debates concerns the original purpose for issuing a position stand. While Kerr (1999 , 2002) has criticized the ISSP PS for its alleged lack of potency in effecting change, others might consider that one purpose of a position stand is to argue for the ideal, while making recommendations based upon sound research, experience, and, indeed, moral and ethical considerations. Again, while Kerr may be correct that the PS may not lead to changes in certain sports, we maintain that an effective position stand should recommend proactive steps to effect change, rather than reactive changes that are so often the case.

Problems with Professional Versus Popular Jargon

An ongoing point of contention since the PS was issued concerns the definition of terms such as aggression, assertiveness, and violence. In this paper, we have attempted to point out that disagreements regarding the semantics of these terms have clouded other topics, some of which actually represent areas of agreement among “dissenting” authors. If there are lessons to be learned here, they involve paying vigilant attention to how psychological constructs are operationalized, as well as considering the context in which terms are to be used.

The present authors recognize that the term aggression has various connotations in differing contexts. As we would imagine is the case with many readers, we have used the term in an academic environment to describe undesirable behaviors executed with the intent to harm another (similar to the use of the PS’s definition of the term) and later, in a sport setting, employed the same word to encourage athletes to engage in hard but fair play (which is similar to Kerr’s usage). Perhaps this variability in usage necessitates that a document like the PS be presented in two versions: one for an academic audience, and one for the “larger sectors of society.”

The preceding is but one example of a term meaning one thing to psychologists or academics and another in other contexts. While we would expect contributions to a journal like The Sport Psychologist to be considered in light of the operational definitions included, it is not a trivial matter that various parties referred to in this paper use the terms aggression, unsanctioned aggression, foul play, and “unsportsmanlike” conduct to refer to similar concepts.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

In the present effort, we have attempted to summarize the recent exchanges regarding aggression and violence in sport. In doing so, we have found that despite some points of continued dissention, there are a number of issues upon which all authors agree. It is our hope that the discussion has moved beyond the level of public debate and towards a forum that will prove useful to those concerned with aggression and violence in sport.

Adams JR. NCAA football rules and interpretations. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
American College Sports Medicine. Position stand: Exercise and fluid replacement. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise. 1996; 22 :i–viii. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
American Academy of Pediatrics. Safety in youth ice hockey: The effects of body checking. American Academy Pediatrics. 2000; 105 :657–658. Retrieved August 20, 2002. http://www.aap.org/policy/re9835.html . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002; 53 :27–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Appleton Area Hockey Association. 2002 Retrieved August 15, 2002 http://www.aahahockey.com/programs/
Arehart J. Standing up for sportsmanship. Referee. 2002; 27 (1):24–28. [ Google Scholar ]
Bredemeier BJ. Moral reasoning and the perceived legitimacy of intentionally injurious sport acts. Journal of Sport Psychology. 1985; 7 :110–124. [ Google Scholar ]
Bredemeier BJL. Children’s moral reasoning and their assertive, aggressive, and submissive tendencies in sport and daily life. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 1994; 16 :1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
Bredemeier BJ, Weiss MR, Shields DL, Cooper BA. The relationship of sport involvement with children’s moral reasoning and aggression tendencies. Journal of Sport Psychology. 1986; 8 :304–318. [ Google Scholar ]
Brink A. Dirty old habits die hard. The Guardian. 1995 Jun 24;:29. [ Google Scholar ]
Brust JD, Leonard BJ, Pheley A, Roberts WO. Children’s ice hockey injuries. American Journal of Diseases of Children. 1992; 146 :741–747. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brust JD, Roberts WO, Leonard BJ. Gladiators on ice: An overview of ice hockey injuries in youth. The Medical Journal of Allina. 1996; 5 :26–30. [ Google Scholar ]
Gillis JC, editor. NFHS Officials’ Quarterly. 2002; 6 (4) [ Google Scholar ]
Greenberg R, Bernstein R., Executive Producers . Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. New York: Home Box Office; 2000. Oct, [ Google Scholar ]
Hubbard/Downing Inc. 2002 Retrieved August 20, 2002 http://www.hansdevice.com/information-sheet.htm .
Huesmann LR, Eron LD, editors. Television and the aggressive child: A cross-national comparison. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
Huesmann LR, Eron LD, Klein A, Brice P, Fischer P. Mitigating the imitation of aggressive behaviors by changing children’s attitudes about media violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983; 44 :899–910. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Huesmann LR, Moise JK, Podolski CL, Eron L. Longitudinal relations between early exposure to televisions violence viewing and young adult aggression: 19771992. Paper presented at the biennial meeting for the Society for Research on Child Development; Washington, D.C.. 1997. Apr, [ Google Scholar ]
Hursh LM. Food and water restriction in the wrestler. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1979; 241 :915–916. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kerr JH. The role of aggression and violence in sport. A rejoinder to the ISSP position stand. The Sport Psychologist. 1999; 13 :83–88. [ Google Scholar ]
Kerr JH. Issues in aggression and violence in sport: The ISSP position stand revisited. The Sport Psychologist. 2002; 16 :68–78. [ Google Scholar ]
Mugno DA, Feltz DL. The social learning of aggression in youth football in the United States. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences. 1985; 10 :26–35. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nack W, Munson L. Out of Control. Sports Illustrated. 2000 Jul 24; 93 :86–95. [ Google Scholar ]
NASCAR. NASCAR frequently asked questions. 2002 Retrieved August 15, 2002 http://www.nascar.com/guides/customer_service/nascar_contact.html .
National Alliance for Youth Sport. Code of ethics. 2002 Retrieved August 15, 2002 http://www.nays.org/coaches/code_of_ethics.cfm .
Northern California Junior Hockey Association. Code of Conduct. 2002 Retrieved August 15, 2002 http://www.norcalyouthhockey.com/Forms/USAHCodeOfConduct.pdf .
Positive Coaching Alliance. 2002 Retrieved August 15, 2002 http://www.positivecoach.org/
Rainey DW. Assaults on umpires: A statewide survey. Journal of Sport Behavior. 1994; 17 :148–155. [ Google Scholar ]
Rainey D, Hardy L. Assaults on rugby union referees: A three union survey. Journal of Sport Behavior. 1999; 22 :105–113. [ Google Scholar ]
Rathbun M. 1997 Retrieved August 15, 2002 http://www.sikids.com/sportsparents/sportsmanship/index.html .
Sacks DN, Watson JC. The sport official: Understanding the development of expertise. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology; Tucson, AZ.. 2002. Nov, [ Google Scholar ]
Singer JL, Singer DG. Television, imagination, and aggression: A study of preschoolers. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
Swift EM, Munson L. Paralyzing hit. Sports Illustrated. 1999 Dec 20; 91 :34–35. [ Google Scholar ]
Tator CH, Edmonds VE, Lapezak L. Spinal injuries in ice hockey players, 19661987. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 1991; 34 :63–69. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tenenbaum G, Sacks DN, Miller JW, Golden AS, Doolin N. Aggression and violence in sport: A reply to Kerr’s rejoinder. The Sport Psychologist. 2000; 14 :315–326. [ Google Scholar ]
Tenenbaum G, Stewart E, Singer RN, Duda J. Aggression and violence in sport: An ISSP position stand. The Sport Psychologist. 1997; 11 :1–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hyperthermia and dehydration-related deaths associated with intentional rapid weight loss in three collegiate wrestlers: North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan, November – December 1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1998; 47 :105–108. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
USA Wrestling. International rule book and guide to wrestling. Colorado Springs, CO: Author; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
Wann DL, Carlson JD, Schrader MP. The impact of team identification on the hostile and instrumental aggression of sport spectators. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 1999; 14 :279–286. [ Google Scholar ]
Webster SR, Weltman R. Physiological effects of a weight loss regimen practiced by college wrestlers. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise. 1990; 22 :229–234. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yarrows SA. Weight loss through dehydration in amateur wrestling. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 1988; 88 :491–493. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

International edition
Australia edition
Europe edition

American football is too dangerous, and it should be abolished

I’d suggest recreating the game without helmets instead, but that’s not going to happen, so we should all just channel our primal bloodlust elsewhere

W e just completed another regular season of NFL football. Now let’s see if we can make it the last such season ever played. In its current state, professional football is immoral and we as a society should end its existence.

I imagine some fans of American football felt their hackles rise upon reading that. “Immoral” is a strong word, impossible to type from anywhere other than the saddle of a very tall horse, which isn’t the most comfortable seat for me.

I ate foie gras with Christmas dinner last week and enjoyed it immensely. I know that its production involves torturing ducks, which I think is wrong. In eating it, I am putting my own pleasure over the wellbeing of another living creature.

So I don’t take the moral high ground lightly. But I value human life more than avian life, so I will continue to scold those of you who put the pleasure you derive from watching football (and in so doing, paying money to the NFL, propagating its immoral practices) above the wellbeing of the players you’re watching play.

The damage football players suffer need not be debated at this point. The new Will Smith movie, Concussion, is based on one of the many books detailing the mountain of scientific evidence proving that the sport shortens lives. Efforts to make it safer with better equipment will not work, because the damage happens inside the players’ skulls, when the brain sloshes around and smashes against its bone casing. It’s the speed and power with which players ram their helmeted heads into other players that’s the problem. The game as it is played today kills the people who play it, period.

I have been arguing about this a lot over the past year with my friend Todd, who is a football fan and also a good person, I believe. Todd’s defense of professional football is based on the notion of freedom: NFL players are adults, he says, and they should be free to do whatever they want with their bodies, including destroy them by playing a game for which they get paid a lot of money. Todd brings up my individualistic positions on abortion (pro-choice) and drug use (legalize it) and assisted suicide (same) in his efforts to sway me. These are pretty good arguments. Is there inconsistency in my calling for an end to the NFL?

But I approach the issue from the other side: it’s not the players who I am calling immoral. The onus is on us, the fans (and, more directly, the team owners) who pay the players to hurt themselves for our enjoyment. Huge amounts of money, let-your-parents-retire-and-set-up-the-next-generation-of-your-family-to-go-to-college money, “make him an offer he can’t refuse” money. The money is there, so if one 20-year-old does muster up the sense to say no, there’ll be 20 others waiting in line to say yes. Football fans are like Roman citizens cheering as gladiators fight to the death in the Colosseum. NFL team owners, who make money from the spectacle, are more on a level with Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained.

Todd counters that we pay lots of people in lots of other professions for the risks they take, the danger they put their bodies in. Ice road truckers, halibut fishermen, fire jumpers, underwater oil rig welders, police officers. Should we outlaw all these professions? There’s risk involved in just about anything, if you look for it. At a certain point, society would crumble.

The difference here, I would say, is in the “for our entertainment” part. That’s where the NFL tips into immorality. (Like eating foie gras .) We don’t need to watch football – we choose to – and everything we get out of it is non-essential. It is a luxury. It satisfies something deep inside us: bloodlust, that same inclination that causes backups at accident scenes and the popularity of videos of lunchroom brawls posted on World Star Hip Hop. We watch an airborne human body get absolutely pummeled by another airborne body, helmet first, and we can hear the crunch of the bones – we can feel the crunch of bones. “Owwww,” we say. That’s gotta hurt!” And we reach for the remote control and hit the rewind button.

We should be more honest about how ugly and shameful our bloodlust is (and about how natural it is, too, and how inherent to the human condition), and we should try to channel our need for catharsis in this regard into forms of entertainment that don’t leave real broken bodies their wake. Violent movies, I would argue, are far more easily defensible on moral grounds, as are gangsta rap and first-person shooter video games.

But many football fans avoid confronting this central aspect of the game. They’ll say they enjoy it more for the strategic acumen displayed by the best coaches (try to find the name of New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick written anywhere without the precedent descriptor “genius”. It’s not easy.) Or they’ll mention its display of core American values like teamwork, discipline and individual sacrifice for a greater good. For how a well-thought-out, well-executed gameplan can neutralize a physical advantage one team holds over another, and how on “any given Sunday” an underdog can buck the odds and win. It’s a metaphor for war, it’s a metaphor for life, etc, like all sports we like to watch. I’m all right with that. I love a good metaphor like the way I love my own mom.

Here is where something Todd said in one of our arguments carries the day, I think: “The real solution is to go back to the time when players didn’t wear helmets,” he said, surprising me. “It’s weird, it’s counterintuitive. But no helmets, no headfirst collisions. They just couldn’t do it – they’d be knocked unconscious and wouldn’t be able to play any more. No headfirst collisions, no brain damage. It would actually make the game much safer.”

This is right, I think. And I’m not the only one. “Football helmets are creating more problems than they solve,” wrote the Sporting News’s Tadd Haislop a couple of months ago. Even the co-chairman of the NFL’s own health and safety advisory committee, Dr John York, told the BBC that he can envision a helmetless future for the NFL. “Can I see a time without helmets? Yes,” York said, noting that it would require wholesale changes in the way the game is played. “It’s not around the corner, but I can see it.”

Football without helmets would be more like rugby, or even the “ powder puff ” flag-football version popular with young women at American high schools and colleges than the brutal NFL incarnation of the sport.

Would football fans still watch? Enough of them to support the $7.24bn-per-year industry the NFL has become ? It would be an interesting experiment to try, to see if Americans are as enamored with the strategic aspects of the game as the intelligentsia claim to be.

It would not, however, be a fiscally sound gamble. Shortly after making his comments to the BBC about envisioning a helmetless future for the NFL, Dr York “ clarified ” his statement for CBS News: “The co-chairman of the NFL’s health and safety advisory committee believes that helmets in American football are part of the culture and tradition and doesn’t foresee an NFL where helmets aren’t being used.”

Which leaves us with one moral option: illegalize it, the whole operation.

Dave Bry column

Most viewed

The Psychology Of Violence In Sports — On The Field And In The Stands

Leonard L. Glass

In this Aug. 20, 2011 photo, football fans fight in the stands during a preseason NFL football game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders in San Francisco. (Ben Margot/AP)

I thought my mother was a quintessentially maternal woman. But at one of my college’s football games, just before the last crucial goal line play, she yelled out her wish for the rival fullback: “Kill him! Kill him!” she shouted.

My father, always much more contained, leaned toward her and said quietly, “Pauline, that’s somebody’s son.”

Many years later, as a psychoanalyst and sports fan, I continue to wonder about this dichotomy among fans: we view our team's athletic rivals as the enemy, but they are also us. Consider our reaction to the friendly chat between the first baseman and the new base runner whose single just knocked in a crucial run; the hug between two spent heavyweights who’ve been pounding one another for 15 rounds; the lingering chat at midfield between two opposing football players after the last play. Did they go to high school together? Were they teammates on a youth team? Are they perchance cousins?

Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules, and sadistic pleasure in violence. In other words, it is war without shooting. George Orwell

When my kids were young, I coached their youth soccer teams. After every game the teams would line up to shake hands. Depending on the players’ age and maturity, this gesture was empty at worst and enforced proto-sportsmanship at best. I’d have to check to make sure the younger boys weren’t spitting on their hands to spite their opponents.

The handshakes are a ritual acknowledgement that, fundamentally, opponents are necessary for the game to take place and to make the play transcendent.

George Orwell notably observed , “Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules, and sadistic pleasure in violence. In other words, it is war without shooting.”

If that sounds hyperbolic, we must acknowledge how easy it is for us to excuse the professional foul by our team. A bean ball by an opposing pitcher we call a headhunter. But when our guy throws it it's just a “brush-back,” a time-honored warning. We see our linebacker as a hard player; but last year, when he played for our rival, he was a thug. Did he have a criminal record then? Maybe, but now we imagine him redeemed.

Studies have shown that violence in the game, particularly if perceived as unfair, increases the likelihood of violent acts by spectators. Fan violence is further magnified by strong identification with the team, underlying racial and ethnic tensions, social alienation, alcohol consumption, and predominance of young men in the crowd. The 2011 savage beating of Bryan Stow, a Giants fan, by two Dodger fans is a recent and egregious example .

Most of us seek the spectacle of the game to escape the struggles and banality of everyday life: we want to see exceptional displays of skill, strategy, teamwork, character, and yes, aggression, but within the rules of the game, what researcher Jennings Bryant termed “ sanctioned violence .” And that’s the purpose of penalties: to keep aggression in check.

Spectators recognize a spectrum for permissible vs. unacceptable aggression in sport, and we’re gripped by the tension between them. To disavow our interest in the varied displays of aggression would be hypocritical, denying a core aspect of our complex humanity. Experimental evidence in mice supports Freud’s hypothesis that aggression is rewarding in itself, akin to sex; and it’s mediated by the same brain neurochemistry.

As the president of Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), Dana White, tells CNN: “Everyone loves a fight. It's in our DNA ... if you're in an intersection and there's a basketball game on one corner, a soccer game on another, a baseball game on the third, and a fight on the fourth, everyone will go watch the fight.”

But we want to see that aggression channeled, contained, ‘sublimated’ as we analysts say, on artful but safe display. Jennings Bryant concludes that the fans’ moral judgment of the lawfulness of their team’s violent actions mitigates the satisfaction felt even at the defeat of a hated rival team.

When players genuinely recognize and acknowledge one another, it marks the game for us as a humane competition.

Since we seek organized displays of aggression, we cannot deny our complicity when players are routinely hurt in the service of our entertainment. Can we convince ourselves that the brain injury that so often and predictably comes from playing in the NFL is a side matter, separate from our enjoyment of big hits? Do we pretend that the New Orleans Saints’ bounty system for disabling opponents was an aberration? Don’t we feel queasy at the promotion of games as wars between enemies? Are we devoid of responsibility for uncritically supporting the NFL, which dangles enormous sums in front of players some of whom have little more to market than their capacity to inflict or bear life-altering injury?

We need to balance our appetite to watch aggressive sports action with the other side of our natures, the part that wants to affirm our identification with the humanity and vulnerability of the players on both sides. When players genuinely recognize and acknowledge one another, it marks the game for us as a humane competition. That exchange at first base tempers our sense of blood rivalry and reminds us that it is actually a game. We can indulge in the fantasy of do-or-die because we’re reassured that those are not really the stakes.

Are Fans To Blame For Violence In NFL?
2 Men Sentenced In Brutal Attack On Giants Fan
Bill Littlefield : Can We Really Expect Football Culture To Change If We Don’t Want It To?

Leonard L. Glass Cognoscenti contributor Leonard L. Glass, M.D. is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. He is also an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a senior attending psychiatrist at McLean Hospital.

More from WBUR

Support 110 years of independent journalism.

Is it time to ban violent sport?

There is no glory in setting out to cause injury to another human being.

By Kate Smurthwaite

Last week Lance Ferguson-Prayogg died after a white-collar boxing event in Nottingham. White-collar boxing is a strange modern phenomenon, a violent battle for which graduates only need apply, where MMA meets MBA.

The sport started in New York in the 1980s (well you didn’t think I was going to say Sweden did you?). Bouts now take place around the world including in the UK, with one London club boasting over 1,000 members. Princes William and Harry and Kate Middleton have been to watch charity white collar boxing events staged by their high society chums.

Sadly, “it’s for charity” has become the ultimate 21st-century excuse for things we wouldn’t put up with otherwise: topless calendars, demands for Facebook clicks and unlicensed boxing. What next? Cock fighting for Comic Relief?

The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBoC) has been making their opposition to unlicensed boxing known for over a decade.

It is outrageous that you can do this without a licence but is it any less offensive that you can do this with a licence? The BBBoC’s main concerns are that participants do not receive MRI head scans and that there is no upper age limit for participation. I can’t help thinking if a scan showed brain material present in the skull, that’d be a good reason not to allow anyone to punch it. The fact is that from Davey Moore to Kim Duk-koo to James Murray there is no getting away from death as a side effect of a sport where the whole objective is to render your opponent unconscious.

The Saturday Read

Morning call, events and offers, the green transition.

Administration / Office
Arts and Culture
Board Member
Business / Corporate Services
Client / Customer Services
Communications
Construction, Works, Engineering
Education, Curriculum and Teaching
Environment, Conservation and NRM
Facility / Grounds Management and Maintenance
Finance Management
Health - Medical and Nursing Management
HR, Training and Organisational Development
Information and Communications Technology
Information Services, Statistics, Records, Archives
Infrastructure Management - Transport, Utilities
Legal Officers and Practitioners
Librarians and Library Management
OH&S, Risk Management
Operations Management
Planning, Policy, Strategy
Printing, Design, Publishing, Web
Projects, Programs and Advisors
Property, Assets and Fleet Management
Public Relations and Media
Purchasing and Procurement
Quality Management
Science and Technical Research and Development
Security and Law Enforcement
Service Delivery
Sport and Recreation
Travel, Accommodation, Tourism
Wellbeing, Community / Social Services

White collar boxing, along with the Ultimate Fighting Championship or cage-fighting, is a recent phenomenon. But the principle behind them strikes me as grossly outdated. We need to draw a line between sport and violence. Yes, sport often carries a risk of injury and there is something noble about taking that risk. But there should be no glory in setting out to cause injury to another human being.

As a feminist I’m all about equality, but that doesn’t always mean taking the status quo for men and giving it to women. In 2005 in Denver, Colorado, Becky Zerlentes became the first woman known to have died from injuries sustained during a sanctioned boxing match. This is not the equality I want.

I won’t deny that I was initially swept along with the surge of enthusiasm for letting women participate in Olympic boxing. But should boxing be in the Olympics at all? I’d rather we focused our efforts on the other gender-exclusionary sport: the lack of a men’s synchronised swimming category.

The Olympic authorities say that male synchronised swimming is not popular enough. This is like saying “you can get in the lifeboat when you dry off”. Or (and as a comedian I’ve heard this one a few times) “you’d be perfect for our TV show, but you’re not famous enough”.

Let’s use the power of the Olympics to promote the sports that aren’t effectively formalised pub brawls. Or bring it into line with fencing and many other martial arts by using modern technology to detect contact without the need for concussion. This wouldn’t stop you or I going to the gym and punching a bag, learning self-defence or high-kicking our way through a pile of breeze blocks.

When I mention to friends my idea that we should put an end to boxing and cage-fighting they jokingly warn me to focus on annoying people who aren’t so strong and prone to violence. It’s a fair point but also exactly the one I want to make. If we want a society where the threat of violence isn’t a factor in decision-making, we need everyone in our society to understand viscerally that violence is always wrong.

Please do not bother trying to tell me that boxing and “fight” clubs are where the young men, and now gloriously equal women, of Britain “get their aggression out”. This is profoundly unscientific. It’s like suggesting Suarez be given a lump of raw meat to gnaw on at half-time. Exercising regularly makes people want to exercise more. Which is great if you’re a bag-puncher or even a synchronised swimmer.

The big money professional fights would go overseas. But are we really involved with violence for the money? The 21st century deserves a culture free from violence and the glorification of violence. We are better off without these things. Bye then. And please take Luis Suarez with you.

Content from our partners

Unlocking the potential of a national asset, St Pancras International

Time for Labour to turn the tide on children’s health

How can we deliver better rail journeys for customers?

Football is driven by money – but also improved by it

Why would Jürgen Klopp leave Liverpool? Let me count the (made up) ways

A requiem for Jürgen Klopp

OH&S, Risk Management

Debating Matters

sixth-form debating competition

We should accept the risk inherent in contact sports

INTRODUCTION

In December 2020, a group of ex-professional and semi-professional rugby players – including World Cup-winning Steve Thompson, former Wales captain Ryan Jones and former All Blacks prop Carl Hayman – sent a pre-action letter to World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and Welsh Rugby Union, suing them for failing to take protective action against the risks caused by concussion [Ref: BBC Sport ]. Two years later and the case is destined to go to the courts, a settlement having not been reached [Ref: Guardian ]. It is the first legal move of its kind in world rugby, with some comparing it to the class action against the NFL in 2011, where 20,000 retired players accused the league of not warning about, and hiding, brain injuries associated with the sport [Ref: NFL Concussion Settlement ].

Many of the over 180 players who have come forward so far have been diagnosed with early-onset dementia and probable chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease or motor neurone disease. CTE was the disease discovered post-mortem by Dr Bennet Omalu in American football player Mike Webster [Ref: BBC Sport ]. The disease gained public attention following the 2012 suicide of NFL player Junior Seau, who was posthumously found to be a sufferer of the disease [Ref: NPR ].

These concussion controversies are not just restricted to rugby and American football. In fact, the firm that is carrying out the legal action for the rugby players, Rylands Law, has also confirmed that it is bringing a claim on behalf of the families of 40 former professional footballers with early-onset dementia [Ref: Guardian ]. Dr Willie Stewart, a consultant neurologist, revealed that ‘footballers were three-and-a-half times more likely to die of neurodegenerative disease than age-matched members of the general population’ [Ref: Guardian ]. Cricket has sparked a debate about the removal of aggressive moves, such as the bouncer, where recently 22-year-old Australian Will Pucovski was hit on the head during a warm-up match leading to his ninth concussion at such a young age [Ref: Telegraph ].

These instances and others have brought the issue of sports safety to the fore, with many now questioning the legitimacy, and even humanity, of contact sports at the professional, amateur and youth level [Ref: Guardian ]. Critics argue that the rules and culture of contact sports must change to protect athletes from their desire to win at all costs; ultimately, sport must change to put safety first [Ref: Conversation ]. Yet others, including many sportspeople, disagree. Should we trust athletes to understand the consequences of contact sports and make a rational choice to take a risk for their love of the game? Or is it necessary that we protect athletes from themselves?

DEBATE IN CONTEXT

Taking a risk

CTE, colloquially known as ‘punch drunk’ due to the disease’s association with boxing, is a progressive degenerative illness found in people who have had a severe blow or repeated blows to the head. In its minor forms, symptoms include dizziness and headaches; in more severe forms, it can mean erratic behaviour, memory loss and dementia [Ref: Wikipedia ]. Scientific research continues to bring to light the association between CTE and contact sports such as American football, rugby, boxing and mixed martial arts [Ref: Economist ], with new evidence suggesting that women are twice as likely as to get concussed as men, with the effects being more severe [Ref: BBC ].

In December 2020, an open letter signed by a group of academics called for a ban on tackling for school rugby games due to the concerns ‘about the potential impact on young, developing brains of repeated concussive blows’ [Ref: BBC Sport ], after similar letters in 2016 and 2017, to ‘ensure the maximum possible safety for children’.

Likewise, calls for children under the age of 16 to be banned from heading in football have recently gained momentum, backed up by the wife of Nobby Stiles, the former England international football player who passed away in October 2020 suffering from dementia [Ref: Evening Standard ]. Steps have been taken since, with the FA announcing a trial to ‘remove deliberate heading’ at U12 level for the 2022-23 season, with plans to remove heading from the U12 level and below in the 2023-24 if the trial is a success [ Ref: The FA ].

Many commentators have since called for authorities to take urgent action to combat brain injuries, including reducing contact-training sessions, improving concussion protocols, using safer tackling techniques, and even removing unsafe elements of sport not just for children but at the elite level as well [Ref: BBC Sport ].

Nevertheless, some critics are adamant that despite rule changes, improved technology and ‘smarter’ coaching, sports like American football can never really be safe. One sportswriter commented: ‘No matter how you play football, head injuries are inevitable… [and] at some point, we might have to acknowledge the only way to play smarter football is to not play it at all’. [Ref: Guardian ]

But those defending contact sports, such as severely injured former rugby union player Alex Bennet, insist that the game has given more to him than it has ever taken away [Ref: Telegraph ]. He states that the game has moved on massively since he started playing, with there being much more information on how to safely coach and manage players. Other sport stars, such as legendary NFL cornerback Richard Sherman, argue that professional athletes are now fully educated on the risks, and make an informed choice to continue playing the game they love [Ref: MMQB ]. In this view, if you make the decision to play in any elite sport, there is a high possibility that you may get the odd broken bone, or even a serious injury, but concerns over player safety should not destroy the game as a result. Similarly, others observe that a cultural aversion to risk-taking is being enforced on sports we have known are dangerous since their inception, and athletes and children should be both free to, and at times encouraged, to take risks [Ref: Guardian ].

Winning at all costs?

Some commentators argue that not only do rules of sport need to be changed but also the culture within it [Ref: The Conversation ]. The relentless drive to win at all cost leads players to believe that they have no choice but to play through injuries, doing whatever is needed to succeed – ideas often instilled from a young age [Ref: The Conversation ]. Former W-league football player Natasha Prior states that she felt pressure to return playing after several serious injuries, often given just a two-week grace period [Ref: ESPN ]. Steve Thompson describes rugby professionals as ‘bits of meat on a conveyor belt’, exploited then tossed aside when deemed surplus [Ref: Guardian ]. To protect sportsmen from the considerable risk of head injuries we must, it is suggested, change the aim of sports from winning to enjoyment at both the amateur and professional levels [Ref: Huffington Post ]. Contact sports participants, it is argued, need adequate information about concussions, models of safe play must be enforced and, most importantly, athletes need to be encouraged not to play on in the face of injury and put their safety first [Ref: Guardian ].

But critics of this approach counter that the very desire to ‘fight on’ is why contact sports are so valuable. Some state that this uncompromising, winning mentality is what instils sport with its absorbing dynamism, creating ‘operatic spectacles between individuals and teams as they strive and struggle for glory’ [Ref: Independent ]. Professional boxers Chris Eubank senior and junior argue that the ‘warrior’ mentality to stay in the ring regardless of the punishment from an opponent is at the heart of boxing’s code; the ‘honour and integrity’ behind this mindset elevates contact sports to a higher plane and is an inherent part of its value: ‘You do not play boxing.’ [Ref: Guardian ]

Furthermore, advocates of contact sports maintain that the benefits still vastly outweigh the risk, teaching participants important ideas about fitness, teamwork, how to manage physical contact and how to overcome fear, as well as offering increased confidence and a feeling of camaraderie [Ref: Telegraph ]. In short, contact sports teach things more valuable than player safety. But those opposed to this outlook continue to argue that athletes cannot be trusted to make decisions on their own safety, as they will continually sacrifice themselves in pursuit of victory [Ref: Independent ].

Updating the sport?

Some contact sports have massively improved their safeguards over the past few years. Recently, the Premier League has proposed allowing a permanent concussion substitution during matches [Ref: Sky Sports ]. Former players, including England manager Gareth Southgate, comment on the advancement in medical treatment for such injuries since they were playing, although Southgate still believes that ‘football remains in the dark about the long-term risks of heading the ball and concussions sustained on the pitch’ [Ref: Guardian ]. In response to this, the FA has rolled out the aforementioned trials in removing heading from the game at U12 level.

Furthermore, despite ruling out the outlawing of the bouncer, cricket authority the MCC has committed to providing more education to players and coaching on the dangers and the signs of concussion [Ref: Daily Mail ].

However, other sports like boxing seem to keep quiet on the matter. Sydney boxer Davey Browne died after getting a blow to the face that caused a subdural hematoma in the twelfth round of a fight. However, an inquest has shown that he was badly concussed by the eleventh round, but told he was fit to continue by the ringside doctor [Ref: Guardian ]. The desire to ‘shake an injury off’ probably led to a death that could have been prevented. As one commentator puts it, ‘while concussion is now shaking up professional football leagues and other contact sports around the world, combat sport continues to duck and weave away from it’ [Ref: Guardian ].

So, what is the solution? Do we tear out the ‘soul of the game’ in the name of safety? Do these sports pose such a considerable danger that the only option is not to play at all? Or do we allow those athletes who choose to embark on these careers to take risks, and if we ‘don’t like it, stop watching’? Should we put safety first, or is there something more valuable to be learnt at the heart of contact sports?

ESSENTIAL READING

It is crucial for debaters to have read the articles in this section, which provide essential information and arguments for and against the debate motion. Debaters will be expected to have additional evidence and examples derived from independent research, but they can expect to be criticised if they lack a basic familiarity with the issues raised in the essential reading.

Rugby is a game of contact, why should those who wish to play with the present laws not be allowed to do so? Brian Moore Telegraph 21 December 2020

Banning heading in football would turn the Premier League into glorified five-a-side Troy Deeney The Sun 28 November 2020

I was paralysed playing youth rugby – but a tackle ban is not the answer Nathan Cubitt Guardian 9 March 2016

Is rugby too dangerous? Children need to be free to take risks Gaby Hinsliff Guardian 4 March 2016

We chose this profession Richard Sherman MMBQ 23 September 2013

Tackling in children’s rugby must be banned to curb dementia risks Eric Anderson, Adam John White and Keith Parry The Conversation 11 December 2020

Steve Thompson: ‘I can’t remember winning the World Cup’ Andy Bull Guardian 8 December 2020

‘Winning at all costs’: The pursuit of success and the dangers that come with it Samuel Lovett Independent 30 July 2019

The sports world knows concussion can kill. So why does no one talk about it? Stephanie Convery Guardian 27 February 2020

Sports culture must change to reduce head injuries Debra Houry Huffington Post 24 December 2015

Sport and dementia: ‘Something needs to happen now’ Jamie Doward Guardian 13 December 2020

Can rugby union continue as normal knowing it is causing brain injuries? Michael Aylwin Guardian 9 December 2020

Playing rugby union may help to reduce health risks Emma O’Neill The Times 29 October 2020

Why women are more at risk from concussion David Robson BBC Sport 31 January 2020

Stopping kids heading the ball misses the goal David Shaw BMJ 28 January 2020

Should we worry about footballers heading the ball? Tom Chivers Unherd 23 October 2019

Banning the tackle in school rugby: Let’s put it into context. Kass Gibson British Medical Journal Blo g 30 January 2019

Few sports are doing enough to protect athletes from brain damage The Economist 24 January 2019

Chris Eubank Sr and Jr: ‘You have to stay and take the beating’ Decca Aitkenhead Guardian 6 April 2016

AUDIO AND VIDEO

‘Rugby head injury assessment protocol is dangerous’ BBC Radio Five Live

Essec Business School

A moral tightrope: why do we accept violence in sports.

by Delphine Dion , 24.10.23 Follow

With ESSEC Knowledge Editor-in-chief

With the Rugby World Cup this fall, fans are flocking to France from all over the world to cheer on their team. France’s star player Antoine Dupont captained les Bleus to the quarter-finals before getting knocked out by South Africa - this after suffering a fractured cheekbone and undergoing major surgery earlier in the tournament. Rugby players are no strangers to this type of injury - the field is dotted with players wearing “scrum caps” to protect from cauliflower ears and violent tackles are the name of the game. Why are we drawn to watching such a violent sport, when we know people are likely to get hurt? Delphine Dion (ESSEC Business School), Clément Dubreuil (Kedge Business School) and Stéphane Borraz (NEOMA Business School) explored this question, finding that viewers experience a sort of moral ambivalence and justify the violence as they watch.

Rugby isn’t alone in this, either: American football, ice hockey, mixed martial arts and wrestling are other examples of violent contact sports that continue to enjoy popularity. In these sports, violence isn’t just incidental, it’s a key part of the game. Past research showed this violence cultivates emotional contagion and appeals to our baser instincts. This can lead to a confusing experience for the viewers, who enjoy watching even though they know violence is wrong. So what makes violence acceptable - and enjoyable - in sports?

To better understand this contradiction, the researchers conducted 21 interviews with consumers (rugby fans) and nine with professionals in the rugby world and analyzed social media posts.

All’s fair in love and war

In their interviews, the researchers found that the interviewees often used war metaphors and vocabulary when describing rugby, a form of “translating” one reality (rugby) to another (war) by dramatizing the violence. This type of thinking can also be seen in New Zealand's traditional haka, traditionally performed by Maori warriors before a battle. All of this means that rugby is often seen as a war-like alternative reality, one where violence is fêted and justified. Violence is seen as the players fulfilling their duty and benefiting the community - defending their team and not letting the fans down.

It’s just a game!

At the same time, this dramatization of violence is linked to also de-dramatizing the violence, and justifying it as “just a game”. Interviewees noted that it’s just for fun, and to win, with fans and players playing this up with songs and performances that poke fun at the violence. For example, the Stade Français has introduced pink, leopard print, floral, and other fun jersey patterns, to lighten the mood. While these might be parodies of violence, they do also normalize and justify it, by suggesting it’s not so bad and actually can be funny.

It’s how it is

Another way that people justify the violence in rugby is by saying it’s the rules of the game. As long as a play is allowed, then it’s acceptable. One spectator explains: “You also have to distinguish between the pain inflicted by players who give their best and who are aggressive but play by the rules—which is all part of the game—and the pain that results from the actions of players who deliberately break the rules. [...]. When it is in the course of the game, when he is doing nothing wrong, a player who hurts another is doing his job, there is nothing to blame him for.” This is a common experience: when we encounter moral ambivalence, we look to the rules set out by what we see as legitimate institutions, in this case World Rugby. That being said, other spectators expressed concern about rising levels of violence and suggested the rules might need to change to curb this phenomenon. Instead of accepting the rules, they challenge them and suggest that new ones are needed. People also trust the official representatives, such as the referees, to enforce these rules. If the referees are seen as too lax, then the violence is more likely to be seen as inappropriate.

Lights, camera, action

All the world’s a stage, and rugby is no different. The game’s broadcast plays a big role in how we perceive the match and thus the violence. Certain plays are shown over and over again, in slow motion and with freeze frames, whereas others can be shown only at a distance. When players are injured, they are surrounded (and therefore hidden) by medical staff, or even covered with a white sheet. When injuries are talked about, it’s often using euphemistic language: “it stings” rather than “it hurts”, for example.

Broadcasting can even make violence aesthetic. Commentators often use language like beautiful and nice when describing the action, and #beaugeste (beautiful move) and #beaujeu (beautiful game) are popular hashtags during a game. There’s a big focus on the “art of the game”, with one spectator describing this as: “There is a beauty to rugby. It’s a bit like the Greek aesthetic of masculine strength, it exalts the group spirit. Like the Spartans, or Roman soldiers: the beauty of a well-ordered army, where everything is efficient.” This can result in a perception that violence is beautiful. All of this contributes to camouflaging the consequences of the violence and producing a distorted vision of it.

This study suggests that market players (fans, players, broadcasters, etc.) use different justifications to resolve the moral ambivalence of violence, by telling themselves that it’s like a battle, that there are rules to be respected, and that the game is a thing of beauty. These different strategies allow them to rationalize that the violence in rugby is okay, even though they wouldn’t accept violence in another context.

Where to go from here?

While it may indeed be “just a game”, the rising levels of violence and associated injuries do give reason for concern. The researchers suggest three strategies to mitigate this:

Contextualizing : Competition organizers and broadcasters should think about how they contribute to normalizing violence, for example by showcasing the players as warriors. They should avoid using war references and parodies, and focus instead on player performance and technique.

Ruling : Since many market players justify the violence by referring to the rules, governing bodies should commit to regularly reviewing the rules to prevent high levels of injury. One example is that of spear tackles, a once widely accepted move that is now banned to protect players.

Broadcasting : Policymakers and broadcasters have the opportunity to collaborate and produce a charter of responsibility when showing contact sports. This could reduce the distortion of violence and avoid glorifying it, by using direct language that properly describes injuries and pain, offering filters to avoid viewing violent content (particularly for young fans), and access additional content that explains the real risk of violence and injuries. This also concerns social media like YouTube, which compile short, violent and spectacular sequences taken from rugby games and totalize millions of views.

Violent sports aren’t going anywhere: the Rugby World Cup 2023 has already drawn in 164.5 million viewers, and the tournament isn’t over yet. With so many eyes on the sport, it’s important to understand how people justify that this violence is acceptable even when it’s not in other contexts, giving us insight into the complicated human psyche.

To go further:

Dubreuil, C., Dion, D., & Borraz, S. (2023). For the love of the game: moral ambivalence and justification work in consuming violence. Journal of Business Ethics, 186 (3), 675-694.

consumer behavior

Travel Retail vs Grey Market: the Luxury Industry's Global Challenges

Google Photos: What happens to innovation when a giant enters the room

What kind of person is less corrupt - who resists the temptation?

Women’s careers: Breaking the cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies

Essec knowledge on x, featured industries.

Tourism London 2012: Marketing Potential and Pitfalls of Olympic Proportions
Legal services Women and their Relationship to Power
Real estate Do Unusual Hotels Have Lower Market Value?
Research On the Brink of a Breakthrough?
Public administration Eurozone crisis: The mirage of fiscal stimulus

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Should violent sports like wrestling be banned?

Topics >>
GD >>
Latest Group Discussion topics - GD topics with answers -04/06/16
« Previous
Next »

RE: Should violent sports like wrestling be banned? -selin (12/16/18)
Yes. In a couple other videos, I have seen women getting held down by the referee/judge so the opponent can kick them in their privates. it is not ok, ever to get harmed that way. Children could even imitate that and start fighting. It is a very bad influence...
RE: Should violent sports like wrestling be banned? -wrestling be banned (05/07/18)
Sports are the epitome of physical excellence, injuries are the part and parcels of sportsmen life. To excel and overrule opponent, they fight with tooth and nail and in the process some get injured as well. While the games are played under guidelines and spirits but violence and physical hauling can't be ruled out. Wresting also pose similar case and people enjoy it thoroughly. Barring few who might have different views but wrestling garners eyeballs in huge numbers, it manifests physical strength in real sense. Banning wrestling would steal entertainment, excitement and muscular show from the game.
RE: Should violent sports like wrestling be banned? -Group Discussion (04/13/18)
Competitive sports are played in high octet situation with high risk of getting injured. Any sports can be fatal and can be life threatening, why has wrestling been identified to be banned? It's not justifiable, let's not kick on stomach of so many athletes who have been tolling hard to shine.
RE: Should violent sports like wrestling be banned? -Masaru (07/30/17)
I believe the more correct way to phrase the title is "Should sports like boxing and wrestling be banned?" If we're talking about such sports at K-12 schools then yes, banning both sports is fully necessary.
RE: Should violent sports like wrestling be banned? -wuraola (03/05/17)
the sport is seriously violent,i don't see any sense in it,why will you want to watch people on the verge of killing each other? the thing is i don't understand why they let them use harmful object on each other.thought they wanted to show their strength,why not just use urself instead of hitting with a chair and some other stuff,it violence,we shouldnt even allow our kids to watch.i think the game should be banned.
RE: Should violent sports like wrestling be banned? -ARUN KUMAR (04/14/16)
it is like a coin. coin has two sides so it has already two side just like as a coin. one should be banned to wrestling because there are so many reasons to banned it, like it encourages the violence between the people and it teach to the people that which types of move can we use during the fighting to someone. it is very harmful for the children because children imitate to watch it on the television they do not know that it will be wrong or right. some fatal injuries be due to it and it can take so much time, careness and energy for becoming good early

Essay Preview: Banning of Violent Sports

Sports are activities that people do for pleasure and which require some physical effort and skill. Sports ideally are not supposed to be associated with any violence. However, in today’s scenario, violent sports such as boxing, wrestling and cage fighting are gaining more popularity, especially among the youth, since they present more entertainment to spectators. The bad thing about the increased popularity of violent sports is that the youth do not make an effort to know the dangers that are associated with these sports. Also, the sports present a grave danger to the sportspersons and may lead to injuries, brain damage, and even death. Though the sports may pose a grave danger to the sportspersons, they may also affect viewers negatively since some may try to imitate the actions of the sportspersons hence resulting in bad endings. I think these sports should be banned so as to ensure the safety of both the sportspersons and the viewers.

The dangers of violent sports can result in major accidents that may prove to be even worse than fatal. The sportspersons may get injuries that may last for a lifetime. These injuries may cause great helplessness and torture than death itself. There have been several instances in the past that have resulted in the injury and deaths of some sportspersons. For instance, Chris Candido, a professional wrestler, broke his leg during a cage match and later, it turned into a blood clot which eventually killed him. Also, many sportspersons experience injuries to the spine, excessive blood loss, brain haemorrhage, and irregular clotting among others when participating in these violent sports. Additionally, the repeated trauma can have long-term effects on the health of the sportspersons. It can lead to conditions such as dementia pugilistica as a result of repeated trauma and Parkinson’s disease among other health conditions. Therefore, banning violent sports would lead to an end to the needless injuries, brain damage, and deaths of sportspersons.

The violent sports not only affect the sportspersons but also have an indirect impact on the viewers. Some viewers may try to imitate the actions that these sportsmen do and end up injuring themselves. There have been many deaths in the USA and other parts of the world that have been attributed to the imitations of the activities that occur in these sports. Repeated watching of violent sports may unconsciously affect the psyche of the spectators and ultimately cause them to become violent in their social environment. For instance, acts of suicide, the shooting sprees by teenagers in schools and colleges, loots, and involvement in murders may be as a consequence of young people being in constant influence of violent sports and related activities.

MLA 7
CHICAGO

(2017, 04). Banning of Violent Sports. Essays24.com . Retrieved 04, 2017, from https://www.essays24.com/essay/Banning-of-Violent-Sports/76231.html

"Banning of Violent Sports" Essays24.com . 04 2017. 2017. 04 2017 <https://www.essays24.com/essay/Banning-of-Violent-Sports/76231.html>.

"Banning of Violent Sports." Essays24.com . Essays24.com, 04 2017. Web. 04 2017. <https://www.essays24.com/essay/Banning-of-Violent-Sports/76231.html>.

"Banning of Violent Sports." Essays24.com. 04, 2017. Accessed 04, 2017. https://www.essays24.com/essay/Banning-of-Violent-Sports/76231.html.

Should Boxing Be Banned? 5 Reasons For & 5 Reasons Against

By Author Sportsver Team

Categories Boxing

Since 1987 , the British Medical Association has been campaigning for the ban on professional boxing due to the severe injuries participants sustain. The World Medical Association couldn’t agree more; they describe boxing as a sport where the main objective is to cause “ bodily harm in the opponent ”, especially to the brain. With that being said, the question remains to be answered; should boxing be banned?

According to the proponents of banning the sport, boxing should be banned because of the deadly nature of the sport, as well as the long-term damages that it causes to boxers’ brains. However, opponents of the ban say that other sports can have deadly results too.

BANNING BOXING

Why should there be a ban on boxing? Let’s take a look at reasons for and against the ban.

For #1: Boxing Is a Deadly Sport.

Boxing is one of the few sports where a participant’s main objective is to knock an opponent down and disable them; for the entertainment of others. People have died in the ring and outside the ring due to this deadly sport. In 2019, World Boxing Council Heavyweight Champion Deontay Wilder said in an interview that it’s still legal to kill a man and get paid for it through boxing.

Even when compared to MMA, boxing is still more dangerous due to the severe injuries that it causes to its athletes. It can be argued that boxing brings out the most aggressive tendencies in people and creates more violence in a world that is already violent.

Against #1: Other Sports Are Also Deadly.

But, if there is to be a ban on boxing due to its deadly nature, should there not be a ban on wrestling? Mixed martial arts? What about a ban on hockey, football , or kickboxing? Contact and combat sports have always had some participation risk, and the competitors signing up for these sports know the risk. Aggression is a part of human nature and needs an outlet for its expression without causing trauma to unsuspecting people.

For #2: Boxing Causes Long-Lasting Brain Damage.

Medical critics claim that boxing causes long-term brain damage , including residual concussive symptoms, behavior problems, and susceptibility to Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease later in life. Doctors believe that these injuries and conditions would be prevented should boxing be banned. Not too many professional boxers retire without any brain injuries, and many have a decreased quality of life because of them.

Against #2: Football and Other Sports Cause Brain Damage Too.

Brain damage occurs in several contact sport, like football , as well as other risky activities such as riding a motorcycle, horse racing, skydiving, climbing a mountain. According to the International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, the risks for fatal brain injuries are lower in boxing than in many other sports, like horse and motorcycle racing, sky diving, among others.

If boxing were banned, according to the doctors’ warnings, would that mean all other contact sports and recreational activities, with a similar risk of serious head injuries, should be banned?

For #3: Boxing Glamorizes and Promotes Violence.

Critics of all combat sports, including boxing , claim that violence is glamorized and promoted through these sports. Boxing is often number one on the list, as the objective is to literally knock-out an opponent (mainly by throwing hard blows to the head) to win the match. For instance, Mike Tyson , one of the most celebrated professional boxers in recent history, took that violence outside of the ring in a variety of ways.

Against #3: Wrestling, MMA, and Other Combat Sports Glamorize Violence Too.

If boxing should be banned for glamorizing violence, then other combat sports should be banned, including wrestling and kickboxing. All combat sports can be violent in the ring, but do they promote violence outside of the ring? When properly trained, participants in combat sports are disciplined and rational when outside of the ring. They learn to respect themselves and others, and only use their skills when competing, or when necessary.

For #4: Boxers Are Often Exploited Financially.

For instance, in the mid-20th-century, crime syndicates routinely forced boxers (who often were/are from poor backgrounds) to throw matches to win money on the outcomes of the games. If the fighters refused to comply, they were prohibited from fighting for title matches. More recently, champions are forced to pay substantial sanction fees to defend their titles, or, in some cases, fighters are not paid what their contracts stipulate.

Against #4: Several Sports Attract Financial Exploitation.

Professional sports are a hotbed of gambling activity, scandals , and financial exploitation of the players. For example, MLB requires its players to attend spring training sessions, but will not pay them to train for a month and a half until the regular season starts. Other sports, like football or basketball (even at a college level), have also experience permissible exploitation to their athletes. Therefore, if boxing were banned based on financial exploitation, should other pro sports be banned as well?

For #5: Banning Professional Boxing Would Keep People Safer.

Professional boxing creates violence and makes its participants prone to abuse. Therefore, a ban on boxing would keep participants and fans safer. Placing a ban on boxing might be a good first step to decrease violent content in the media, and therefore, in our society. It could be argued that people would be less likely to participate in violence if they don’t see it on TV or in movies.

Against #5: If Banned, Boxing Would Go “Underground” With Fewer Regulations.

Throughout history, anything that was banned or made illegal went “underground” with little to no regulations to make it safe. If professional boxing was banned, there would still be people who would participate in it. But there would be no regulations, and more people would get hurt. Fights would become more dangerous, safety gear would be ignored, and people would take that into the streets without the proper training and discipline. A boxing ban would increase violence, not decrease it.

Violent sports have always been a part of the world history and culture, and it may not change anytime soon, in spite of what the critics are fighting for.

Humans have a unique personality trait that propels them to watch violent things happen, such as a car wreck, combat sports, or violent movies and TV shows. While they may want to watch that, they don’t necessarily want it in their own lives. Banning boxing may or may not decrease the violence, but that won’t stop people from finding other violent things to watch or do.

In the end, maybe a ban on boxing is not what is needed. Maybe better working conditions or safety measures need to be placed on the sport instead of an outright ban.

Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay

Introduction: banning violent video games, violent video games should not be banned, violent video games should be banned, conclusion: why video games should not be banned.

The essay is an argumentative one; violent games should not be banned. Recently there has been an endless and fierce debate on whether or not to banned violent video games. For instance, the countries that constitute the European Union are planning to ban some of the European games. However, it is the view of the majority of video games, just like any other games, are there to educate and entertain.

Although there are strong reasons brought forth by those who want violent video games to be banned, here are reasons why we should not; increases self-esteem, reduction of pain, encourages teamwork, sharpening players’ wit, among others (Sterngold, 2006).

With regards to those in support of banning the game, they hold the view that the games continuously poison the minds of the viewers, especially young individuals.

It is worth noting that there are indeed strong points that need to be given a second thought before we rush in banning violent video games. It has been argued and even proved that when kids play such games, especially when the multiplayer type of game is available, then the children get to learn at a very early age to work as a teammate, which requires teamwork. Arguably, this is advantageous as it helps in keeping children together in times of need (Lebrilla, 2010).

For this matter, when they grow up, such individuals will be in a better position to be good team players. This concept has been currently deemed very vital in ensuring the success of an organization. Throughout the game, it is indeed tough to beat the opponent.

However, through concentration, acquisition of skills, and knowledge on how to win, which has been learned from each other, children are capable of the emerging winner. With this, they grow, knowing that to win, there is a need to have a team behind them.

As suggested by Bissell, 2008 violent video games have been thought to help, especially those with very high tempers, to release their anger by not hurting anybody. When very angry and one feels like inflicting pain on another human being or even killing others, it has been thought appropriate to transfer such anger to violent video games. When one engages in a shoot-out with an enemy in a video game, he/she might feel that the mission is accomplished.

Aside from assisting young individuals in sharpening their wits and problem-solving skills, violent video game plays a significant role in helping young individuals, even a few older members of society, to learn how to persevere. On the same line of thought, these games have made it possible for people to have well-coordinated hand and eye movements (Craig et al. 2007).

This has helped in making sure that reflex action/response is normal. The advantage of this is that it will play a significant role in keeping progressive illnesses at bay.

Another major point that is in support of violent video games is that it helps in sustaining the country’s economy. It is apparent that the industry of violent video games has played a significant role in the economic growth of the country. The export of the same product to other nations generates foreign income for the country.

Additionally, a good number of Americans derive their daily bread from the same industry(Konijn et al., 2007). For this reason, banning of violent video games will mean that the unemployment rate will go up, and the money generated from the industry will be lost. The industry generates close to 21 billion dollars annually (Jones & Ponton, 2003).

Additionally, doctors have proved that despite violent games being useful; in releasing anger, it is also helpful in helping a patient reduce pain. The current efforts hospitals show this making to install such games. More importantly, the games help entertain the plays as well as the viewers.

Just like when people feel entertained by watching a football match, violent game provide the same to the affected party. Considering the fact that slightly over 70.0% of American teens play these games, if it is banned, then they will indulge in even more risky activities in their quest to be entertained, for instance, drug abuse (Goldstein, 1998).

It would not be rational if the argument that supports the banning of violent games were not brought to light. It has been brought into the violent limelight game that pollutes the minds of American children.

When young individual engages too much in these games, they are addicted. The result is that they will grow up and may put into practice what they saw. A recent incident where a student walked into an institution of learning and started shooting at others, killing them on the spot, has been linked to violent video games (Anderson & Dill, 2000).

Similarly, just like any other thing that can bring addiction, violent video games, when making a young individual addicted, can be detrimental to their quest to learn. This is because most of the time, whenever they are free will, they spend time playing such games (Ferguson, 2008).

Although it has been argued that the game fosters socialization skills, it is evident that when one plays in non-multiplayer support, they grow up being persons with poor skills to socialize.

From the review of the issue of violent games, even though the game is intense, banning it will bring more harm than good. For those who advocate for the banning, it would be rational to critically analyze the benefits of the game to individuals and even society at large. For instance, it enhances teamwork, helps reduce pain, aids in releasing anger, and improves wit and hand-eye coordination, among others.

However, the disadvantages include polluting or poisoning young individuals, and addiction eats their time hence cannot engage actively in other vital activities. This thus warrants careful consideration from relevant stakeholders such as parents and the government.

Anderson, C. & Dill, K. (2000). “Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings and Behavior in the Laboratory and In Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78(4):722.

Ferguson, C. (2008). “Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can Violent Video Games Be a Force for Good?”, Review of General Psychology, 14(1): 68-81.

Konijn, E. et al. (2007). “I Wish I Were a Warrior: The Role of Wishful Identification in the Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Adolescent Boys.” Developmental Psychology, 43(1): 1-12.

Craig, A. et al. (2007). Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy . Oxford University: Oxford University Press.

Bissell, T. (2008). Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter . New York: Macmillan Publishers.

Sterngold, A. (2006). “Violent video games.” Web.

Jones, G. & Ponton, L. (2003). Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence . New York: Basic Books. P. 172.

Goldstein, J. (1998). Why We Watch; The Attraction of Violent Entertainment . Oxford University Oxford University Press. P. 188.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 28). Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/

"Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." IvyPanda , 28 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay'. 28 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

1. IvyPanda . "Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay." October 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/violent-video-games-should-not-be-banned/.

Multiplayer Online Battle Arena Video Games and Technologies
Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games
Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay
Argumentative Essay Writing
London Olympic Games: Banning Reasons
Choosing The Best Sharpener for Kitchen
Political Philosophy: Liberalism and Libertarianism
Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay
Pros and Cons of Abortion to the Society Argumentative Essay
Division of Labor and Capital Accumulation as Sources of the Wealth of Nations
Importance of Adopting Children
Stereotypes of American Citizens
Social Care in Ireland
Evaluating the debate between proponents of qualitative and quantitative inquiries
The Effects of Social Networking Sites on an Individual's Life

Customer Reviews

When you write an essay for me, how can I use it?

Check your email inbox for instructions from us on how to reset your password.

EssayService strives to deliver high-quality work that satisfies each and every customer, yet at times miscommunications happen and the work needs revisions. Therefore to assure full customer satisfaction we have a 30-day free revisions policy.

IMAGES

Should Dangerous Sports Be Banned Free Essay Example
Violence in Video Games Essay
Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned
ARGUMENTIVE ESSAY ON PROTEST.pdf
Should Extreme Sports Be Banned As They Put People’S Lives At Risk
VIOLENT SPORTS by victashawalls

COMMENTS

Arguments for and Against Banning Boxing
Fans argue that the sport encourages physical fitness and discipline, as well as providing a way for young people way to remove themselves from poverty. Critics, however, believe that boxing is barbaric, unacceptably dangerous and should be banned. Modern boxing developed in the UK and USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Why Do We Accept Violence in Sports?
Rugby isn't alone in this, either: American football, ice hockey, mixed martial arts, and wrestling are other examples of violent contact sports that continue to enjoy popularity. In these sports ...
Violent Sports And Its Negative Effects: [Essay Example], 791 words
Violent Sports and Its Negative Effects. Boxing is the only sport you can get your brain shook, your money took, and your name in the undertaker book. says Joe Frazier, an American professional boxer. This quote shows how extreme some sports can be to the extent where people risk their lives just for fame and money, without caring about what ...
Why boxing and cage fighting should be banned
The death of a 23-year-old boxer and the lifting of cage-fighting bans in every state but Western Australia raise the question of why we allow violence that would be criminal outside a ring or cage.
Should Violent Sports Be Banned?
The discovery of the disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy in the brains of thousands of former violent sport athletes is the most-cited evidence that these activities have a major impact on long-term health and wellness. Banning activities like boxing and football would no doubt anger fans of these sports, and some doctors are unsure about ...
Aggression and Violence in Sport: Moving Beyond the Debate
The possible effects of learning aggressive and violent behaviors by observing adult models in sport has important implications in recent debates, given that Kerr (2002) has restricted his comments largely to adult sport (p. 69). This stated limitation contrasts with the goals of the PS, Tenenbaum et al. (2000), and the present paper.
American football is too dangerous, and it should be abolished
Violent movies, I would argue, are far more easily defensible on moral grounds, as are gangsta rap and first-person shooter video games. But many football fans avoid confronting this central ...
The Psychology Of Violence In Sports
The handshakes are a ritual acknowledgement that, fundamentally, opponents are necessary for the game to take place and to make the play transcendent. George Orwell notably observed, "Serious ...
Is it time to ban violent sport?
Last week Lance Ferguson-Prayogg died after a white-collar boxing event in Nottingham. White-collar boxing is a strange modern phenomenon, a violent battle for which graduates only need apply, where MMA meets MBA. The sport started in New York in the 1980s (well you didnâ?Tt think I was going to say Sweden did you?). Bouts now take place around the world including in the UK,
Violence and Aggression in Sports: An In-Depth Look (Part One)
Perceptive sports psychologists will recognize that sanctioned aggression and violence are a primary source of players' excitement, pleasure, and satisfaction and thus a major factor in their ...
Essay on Violence in Sports
1396 Words. 6 Pages. Open Document. Violence in Sports. With the increase in society taking a stance against violence, sports has become an area where some feel that the violent acts such as the hitting and fighting that occurs should be eliminated. It is very difficult to change the way that a game is played because people have been playing it ...
Violence in sports
Violence in sports usually refers to violent and often unnecessarily harmful intentional physical acts committed during, or motivated by, a sports game, often in relation to contact sports such as American football, ice hockey, rugby football, lacrosse, association football, boxing, mixed martial arts, wrestling, and water polo and, when referring to the players themselves, often involving ...
We should accept the risk inherent in contact sports
Sky Sports 25July 2022. Case against rugby union governing bodies on dementia destined for courts Guardian 25 July 2022. FA to trial removal of heading in U12 football ... Cricket's lawmakers MCC decide against banning bouncer after 18-month review into the sport's rules Richard Gibson Daily Mail 4 March 2022. Ex-All Black Carl Hayman, 41 ...
A moral tightrope: why do we accept violence in sports?
Violent sports aren't going anywhere: the Rugby World Cup 2023 has already drawn in 164.5 million viewers, and the tournament isn't over yet. With so many eyes on the sport, it's important to understand how people justify that this violence is acceptable even when it's not in other contexts, giving us insight into the complicated human ...
Should violent sports like wrestling be banned?
3. Unfair to fans : Putting a ban on any sport will be like dictating what not to like in sports. There are millions of fans of boxing and wrestling. The commercial sports industry keeps escalating its turnover which is a clear indication that fans will be sad to see their favorite sports go away. 4.
Banning of Violent Sports
Read this Miscellaneous Essay and over 74,000 other research documents. Banning of Violent Sports. Banning of Violent Sports Sports are activities that people do for pleasure and which require some physical effort and skill. Sports ideally are not supposed to be associated with any violence. However, in today's scenario, violent sports such as boxing, wrestling and cage fighting are gaining ...
Persuasive Essay On Violent Sports
Persuasive Essay On Violent Sports. 888 Words4 Pages. Violent Sports. The topic on violent sports such as boxing and martial arts on whether they should be banned may be extended widely as different arguments may arise in support for the ban or continuity of the sports. The first topic would be an increase in violence due to extensive exposure ...
Should Boxing Be Banned? 5 Reasons For & 5 Reasons Against
5 reasons AGAINST: 1. Boxing Is a Deadly Sport. Other Sports Are Also Deadly. 2. Boxing Causes Long-Lasting Brain Damage. Football and Other Sports Cause Brain Damage Too. 3. Boxing Glamorizes and Promotes Violence. Wrestling, MMA, and Other Combat Sports Glamorize Violence Too. 4. Boxers Are Often Exploited Financially.
The Reasons Not To Ban Contact Sports For Children: An Answer To
The movie provides an emotional portrayal of patients with CTE, and resulted in a recent editorial by Dr. Bennet Omalu calling for a ban on football, hockey and soccer in children under the age of ...
An Argument Against the Banning of Dangerous Sports by the ...
In-text citation: ("An Argument Against the Banning of Dangerous Sports by the Government.") Works Cited entry: "An Argument Against the Banning of Dangerous Sports by the Government."
Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned
Learn More. Although there are strong reasons brought forth by those who want violent video games to be banned, here are reasons why we should not; increases self-esteem, reduction of pain, encourages teamwork, sharpening players' wit, among others (Sterngold, 2006). With regards to those in support of banning the game, they hold the view ...
Essay for and against banning violent sports by jennyjlgj
Read Essay for and against banning violent sports by jennyjlgj on Issuu and browse thousands of other publications on our platform. Start here!
Essay For And Against Banning Violent Sports
BESTSELLERS. Jam Operasional (09.00-17.00) +62 813-1717-0136 (Corporate) +62 812-4458-4482 (Recruitment) ID 10243. If you can't write your essay, then the best solution is to hire an essay helper. Since you need a 100% original paper to hand in without a hitch, then a copy-pasted stuff from the internet won't cut it.

Sport and Competition

All's fair in love and war

It's just a game

It's how it is

Lights, camera, action

Where to go from here?

Violent Sports and Its Negative Effects

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Violence in Sports

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Why boxing and cage fighting should be banned – but won’t be

Disclosure statement

Consent does not alter the consequence

Is it civilised to celebrate aggression?

Senior Enrolment Advisor

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Should Violent Sports Be Banned?

Aggression and Violence in Sport: Moving Beyond the Debate

MISREPRESENTING AND MISINTERPRETING PUBLISHED STATEMENTS

DEFINITIONAL AND SEMANTIC CONSIDERATIONS

AREAS OF AGREEMENT REGARDING AGGRESSION IN SPORT

AREAS OF CONTINUED DISAGREEMENT

Effects of Observing Aggression and Violence in Sport

Limiting Discussion to Adult Team Contact Sports

ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

The Purpose of a Position Stand

Problems with Professional Versus Popular Jargon

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

American football is too dangerous, and it should be abolished

Most viewed

The Psychology Of Violence In Sports — On The Field And In The Stands

More from WBUR

Is it time to ban violent sport?

The Saturday Read

Content from our partners

Unlocking the potential of a national asset, St Pancras International

Time for Labour to turn the tide on children’s health

How can we deliver better rail journeys for customers?

Football is driven by money – but also improved by it

Why would Jürgen Klopp leave Liverpool? Let me count the (made up) ways

A requiem for Jürgen Klopp

We should accept the risk inherent in contact sports

Essec Business School

Related Articles

Travel Retail vs Grey Market: the Luxury Industry's Global Challenges

Google Photos: What happens to innovation when a giant enters the room

What kind of person is less corrupt - who resists the temptation?

Women’s careers: Breaking the cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Should violent sports like wrestling be banned?

Related Content

Related Topics

Essay Preview: Banning of Violent Sports

Should Boxing Be Banned? 5 Reasons For & 5 Reasons Against

For #1: Boxing Is a Deadly Sport.

Against #1: Other Sports Are Also Deadly.

For #2: Boxing Causes Long-Lasting Brain Damage.

Against #2: Football and Other Sports Cause Brain Damage Too.

For #3: Boxing Glamorizes and Promotes Violence.

Against #3: Wrestling, MMA, and Other Combat Sports Glamorize Violence Too.

For #4: Boxers Are Often Exploited Financially.

Against #4: Several Sports Attract Financial Exploitation.

For #5: Banning Professional Boxing Would Keep People Safer.

Against #5: If Banned, Boxing Would Go “Underground” With Fewer Regulations.

Banning Violent Video Games Argumentative Essay

When you write an essay for me, how can I use it?

IMAGES

COMMENTS