Taking kids out of football is more worrisome than letting them play, doctor says
FLORHAM PARK, N.J. — About 30 women gathered at the New York Jets’ practice facility on the evening of Oct. 6. They came from all over New Jersey and Staten Island, some driving more than two hours to be there. Two wore work suits; others were in sweats. There was one woman with what looked like a full bottle of gel in her curly brown hair. They all seemed to come from different backgrounds, but they shared one thing: their sons play football.
The giant screen at the front of the room held a message in navy blue script, adorned with red stars: Welcome to the first annual Moms Football Safety Clinic. The event had all the trappings of an over-planned first date. Maybe if they distracted them, the Jets could get the moms – who are overwhelmingly the ones who get the final say in whether their sons play football – to look past the sport’s flaws.
The idea of the event seemed to imply that NFL franchises are starting to take parents’ concerns about football more seriously, if only because they are threatening the youth pipeline that feeds high school football and, eventually, college and the league. The NFL knows it needs to keep moms (dads, too) on its side in order to keep kids in the sport, and the Jets made a strong case that night.
But after more than two hours of presentations and a demonstration on safe tackling techniques, it was clear that American football might be damned whether the embrace of concussion awareness continues or the subject gets ignored again. Surprisingly, one NYU Langone professor of neuropsychology says that parents pulling their kids out of football is more worrisome than letting kids play the game.
Dr. Damion Martins, the Jets’ director of internal medicine, started off with a frank presentation on how concussions develop and what scientists know (and don’t know) about the long-term effects. He went over recent studies, including one that shows that taking fish oil supplements seems to lessen concussion symptoms, whether taken before or after the concussion is sustained. (He noticeably did not mention that the FDA warns against such claims.)
There were a few slides about CTE. “I want you to be aware that it probably exists. It’s similar to lung cancer. I warn kids that you may or may not develop it,” he said, offering little in the way of reassurance, which is unfortunately the most responsible thing he can do because any promises would be false.
He also mentioned that certain people are more prone to concussions, including children who have migraines, depression, mental health disorders, motion sickness, learning disabilities, ADHD, and sleep disorders. From there the discussion turned to helmets. There were slides showing safety ratings for helmets and instructions on how to make sure they fit properly. But again, he missed a major point: there is absolutely no evidence showing that helmets prevent or help mitigate symptoms of concussions or subconcussive blows.
This was a major omission for an event advertised as helping moms understand football’s risks. Even the facts that he did present left at least two moms more concerned than they’d been when they arrived. The ADHD comment caught Nakia Sykes’ attention. Sykes has two sons who play football – a 22-year-old playing college ball in California and a 7-year-old who just started. She has noticed that concussion awareness has ballooned in the time since her older son played youth football, and she said that she came to the event to learn about ways to keep her younger son safe. But after hearing that comment about ADHD – which her son battles – she’s now reconsidering whether he should be on the field at all.
In the parking lot afterward, another mom said she’d come because she “is fed up, ready to give up,” on football. Only a sophomore, her son has already had reconstructive surgeries to repair knee and shoulder injuries. Concussions weren’t her biggest concern coming into the night – the other injuries loomed larger – but after hearing the talk, she was ready to pull him out of the sport completely. That or “wrap him in bubble wrap,” she said.
It seems that whether the NFL addresses concussion concerns or ignores them completely, parents are taking the concerns seriously. They have their sons’ best interests in mind, but William Barr, Ph.D., of NYU Langone, says they might actually be putting them at greater risk by pulling them out of the sport. Barr was not part of the Jets’ event.
“The long-term effects of a concussion on a kid’s long-term development are not known. A lot of assumptions are being made,” Barr said in a recent phone call. He has appeared on “CBS This Morning” to discuss what he calls the concussion crisis and is trying to raise awareness that the developmental benefits of participating in sports far outweigh concussion risks. He blames the media and a few money-hungry entrepreneurs for drumming up the crisis and encouraging parents to keep kids sidelined.
He couldn’t offer exact numbers on how much participation has dropped – and when pressed, said he hadn’t seen the study showing that high school football participation actually increased last year – but his overall point is that by missing out on football, kids will miss out on important biological and social benefits.
While we don’t know the long-term effects of concussions, he reiterated, we do know all about the long-term issues associated with not being physically active, such as obesity, diabetes and cardiac problems.
“As a society, we’re in much worse shape if we’re not attending to these larger health issues while attending to these concussions,” he said.
The long-term effects of playing in the NFL are different than those of playing youth football. “How a single uncomplicated concussion affects a child in the long-term can’t be that terrible because it’s not like everyone has dementia,” he added. Then again, young athletes can just as easily gain the developmental benefits of physical activity without playing football, and while he cautions that there is no proof that playing youth football leads to higher risks of brain damage, there’s also no proof that it doesn’t.
There is no question that football is facing a concussion crisis. Whether the crisis is that concussions are dangerous or that concussions are overhyped remains to be seen. In the meantime, the Jets and other NFL franchises are starting to at least attempt to explain the risks and help parents make more informed decisions. But if the league is truly going to keep parents informed, it can’t attempt to put spin – or lie by omission – on any element of safety, including the benefits of helmets, or that helmets don’t impact concussions.
Of course, there is no way of controlling what happens on the field, just as there’s no way of controlling what happens off the field. As Martins pointed out, more people die from lightning strikes and pneumonia than sport-related head trauma. (But those who die by lightning strikes likely didn’t knowingly put themselves in the lightning’s path.) In the end, it’s up to parents to weigh the risks and rewards, or decide if they’d rather their children play a sport that is less violent.
One high school in Michigan already canceled the remainder of its football season over safety concerns. Others have cut back the number of full-contact practices or brought in specialists like Martins to speak to parents. It helps, but it’s little comfort for those hoping to help their sons avoid concussions on the football field.
For two of the moms at the Jets event, the idea of putting their child at an increased risk doesn’t seem all that worth it anymore. Many more would likely agree with Sykes, who told me, “After hearing all of this, I just don’t think they’re doing enough.”
———-
Danielle Elliot is a writer and editor for Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email her at [email protected] or follow her on Twitter!
