5. Concussions in the NFL?

(Chapter 4, page 224)

What this case has to offer

Concussions are imperiling NFL players and the game of football as we know it. The ethicality of the
NFL’s actions has become the subject of a sensational movie and future analysis may guide future
resolution. This case explores how techniques of ethical analysis may help.

Discussion of ethical issues

1. Is the NFL’s stance on controlling the harm of concussions ethical?

That the NFL moved slowly on changes that can reduce concussions; that it had a culture of
denial and secrecy in order to preserve the big business of the NFL for its owners: no, it is not
ethical, because it lacks fairness, integrity, and transparency. Changes to the game have
occurred over time to reduce player injury—for example, the use of helmets starting in 1943;
improvement in helmet materials over time; research into force-reducing “wearables”; changed
rules about player contact; and new sideline concussion tests for doctors and trainers to
administer to impacted players. [ CITATION Man12 \l 4105 ]

It is possible that these changes may stem from risk management, rather than altruism: that is, if
fewer players are sidelined, fewer medical bills and expenses are incurred, player management
is more cost effective, fans are happier, and ticket sales continue. Undoubtedly, the changes do
benefit players, but a more ethical approach would have seen faster response time by the NFL
and a more impartial, transparent approach to the dangers of the game.

2. Should the NFL have moved earlier on the concussion problem? If so, when and how?

Yes, signals that concussions presented significant harm for players have been evident for some
time. In 1994, when the NFL first began studying the problem, a virtuous organization would
have told players—at a minimum--about any links being seen. By 2002 when Dr. Omalu
identified a link between Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) and football, the NFL should
have reviewed the evidence with enlightened self-interest, rather than denying connections and
intimidating Omalu. Not until 2009 did the NFL make any acknowledgement that concussions
can have long-term effects. [ CITATION Bel14 \l 4105 ]

What has the NFL risked by concealing information or denying links? Not only has it set itself up
for lawsuits by injured players, it has risked the wrath of other stakeholders—for example,
parents—who enroll their children in football and were unclear about its dangers.

3. If the concussion problem had been analysed using virtue ethics, what would the analysis have
included and concluded?
 “[V]irtue ethics is concerned with the motivating aspects of moral character demonstrated by
decision makers.” (Chapter 4)

The analysis would have included an examination of the decision maker—the NFL--and virtues
(see Chapter 4) we might expect from a virtuous organization, for example:

 Dutiful loyalty: The NFL was loyal to itself (shareholders and the corporation), but not to
players.
 Integrity and transparency: The doctor co-chairs of the NFL’s concussion committee
from 2007 resigned in 2009 so that new members--“independent sources of expertise
and experience in the field of head injuries…”—could be hired. Releasing the doctors
implies a lack of independence, and that the NFL acted in a selfish and non-transparent
way in order to downplay the seriousness of concussions and to continue play. The NFL
did not demonstrate the virtues of honesty, compassion, and fairness, because while
hiding concussions is good for the NFL owners and revenues in the short term, it is not
fair to the players or their families in the short- or long-term. Impartiality was not
demonstrated at all until the presumably non-independent committee chairs were
released. Denying all links between CTE and concussions suggests that NFL does not act
with enlightened self-interest, but with selfishness.
 Sincerity and duplicity: When the NFL formed its “the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
[MTBI] committee” in 1994, it appointed as chair a doctor with no brain science
experience [ CITATION Eze13 \l 4105 ], so the formation of the committee seems to lack
sincerity. Duplicity, rather than sincerity seemed to be behind the MTBI’s studies
published starting in 2003 [ CITATION Eze13 \l 4105 ] because the committee was not
impartial, was part of the NFL, and studies seemed to deny the harm from concussions
proposed by non-NFL studies.
 Because, in a virtuous organization, virtue should be consistently demonstrated, not just
turned on like a light switch, an analysis of NFL suggests the organization has not been
virtuous and its probable cover up of the health effects of concussions was not ethical.

4. Should the NFL continue to play football? Consider consequences, impacts on rights, and virtue
ethics in your answer.

Likely Consequences of Accepting the Long-Term Effects of Concussions: While health-wise,

Impacts on rights: To compensate for health risks, players’ salaries might go even higher;
survivor benefits might increase; and players’ contracts will likely contain clauses about
accepting the risks of the game while limiting NFL liability (read accountability). However, the
league will still find players. Those that will take the risk for short-term glory will likely still exist.
As in many high-risk sports (I.e. boxing), the economically disadvantaged will likely form the
greatest pool of potential players, because while all parents might discourage their children
from risking their futures for short-term gain, well-off parents are more able to offer an
alternative.

Virtue Ethics: The NFL, given the above paragraph, might say that it is demonstrating the virtues
of honesty (by admitting to the long-term effects of concussions), compassion and fairness (by
compensating —through contract—for the long-term effects of concussions), and loyalty (now
to the players in addition to itself and to the game as a cultural icon) by developing a
risk/reward strategy to secure the future of the game.

Are these actions ethical? The NFL and its audience and the players it recruits will justify as
ethical a system that assigns a limited value to life and health. The risks and rewards will likely
be accepted by many, but if success is limited in reducing the debilitating, life-threatening
effects of concussion, the number of recruits will likely be reduced over time, because the
dream of being a star will be offset by the nightmare of seeing stars and jeopardizing future
success. Although it seems far-fetched, without adequate help from the NFL, the game may,
over time, assume the same kind of status of sumo wrestling in Japan, whose audiences today
are over 50 years of age and whose recruiting success is dismal, or chariot racing in ancient
Rome.