Nfl Players Analysis

NFL vs. Players: Analysis and Intervention

The National Football League is currently in a long-standing conflict with a group of its players and former players who demand compensation for the brain damage incurred during their professional careers with the NFL as a result of multiple concussions. The players’ group has taken these grievances to court, accusing the NFL of wrongful death and negligence for allegedly concealing the long-term effects of multiple concussions sustained during play, despite voluntarily investigating these possible effects. (Kenney 2012) This player’s group claims that players were not actively warned of the dangers of cumulative mild traumatic brain injury or MTBI until 2010. (ESPN 2011) The representatives of the

(Kenney 2012) Although the players’ representation admits that the earliest studies were on boxers, they believe that there had been more than enough evidence gathered to prove the link between MTBIs sustained during football and dementia symptoms later in life by the 1950’s. The players accuse the NFL of actively suppressing knowledge of the extent of damage caused by MTBIs and promoting the physicality of the sport for profit. (Kenney 2012) The players’ group has been largely contending with the NFL, driven by the idea that these players have been morally wronged by the organization. They have high concern for their own identity group but low concern for the opposition (NFL) generally due to their perception of the NFL as a wealthy and powerful organization with the upper hand in legal proceedings. (Pruitt, Kim 2004) The players group is unlikely to engage in yielding techniques due to their perception of the engagement in the conflict as morally right and due to their use of legal representatives as representatives of a group are less likely to yield for fear of disappointing the group they represent. (Pruitt, Kim 2004)

It is unclear whether the recent changes to the game (efforts to move kickoff line, penalties for head hits) to increase safety are driven by the NFL’s concern ultimately for player safety or for good public relations. The NFL has stated its dedication to player safety and that these changes are a demonstration of

Direct violence is of course, one-on-one physical violence, which is not present in this conflict. But what is present is both structural and cultural violence. Structural violence is described by Burton as damaging deprivations caused by the nature of social institutions and policies. (Burton 1979) The players are suffering not only as a result of the NFL’s suppression of information about the extent of damage done by MTBI but also the NFL’s protocol for dealing with concussed players and their return to play. Finally, the players deal with cultural violence as well. Galtung describes this as whatever conditions exist to make us blind to the direct or structural violence present by seeking to justify it or write it off as simply collateral damage. (Galtung 1973) This is demonstrated by the “warrior” culture that the NFL endorses and advertises for profit as well as the NFL’s endorsement of the view that football without injury is not football. (Belson