The title of Steve Almond’s book, “Against Football: A Fan’s Reluctant Manifesto” speaks to the intent behind the book. I like that Almond comes forth and announces that this book is going to make a case against the game but also admits that he is a fan. The irony of this title along with “reluctant manifesto” sheds light on the type of writer Almond is and how he feels about the message he is about to deliver. He wants his reader to understand that there are ethical problems with the game, and as a fan it is hard for him to be completely honest but difficult or not, he will deliver the truth in it’s entirety. I like the way that Almond introduces himself in the preface. He makes it simple for the reader to imagine him in his office, an old …show more content…
In 1940, 18 players died as a result of spinal injuries, fractured skulls and broken ribs. (pg. 9 and 10) I find it clever that Almond begins the section with a quote by a very well known American president. “I believe in..rough, manly sports. I do not feel any particular sympathy for the person who gets battered about a good deal as long as it is not fatal.” It wasn’t until President Theodore Roosevelt’s son got injured in the game that he enforced a football reform. Almond relays the message that Football is a prime example of American innovation at it’s best. He claims that overtime, Football transformed from a deadly sport that had no organization to “controlled violence.” Almond believes that this reform is beautiful in nature which I have to disagree with. Although broken arms, ribs and pulled ligaments can be painful, they can be effectively treated by doctors this day in age. However, this is not the problem. Football players are still suffering injuries that have fatal outcomes and that is not beautiful. Not only do fans still encourage this sport, and cheer on a player who plays while injured just to win a game. It makes me wonder what is the price athletes are willing to pay to make