What about the sponsorship of daredevil sports like free climbing, wing suits, etc., by consumer companies like GoPro and Redbull.
I feel that we are supporting these companies with our purchases, and then they in turn create social media spectacles by giving these people an incentive to do dangerous stunts. Recently a wingsuit daredevil died while livestreaming on Facebook, watched by his young daughter and wife. It was a horrific event. Of course, his broken body was festooned with the banners of various energy drinks and other bullshit.
What a wonderful time we live in. Are we not all entertained?
The risk profile is entirely different. When you go jump off a cliff you're saying "there's an x% chance I will die right now" but there's no chance that you die slowly 20 years later after surviving the jump. So it's much more fair to ask the jumper to evaluate the risk.
Playing football is a slow killer. After years and years of hits you may get serious brain damage. But there was no one particular moment, no single play, that you should have avoided. It's the sport as a whole.
Also even though Red Bull and other sponsors are making money off other's risk, they aren't actively trying to suppress and hide that info like it seems the NFL has been doing for years regarding concussion risk.
I agree with you point, but assume the NFL does admit fault and revise their position to be aligned with medical findings. Does watching the sport make is any more or less moral. I do not think so. You are right, the NFL is being dishonest and irresponsible, but viewing the sport is an act separated entirely from this fact.
I'm not sure what you are arguing. People watching doesn't make it any more or less moral, no.
People or organizations profiting off the risky behavior of others is potentially immoral. IMO a large part of why its either moral or not is in the participant's knowledge of the risk. If the group profiting on the other's risk is actively seeking to hide the risk then it is definitely immoral.
I think one difference is that we don't have free climbing and wing suit programs in middle schools. It's one thing if you are an adult and are being paid to participate, it's another when you are a kid and playing is your ticket to a college education.
I'm in Texas so my view on football is warped, but the intensity that kids play football with is nuts.
Older me now thinks mixing scholastics and athletics is nuts. I remain unclear why tax payers are subsidizing professional sports by funding their farm system. And their stadiums. And their monopolies.
I now favor a european style club system over any intramural sports.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. I love motorcycling, and the Isle of Man TT is probably the craziest spectacle I watch every year. And every year, at least one person dies in the race.
A lot of the mechanics and race shops that build bikes for that race talk about whether or not they're doing a good thing.
And as dangerous and awful as the above is, I wouldn't change the TT for anything. But I also wouldn't watch it, if it was a commercialized race with large corporate backing.
I guess what I'm trying to get at, is there's a difference between letting people take dangerous risks in pursuit of something they love and giving them the means to do so, and exploiting people and pushing them to continue taking dangerous risks for spectacle and profit.
Its a fine line to tread, but while typing this, I think I'm realizing that its easily discernible. In the first category, if there is a safer way of doing something, without neutering the fundamental nature of the activity, the community will embrace it. Just look at the armor improvements of motorcycling over the years. Or the quality of wingsuits and rescue equipment.
In the second category though, other considerations start to take effect, like overall viewership numbers and team profits.
I just finished reading both of Guy Martin's books and really loved them. It's not just the TT, it's all of road racing, really. And the people who do it just aren't the kind of people who enjoy circuit racing.
Pedantic, but this terminology is used incorrectly so often that I have to comment.
Free climbing just means rock climbing using your hands and feet, and not pulling/stepping on gear, to move you higher. Free climbers use ropes in the event they fall. You probably mean free soloing, which is climbing without a rope.
One point you're missing: Daredevil sports are entirely self-inflicted. Football is about inflicting hurt on others.
Second point: There's no incentive to hurt yourself. You're not going to be better paid because you fell off a cliff. You're sure better paid because you can take hits and still create a few extra inches in football.
Third point: Daredevil sports don't have long-term risks. (Well, not entirely true - IIRC arthritis is a big thing for climbers who survive)
Fourth point: We groom football players throughout school.
While Red Bull sponsors the extremes, and with that comes extreme disaster, I think those participants very well know the risk. Football, on the other hand, is sold to youth and the American public as safe with light risk, even though it's likely that we'll find a significant % (at least at the pro level) will suffer from long-term brain damage. Plus, for every $1 Red Bull sponsors, there's likely $1M sponsored in pro football.
I think this is a fair comment, and those that dismiss this comparison due to extreme sports be currently incomparable to NFL are missing the core issue. There are businesses profiting off of the risks others are taking for the entertainment of others. Yes, there are no wing suit programs in American high schools. But, the sponsors of these activities are trying hard
and paying good money to have these videos and images displayed to as many high school students as possible. Tackle football should probably not be allowed in public schools, but there will be rec and private leagues so long as the NFL is successful as a business. There will probably not be free soloing or wing suit programs in high school, but there will be people risking there lives in part because some businesses were successful at marketing the sports and made money while doing so.
Certainly football is the most urgent issue at hand because it has it is so imbued in our culture, but I do not think people are watching videos of free soloists dropping to valley floors because that wouldn't be good for business.
Last I looked my middle school and high school didn't have wing suit teams.
Very few kids in those schools have a career/college plan based on wing suits.
You're not wrong about death for red bull being bad, but I feel these things are different because of how tightly football is tied to education and children.
It's something of a difference when the risk is personal with personal preparation. Vs Football as a sport where there is this encouragement of hits between teams. One could consider that the individual Football players are informed of the risks just like the redbull stuntpeople, but there is this built in competitive, direct human-vs-human structure in Football that is going to drive escalation of risk differently than stunts.
Of course one could say also that there is escalation between stunt spectacles to make them bigger and push more boundaries - but again it's a little different, the events are individual and more spaced out then the game-to-game constant and maybe risk-desensitizing schedule of Football.
I think the biggest difference is the equipment. Football players are told that they have a suit of armor to protect them, but we now know that's a huge lie. The equipment is to enable bigger hits, not to prevent damage from them.
I feel that we are supporting these companies with our purchases, and then they in turn create social media spectacles by giving these people an incentive to do dangerous stunts. Recently a wingsuit daredevil died while livestreaming on Facebook, watched by his young daughter and wife. It was a horrific event. Of course, his broken body was festooned with the banners of various energy drinks and other bullshit.
What a wonderful time we live in. Are we not all entertained?