Analysis Of Is It Immoral To Watch The Super Bowl By Steve Almond

Violence Vs. Danger

“WHAM!” This is you slapping the ground as you fall. Suddenly, you sense a spontaneous, stabbing pain in your ankle. With every lost second, the pain creeps up your leg, determined to overtake you. As the pain spreads, you replay the events leading up to now, however, you know what must be done. Jumping up, you run and deliver the winning touchdown. As the team cheers, the pain in your leg disappears, and you forget all your worries. For those who have played a sport, the feeling of winning is so great it outweighs the risks of the game. This is especially true for football players. These “gods” move gracefully throughout the field, cheered on by thousands of fans both in and out of the stadium. However, these men know that at any moment, during any play, their lives could be dramatically altered. Steve Almond, author of “Is it Immoral to Watch the Super Bowl”, raises the question of whether or not our “zealous fandom” for football is causing harm to players, and states that fans should reconsider supporting this industry. However, Steve Almond is not able to make a convincing case, because he makes false accusations, erroneous comparisons, and wrongful implications.

In Steve Almond’s article, he states that zealous fandom for football supports player injury.

He then suggests that fans should reconsider supporting this industry. Focusing on the dangers of football, Almond shares personal anecdotes of football players whose lives were changed forever by the love of the game. He then goes on to state that football has contorted our view of war into a “winnable contest”, and has served as a distraction from the horrors outside our home. Lastly, Almond points out that fans undying “worship” of this sport has forced us to turn a blind eye to the true “pathologies” that football possesses. In light of learning these new facts, Almond hopes that fans will reconsider supporting the violent sport of

football.
To begin with, Almond makes an unsound accusation that football is a “such violent transaction”. Football, although a more dangerous sport, is in no way, shape or form violent. Almond seems to imagine football as a horrible bloodbath, and although players do often get hurt, these accidents are insignificant and are a cost of what it takes to play a sport. However, Almond fails to see that violence is all around us, in real life, video games, movies, news, TV, and so much more. Violence is part of the equation of life. There is no way that we can find a way to ban violence forever.
Next, Almond makes a deficient comparison, when he equates football and war. By saying this, Almond completely undermines war and all that occurs on the battlefield. True, football shares some characteristics with war in regards to set up, however, it is by no means as violent, or dangerous as war. Hundreds of soldiers die in horrible agony or get blown up in war. Those who manage to survive are only met with seemingly endless problems. Football players do not watch their teammates and opponents get blown up before they are able to reach help. Occasionally, a player may get hurt and may become paralyzed, or even die. However, the average player does not know what it is like to take a life or watch the life drain out of someone else. The horrors outside our perfect, cookie cutter-lives, stretch on way past the field, therefore, this comparison is inadequate.
Lastly, Almond makes the implication that only football players get hurt. However, this could not be more false. Every sport poses some sort of dangerous threat, and football is not the only sport that causes concussions and brain damage. Gymnasts, cheerleaders, as well as hockey, baseball, basketball, and any other sports players, are prone to severe injury. There is no way to prevent injury. Real life is dangerous, and you get hurt, but you should pick yourself up, and jump back into the game.
Despite the many problems Almond makes throughout his article, some may find his argument to be effective because of his use of logos appeals. An example of this would be that recent “medical research has confirmed that football can cause catastrophic brain injury — not as a rare and unintended consequence, but as a routine byproduct of how the game is played.” He then goes on to state, that by watching the NFL, “us fans” are supporting this brutality, and are the reason why the “N.F.L. will earn $5 billion in television revenue alone next year.” Almond also shares the story of how All-Pro linebacker Junior Seau committed suicide in 2012. His autopsy revealed that he had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or C.T.E. this brain disease is the cause of dementia and is prevalent among many former football players; Tony Dorsett and Brett Favre have reported symptoms of C.T.E., such as memory loss and depression.
Football players choose to play the game despite the dangers and risks looming over their heads. The dangers come as no surprise, and for every sports player, no matter the sport, these dangers, are all just part of the game. Steve Almond suggests that readers should reconsider watching and supporting football due to the “violence” and dangers the game is prone to, however, I believe that is unnecessary. By asking for fans to turn away from the things they love, Almond seems to want to ban football forever. What he fails to see is that there are more dangerous things in the world than just football. Banning football is not going to improve the lives of the players, instead, it would only take away the thing they loved.