The NFL should do more to protect players from concussions.

I can't dismiss the reality of head injuries in sports. As we learn more about the human body, we are able to learn more and more about how actions affect how our body functions. Without a doubt, the most important organ in our body - the brain - is something we need to protect. That being said, there are certain activities that carry risks - and there may not be ways to correct them. I'm going to argue the National Football League, as a corporate entity, does not need to take any additional steps to protect players from concussions, or any additional steps to compensate former players for head injuries. This does not mean I oppose any actions in general or the current payments - for the purposes of my argument, I don't consider actions taken by individual teams to be a league action. In essence, my argument is this: the NFL doesn't need to take additional actions, irrespective of what individual teams or players do. Contention 1 - Concussions as an epidemic unique to football are overstatedWith all the media attention given to concussions, one might expect them to be a very common injury - but that couldn't be further from the truth. Concussions comprise only 5% of all football injuries. [1] In fact, concussions aren't even most common in football - ice hockey and wrestling have higher rates. [1] That is not to say concussions aren't serious injuries - they are. But the issue is severity, not commonality - and football, the most popular sport in America, has become the scapegoat hockey could never be. Contention 2 - Current measures represent the best pathConcussion prevention is an inherently difficult topic. Possible solutions have ranged from concussion protocols before return, and reforms at the youth level. Most of these ideas are already in place and it is actually hard to picture better solutions. Under the current system, players suspected of concussions are removed from play immediately and examined by an independent doctor. If they have symptoms, they are not allowed to return to the game - and they are not allowed to play in future games until the symptoms are gone. Illegal hits to the helmet are subject to penalty, fines, or even ejections. This system resolved two of the major issues: players deciding not to self-report, and doctors having a conflict of interest. It also created an incentive for players not to hit the helmet. While it is possible this system could be improved - and it will as time goes on - new programs aren't needed, or maybe even possible. The biggest risk with concussions is repeated ones in the same game, which is extremely dangerous and can lead to permanent brain damage, and this system of pulling players is designed to prevent it. A final measure, reform at youth level, is in progress. Techniques learned early tend to last for a lifetime. Youth leagues are working to teach proper tackling techniques, so players face less concussions over their lifetime than they otherwise would. While the jury is still out on this, what is important is that reform should be bottom-up - not top-down. Contention 3 - Risks are somewhat overstatedPlaying football is a risk. It's been known since, well, the time in began. Theodore Roosevelt threatened to ban it in 1902 because of fatalities. [2] That being said, the risks are - to be blunt - being a bit overstated. The average football player lives longer than the average American male. [3] While rates for brain damage are indeed three times more than the general population, that study showed only 14 deceased players (out of 334 deceased overall), or roughly 4%, died from Alzhimer's or ALS. Rates of Parkinson's were not any higher than the general populace. [4] That's a very small percentage of people; the general population would have had 5 deaths to those conditions. While these cases are indeed sad, especially to loved ones and the fans to who witnesses the unique talent these player had, they are not the norm. Contention 4 - Teams and players should take the initiativeWithout a doubt, the direct responsibility for players lies on themselves and their coaches. It is important for individual players and coaches to work on a case-by-case basis to make the best decisions. League-wide actions simply aren't the way for reform. The most pressing issues are to encourage self-reporting, and to ensure the long-term health of players. But each player is different - would a blanket decision to, say, make players sit four weeks help everyone? Of course not. Some are ready after a week, while others might be ready after six or eight. That's a decision that can best be made by the player, their coach, and their team doctor. League-wide actions won't change culture - coaches acting will. ConclusionConcussions, like any injury, deserve attention. But the current mass hysteria simply doesn't reflect reality, and it shouldn't drive people to make hasty decisions. Current reforms are making things safer, and the risks being aimed to prevent are actually fairly low. Decisions on what actions should be done should be made on a case-by-case basis by the players and those who understand them best. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal! References1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://www.history.com...3. . http://www.politifact.com...4. . https://www.aan.com...