Congressman Lamar Smith, Twenty First Congressional
District of Texas
Ranking Member Smith: The recently released University of Michigan study of retired NFL players indicates that overall retired professional football players are in good health.
The New York Times has suggested that the study also points to higher than normal rates of dementia or other memory-related problems among former players. But the study does not support that view and prior studies have been argued to point both ways.
While we need to take this issue seriously, we should not jump to any conclusions. As the lead author of the Michigan study has stated, “the study did not conclude that football causes dementia.”
Highly publicized claims that the study supports a link between football and dementia stem largely from the New York Times’ misreporting on the content of the study.
The study’s authors have drawn this misreporting to the Times’ attention. The authors stress that they do not believe “any responsible scientist” would conclude from the study that “retired football players had higher rates of dementia than any other group,” which was alleged by the Times.
They also underscore that “the comparison study used for dementia . . . dramatically understates the true rates of dementia in the American population.”
In other words, according to the authors themselves, the rates of dementia for retired NFL players “are likely comparable” to the American population in general.
So we need to be careful about what conclusions regarding dementia and other memory problems we draw from the most recent look at retired players’ health.
Professional football is the most popular spectator sport in America. It is important that the league and its players take every effort to make pro football as safe as reasonably possible.
The NFL should continue to study the potential long-term effects of head injuries on player health. The league should also study whether equipment improvements or stricter rules enforcement could help to reduce any long-term impacts of head injuries. And, of course, college and high school officials should do the same.
But Congress should not attempt to influence the upcoming collective bargaining process the NFL and its players’ union are about to undertake. We should also avoid the temptation to legislate in this area.
Football, like soccer, rugby and even basketball and baseball involves contact that can produce injuries. We cannot legislate the elimination of injuries from the games without eliminating the games themselves.
The retired players study concludes:
“The study finds retired players to be in very good stead, overall…Their history of physical fitness shows up in lower rates of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. . .Playing in the NFL was a very positive experience for most retired players.”
Congress can highlight the potential long-term consequences of playing professional football through hearings like this one. But the NFL does not need Congress to referee this issue.
While many of us would say that we’re fans of football, Monday morning quarterbacking doesn’t necessarily qualify us as experts. Both teams are at the table here today and should work together to find a solution where both the players and the league win.
I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony and hope that this hearing will result neither in exaggerating the problem of injuries nor in downplaying the need to look for ways to reduce injuries.
