* Selling cigarettes to children

* Building buildings that burn to the ground with everyone trapped inside

* Murder

So... I guess that America isn't a free country? If everyone was a perfectly informed perfectly rational expectation maximizer we wouldn't have any of these problems. But since none of those things are true, there're all sorts of predatory and greedy-counterproductive practices that are, yes, unacceptable, things that we have to ban for our civilization to continue to improve. I submit that american football, in its current form, is likely one of them. Too much glamour, too much money, too much tradition, too good at messing with people's heads, both in the way it sucks everyone into it (high school football!) and with the brain damage thing.

Meanwhile there are plenty of dangerous occupations, truck drivers, for example, that are not deemed unacceptable and banned by authoritarian morality police.

> If everyone was a perfectly informed perfectly rational expectation maximizer we wouldn't have any of these problems

This standard is hardly necessary. All that is necessary is to have sufficient information to take responsibility for decisions you make and their consequences. That is known as agency. Of course it's different if your decisions affect others. I could certainly see holding certain people or organizations (like the NFL) responsible if there has been some kind of cover-up about the long-term effects of concussions. But that's far different from a crude authoritarian ban.

> I submit that american football, in its current form, is likely one of them. Too much glamour, too much money, too much tradition, too good at messing with people's heads, both in the way it sucks everyone into it (high school football!) and with the brain damage thing.

In other words, you don't like football and you don't like the tradition, so you see no problem banning it. For you there's no downside, only upside.

No, banning is not necessary, at least not some kind of national ban issued from on high. It starts with education. Parents stop letting their children play Pop Warner. High schoolers in most of the country decide not to take the risks of playing football. HS football programs decline. College recruiting pools dry up, leading to a decline in the quality and popularity of College football. From there, it's anyone's guess how the NFL will survive.

Sure, it won't happen overnight. But I can assure you that the consequences of trying to issue an overnight ban of the most popular sport in the US would not be pretty.

I've seen plenty of articles headlined with something along the line of "should my kid play football?" If you knew your kid would have a 10% chance of developing CTE by playing the sport... well, I would think many parents would pause and reconsider. Certainly I would.

It's still a free country. Football is nowhere near the state of being "banned" or anything close to that. Plenty of other sports with probable worse concussion issues are also popular (see: MMA)

American football's huge prominence merely puts a bigger spotlight on this issue. In my opinion, the most likely outcome is equipment and/or rules changes. American football has changed rules and/or mandated equipment in the name of safety before.

That concept is just marketing or propaganda, depending on who is pushing it.

Also, let's not forget that there's accusations of a cover up by the NFL.

For example, it would be great if there was a short message before each game is aired that said "the sport you are about to watch is know to cause X in players. X is an extremely painful and debilitating condition." Then play a short clip of patients suffering from X.

Similarly, anyone who wants to become a player should be required to watch such a video educating them about the risks.

It doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, it just derails it. "free country" is too vague to be meaningful; we have our freedoms curtailed in big and small ways all day every day. Wanna test this? Go ignore traffic lights. Go walk into someone else's house. Traffic laws and property rights are acceptable constraints on freedom, but they are still constraints on freedom.

Please, if you're going to contribute, make it a useful contribution.

You did not quote my post in its entirety. Before the saying anything about the US being a free country, I asked a pointed, important question that the parent had left undefined. The OP glibly asserted that this was "unacceptable." I asked: "unacceptable to whom?" The glib question about US being a free country was rhetorical and intended to provide some context for interpreting the first, more important question.

In retrospect, I probably should have left it off, given that only one of six responses even attempted to address the more important question. It's no surprise that soundwave106's comment is far and away the most thoughtful and interesting response. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851330.) I intended the 1st question to be literal and the 2nd question to be rhetorical. Instead everyone appears to have read the 2nd question to be literal and the 1st one to be rhetorical.

For a more detailed version of my own thoughts on the matter, feel free to review this follow-up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851549