|
asked
by Elias Shams
about 1 year ago
The day I got off the boat from Iran to America back in 1985, it took me less than three month to conclude that American Football was as barbaric and stupid as gladiators fight in Colosseum. There is nothing sporty about it. You just have to be big and stupid. It's only exciting if and only if someone gets killed or badly hurt or the beer commercial! Every time I brought it up, the most common response was "Shut up you @#$% foreigner! You guys don't know nothing about sport" Well, that was 27 years ago. I just read this on CNN: More players file concussion lawsuits against the NFL
www.cnn.com/2012/05/03/sport/nfl-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 (more) |
There is too much advertising money behind this stupid game. You won't win this argument. My dad also tried, but couldn't get anywhere :(
Part 3:
So, I think that for sheer injury volume, football "wins". However you must consider the number of participants and it seems that per-capita injury rates might be equal for basketball and football. In non-pro sports amongst baby boomers, many sports exceed football in injury volume. But this may be due to the decline in football participation after formal education ends. Finally, the death toll in soccer may exceed that of football - this bears further investigation.
Answer got cut off! Here's more:
Data from the CPSC for Baby-Boomer (age 35-54) sports injuries for 1998 shows that 6 sports exceed football in numbers of injuries (bicycles, basketball, baseball & softball, exercise & running, skiing, weightlifting). However, there is no way to show per-capita figures. See http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/boomer.pdf
According to the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research Twentieth Annual Report, from 1982-2002, the total numbers of direct and indirect fatalities among high school athletes:
Football — 22
Soccer — 31
So, I think that for sheer inj
injury volume, football "wins". However you must consider the number of participants and it seems that per-capita injury rates might be equal for basketball and football. In non-pro sports amongst baby boomers, many sports exceed football in injury volume. But this may be due to the decline in football participation after formal education ends. Finally, the death toll in soccer may exceed that of football - this bears further investigation.
(more)
According to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program, the number of sport-related injuries for football and soccer are as follows:
2001 2006
Football: 413,620 460,210
Soccer: 163,003 186,544
Data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission for 2002 shows that basketball tops football in sheer number of injuries. Normalizing the data shows 21.2 injuries per thousand capita for basketball and 21.9 injuries per thousand capita for football, however. See http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/hazard_team.pdf
Data from the CPSC for Baby-Boomer (age 35-54) sports injurie
s for 1998 shows that 6 sports exceed football in numbers of injuries (bicycles, basketball, baseball & softball, exercise & running, skiing, weightlifting). However, there is no way to show per-capita figures. See http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/boomer.pdf
According to the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research Twentieth Annual Report, from 1982-2002, the total numbers of direct and indirect fatalities among high school athletes:
Football — 22
Soccer — 31
So, I think that for sheer injury volume in the USA, football "wins". However you must consider the number of participants and it seems that per-capita injury rates might be equal for basketball and football. In non-pro sports amongst baby boomers, many sports exceed football in injury volume. But this may be due to the decline in football participation after formal education ends. Finally, the death toll in soccer may exceed that of football - this bears further investigation.
(more)



