Like Derek, I do think football (or boxing, or MMA) is different than other kinds of television shows. It is materially damaging to human beings, and the NFL and NCAA have both conspired to obscure the extent of that damage, to its customers and to its workers. I do personally feel that watching critically is not sufficient in this case. Which is why I also feel a great deal of unease about the World Cup in Qatar–I don’t think I can watch that either, and the World Cup is probably my favorite thing on Earth.

I’m not sure I agree that we’re not responsible. Even beyond the personal ethics (“I choose not to partake of this.”), not participating means withholding attention and purchasing power. I would love to see the ratings and attendance drop by more people doing the same. If that happens, that hurts the owners and the league.

As Jason said, for many of us teaching at US schools (at any level, really), we have an extra role in speaking out about our own programs. While we may still not have a lot of power, we’ve got relatively more than only as an NFL viewer. My own university is at a crossroads in regards to this at this very moment.

Really? That’s the best we can do? Nothing?

No, you’re not to blame for football, per se, but as a consumer of it, you share some responsibility for its continuation. I gather you don’t consider private watching a form of public engagement, but everything starts with refusal to maintain the status quo. Rosa Parks REFUSED to sit in the back of the bus. That was a personal decision that became a platform for action.

Sorry, but you sound like someone who really isn’t interested in changing this situation and are advising others to follow your lead.

I’ve been thinking about football in relationship to boxing, which continues to be incredibly profitable, even while it is also incredibly marginal. Some of this has to do with HBO and other channels scooping up exclusive rights to major fights, but it also has to do with a growing distaste for the sport for somewhat similar reasons (domestic abuse, concussions, etc). It’s hard o imagine a similar trajectory for football–more people participate, the civic associations are much stronger–unless sponsors really do decide to bail (which I suspect is actually unlikely).

The “perverse incentive” of playing sports–especially football–is certainly an issue, but from personal experience, that incentive CAN be directed towards other sports, such as lacrosse, that may be a little less violent. That said, the incidents of violence associated with other collegiate sports raise the question as to whether this is a football problem or a sports and masculinity problem.

For us academics, the other aspect of this story that we must attend to is the role of college football in the US, and how it has corrupted American higher education. For those of us at D1 schools, how do we deal with the fact that a huge budget goes to support a program that enlists & exploits unpaid players, claims to give them access to an education (but rarely the time or incentive to actually get educated), while damaging their bodies and brains for the amusement of the masses & a slim chance at a future windfall in a corrupt industry? For those of us at non-D1 programs, football can still be a massive drain on resources and create warped incentives, while still damaging the players who aren’t even competing for a chance at a massive pro sports windfall.

I don’t know what faculty should do about such issues, but it’s worth talking about it publicly, and imagining how your institution might be different without football. (For starters, you’d probably get rid of its highest paid staff member!)