

What I Saw as an NFL Ball Boy - jhonovich
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/what-i-saw-as-an-nfl-ball-boy.html

======
brohoolio
Just another reason that I'm glad I gave up watching football. The injuries
took the enjoyment out of the game for me. I get nauseous when I see a hit
that gives someone a concussion.

Maybe it's my own sports injuries that contribute to my difficulty watching
the game now. Whenever someone's leg gets the wrong way I remember the feeling
I felt when my arm got bent the wrong way.

The NFL feels like pro wrestling to me now. All the cheering the league does
for the military and knowing that the league is a not for profit and doesn't
pay taxes to support the troops makes me sick. The domestic violence and
corresponding punishment over the last couple years also makes me sick. One
day my entire commute home was sports talk guys reading off players that
didn't get punished for strangling children, knocking out wives, etc. Then I
open up the paper and it's football players rapes someone and doesn't get
investigated. High school football players sexual torture freshmen. Ugh.

~~~
ENOTTY
All profits to the NFL are distributed back to the teams, which do pay income
taxes. All the players and staff also pay income taxes.

~~~
bmelton
Thank you. It's disturbing to see so many people insist that the NFL doesn't
"deserve" to be a non-profit, because they don't give enough to charity.

They're a 501c6, not a 501c3. C6 is not intended to be a charitable
organization, but to act as a trade organization, business league, etc. They
quite clearly meet the definition of what a 501C6 is intended to be, and it's
also quite clear that they aren't "dodging" anything in the way of taxes.

If there's a discussion to be had on the matter, it's whether or not 501C6s
even ought to exist, or whether there ought to be constraints on their
existence (e.g., in order to encourage business development, a 501C6 may exist
until captured revenues reach a fixed amount, or something to that extent) but
it's clear that the NFL is not only eligible, but the very archetype for what
a C6 organization ought to be.

~~~
brohoolio
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2014/01/30/the-real-
su...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2014/01/30/the-real-super-bowl-
question-should-the-nfl-be-a-nonprofit/)

"When you consider how many pro stadiums – like MetLife MET -1.23% Stadium in
the swamps of Jersey – are at least partially subsidized by public dollars, a
Federal tax exemption for the professional league – really a joint venture of
32 other businesses and their investors – seems obscene. As Nina Ippolito
wrote in PolicyMic:

As a 501(c)6, the NFL isn’t supposed to engage in business “ordinarily carried
on for profit.” Apparently, licensing exorbitantly priced apparel, granting
broadcast rights, and running an entire television network don’t count as
profitable endeavors."

~~~
bmelton
> When you consider how many pro stadiums [...] a Federal tax exemption for
> the professional league – really a joint venture of 32 other businesses and
> their investors – seems obscene

That's confusing distinct concerns. The tax exemption status is federal, while
each of those stadium negotiations is done at the state level, and in cahoots
with the league owners and teams of those states, not the "NFL" organization
at large.

> As a 501(c)6, the NFL isn’t supposed to engage in business “ordinarily
> carried on for profit.” Apparently, licensing exorbitantly priced apparel,
> granting broadcast rights, and running an entire television network don’t
> count as profitable endeavors."

The "NFL" organization doesn't do those things. It is, basically, just a
payment gateway for the teams and owners. By that same argument, you could
assert that Patrick Collision and Stripe are selling televisions (assuming at
least one of their customers is selling televisions). They aren't, they're
just the gateway.

The league entity is funded by the teams and the board, not as a rake from
those teams.

~~~
revelation
And guess what, Stripe is paying taxes.

I'm rather confused as to how you plan to convincingly argue that a company
organizing a purely for entertainment sports league should be exempt from
paying taxes.

~~~
bmelton
You should read my earlier reply.

Stripe pays taxes that they collect. So does the NFL. Stripe pays taxes on its
earnings. So does the NFL. Stripe does not pay taxes on the billed amount.
Neither does the NFL.

If a Stripe merchant pays taxes on a $5,000 television, does that count as
$5,000 worth of taxable income for Stripe? No, it does not. Stripe collects
their service charge, which works out to be $145.30. That is Stripe's taxable
income.

You're acting like the NFL is somehow responsible for paying taxes on the
billions of dollars that it collects revenues on. It isn't, nor is Stripe. If
it weren't tax exempt, it would only be responsible for the fees it keeps,
which is equivalent to the Stripe service fees. The NFL member teams are
responsible for paying the taxes on the billions, which they already do, and
don't appear to be evading, or even attempting to evade at all.

As for whether or not the portion of money that the NFL league 'keeps' (they
don't actually keep any, they act as a clearing house for the teams, and pay
out 100% of earnings minus overhead, which they make 0 profits from), the IRS
seems to have created a class of business that matches exactly the
"entertainment sports league" definition, and they have made that category tax
exempt.

So long as the 501c6 exists under the definition that it does, the NFL clearly
qualifies to be one.

So, recapping from my earlier reply, the issue isn't one of whether or not the
NFL is tax dodging. They aren't. Not even remotely. The issue is whether or
not there should be such a thing as the 501C6. I, personally, am of the
opinion that it needn't exist at all. But it does, and it's tax exempt, and
that's not the NFL's fault.

To reduce it to absurdity: If the IRS created a category of person that is
caucasian, wears Threadless T-Shirts, wears New Balance shoes, and that enjoys
drinking Victory Golden Monkey Ale, then I _clearly_ belong to that category.

If the IRS makes that category of person tax exempt, then I guess I can stop
paying taxes.

The argument that most people seem to make is that I don't deserve to belong
to this tax exempt category, which is wrong. I meet all the criteria. I wear
Threadless shirts. I am caucasian. I really love Victory Golden Monkey Ale.
Saying I don't belong in this category is the wrong argument.

The right argument is either:

\- this special category should not exist, or

\- this special category should not be tax exempt

FWIW, I'm not trying to defend the NFL. But, if you're going to condemn them,
i means understanding what you're condemning. If they NFL collected 12 billion
dollars last year, then they paid taxes on $12 billion dollars. The teams then
each put aside a certain amount of money, collectively totaling around $200
million, to fund the NFL league. The money's already been taxed once, but the
$200 million that the league "earned" through these payments is not, because
it's allocated to a trade organization, which the IRS considers tax exempt.

------
drawkbox
I think they could do much more for players to help them.

\- Weight limits in the NFL. I know linemen need to get big but the average
weight of linemen is way too high.

\- The padding is almost too good, concussions will go up as they have with
better equipment. Players feel too safe to unleash a hit. There needs to be
more alerting/warning systems on collisions. i.e. if a player is about to get
blindsided, alert them inside the helmet. Give them eyes all around.

\- All linemen should use knee braces all the time or improved support.
Players remove padding because others do to stay competitive. There needs to
be more support for knees/ankles that is required. (smaller linemen will help
this)

\- Testing for HGH is finally in, this will help some.

\- Allow players to use marijuana, for pain and for calming rather than DUIs.
They treat players like children so they end up lashing out.

\- Provide drivers free of charge for all NFL players for all activities.
Require that they use the drivers (they can personally hire them) if they are
having fun but DUIs should not be allowed.

~~~
euphemize
No NFL player would ever want to have an "alert in their helmet" if they're
about to get hit. That sounds horrible and panic-inducing more than anything
else. The NFL needs to follow other leagues, like the NHL, and simply ban
dangerous hits to the head and blindsided hits altogether. There's a lot of
resistance, but it's slowly making a difference.

Enforcing knee braces, putting weight limits for linemen and making an
exception for marijuana will also never work IMO. Also, players have access to
very strong pain killers via team doctors, they don't need marijuana for pain.

~~~
KC8ZKF
Marijuana isn't a performance enhancer. What interest does the NFL have in
whether a player is using it?

~~~
redstar504
Perhaps the league disapproves of Marijuana because it would be counter
productive to their ulterior motives.

If players were allowed to smoke pot they might become generally calmer
people, leading to less ground shattering hits and anger released on the
field, ultimately leading to a decrease in profits for the NFL, since most of
the people tuning into this sport watch for the aggressive nature of the game.

The fact that alcohol is allowed, which as a substance probably leads to
increased anger, seems like it would fit the leagues agenda much better.

Marijuana is not a performance enhancing drug in sport unless you consider
increased relaxation and pain relief an enhancement. I'm not advocating that
the players should be using pot before gametime, but I can see it being a very
effective way for players de-stress after games or during the off-season.

------
bkjelden
I've been thinking lately if it would be possible to create a variant of
football that was just as exciting without the collisions and violence.

Most of what makes me like football more than other sports can be summed up
into the following:

* Effort matters more than talent - talented teams that are not focused can be upset by less talented teams that are playing harder

* Team game - since it's 11v11 and not 5v5, with a few rare exceptions, no one player can make a team. Everyone has to be working together to win.

* Drama - every game is just a game. no best of 3, best of 5, etc. This combines with the first point to make every game worth watching.

* Strategy - The chess match of how an offense matches up against a defense, how coordinators will use their players' distinct skills to exploit the other team's weaknesses, etc, is fascinating.

* Variety of athletes - I was an offensive lineman when I played football in my younger years, and to put it nicely, I have an offensive lineman's build. So I've always enjoyed that football utilizes a variety of athletes that are skilled in more ways than just speed.

So would it be possible to put all of these, except maybe the last, into a new
game that didn't cause brain damage? I think so, I'm just not sure what that
game would look like. I sure hope football can get this figured out, because
for all of the bad attention it's been getting lately, it is still a sport
that brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people.

~~~
baddox
One obvious possibility is touch football. I know almost nothing about the
strategy and tactics of football, but touch football seems to at least
superficially match the general flow of full-contact football. That said, I'm
not sure how the offensive and defensive lines would work in 11-man
competitive touch football.

~~~
JabavuAdams
Isn't this a bit ... lame (no pun intended). I'm not a football fan, but
violence is definitely part of what makes it exciting to me, when I do watch.

As a society, we need ways for people to get out aggression in a generally
non-harmful way. Note that I'm not arguing against making football safer for
players, but rather against the elimination of violent sport.

Maybe robo-football? There's just something fun about beating a consenting
opponent to the ground.

------
spikels
I think fufilling a lifelong dream to play pro football and the minimum salary
of $420,000 explains why there are thousands of people lined up to take these
jobs despite the well known health risks.

BTW - The incidence of alcohol related arrest for NFL players mentioned, while
in my opinion excessive, is probably below average for young US males which is
prob over 2% per year for DUI alone. What's amazing is how common this is in
general - 1 in 139 licensed drivers each year are arrested for DUI.

[http://www.duifoundation.org/research/facts/](http://www.duifoundation.org/research/facts/)

~~~
analog31
What disturbs me is that the training has to start before kids are really old
enough to weigh the risks and returns. The net-present-value of aspiring to a
pro football career is probably in the neighborhood of 10 bucks when the
actual probability of success is considered. It could even be negative due to
the effect of those concussions. And it's unfathomable that the concussions
don't have some progressive effect starting on day one.

This is one of those cases where you have a seemingly infinitesimal
probability of a seemingly infinite outcome. I think that folks just have a
very hard time thinking about that kind of situation rationally.

~~~
baddox
> What disturbs me is that the training has to start before kids are really
> old enough to weigh the risks and returns.

Presumably the vast majority of football players in high school don't even
intend to play in college, much less professionally. I don't have any data,
and I know there have been some high-profile tragedies in high school
football, but I would guess that injuries are much rarer in high school.

~~~
analog31
While the news-making injuries are probably more rare, I'm concerned that a
constant succession of low grade concussions might have a cumulative effect
that I wouldn't wish on my own kids. Not that either of them is a prospect for
playing football at any level.

Instead, they're engaged in an activity with a roughly equal chance of
professional success -- playing classical music. But at least I can send them
to practice without wondering if it will set them back mentally, with symptoms
that show up 30 to 50 years later.

------
ajtaylor
What's sad to me is to read that the writer is happy to have a permanently
damaged knee in exchange for a few years of playing football. Personally I
can't see how it would be worth it. I need to walk, run and cycle every day
for the rest of my life. I don't need to play football.

~~~
DigitalJack
So you are sad that someone else is happy because what makes them happy isn't
what makes you happy.

~~~
jlebar
Well, sure. In the limit, I'd be sad if a large portion of humanity chose to
use the experience machine [1]. More realistically, I'm sad that Americans
spend so much time watching TV, even if it makes them happy.

I think I can at once support this guy's ability to make choices for himself
and be saddened that our culture may have socialized him into making a
tradeoff that I don't think was worthwhile, in some objective sense.

Perhaps the test I mean is, suppose football didn't exist and then you walked
up to this guy in the present day, explained what football is, and then gave
him the choice to relive his life starting from high school, but this time
with football and all the (positive and negative) consequences he faced. It
seems likely to me that he'd reject this out of hand.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine)

------
mbesto
They're measuring all of the head issues at Stanford:
[http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8311371/significant-a...](http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8311371/significant-
advances-being-made-concussion-research-universities-nationwide)

------
thebiglebrewski
This is revealing, but really unsure how this relates to Hacker News

~~~
ygra
Given that it's on the front page it's interesting to enough people,
apparently.

------
index0
I really don't these kind of articles because in actuality NFL players live
longer and are less like to commit crime then the average male. On paper
there's no story here and usually that's enough for HN.

Writers and journalists can easily pick on these athletes because they
generally don't have the literary facilities to defend the choices they've
made in the same Op-Ed fashion and I'll be frank and say jealousy is playing a
large role here. All jobs take a mental and physical toll. Most jobs aren't
fulfilling or notable in any way and the existential terror of living like
that is a much great strain on the psyche then getting a few concussions. The
average overweight, underemployed American likes to believe he's better off
then someone who has unflinchingly been same thing since freshman year of
high-school, maybe he is, maybe he isn't, either way it's a consoling thought
while distractedly surfing the net.

When it comes down to it these players are responsible for their own safety
and unless you're willing to submit to the same diet and exercise regime as
they do, don't criticize them they don't deserve it.

~~~
mburns
>in actuality NFL players live longer ... then the average male

[http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/2013/01/29/nfl-
player...](http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/2013/01/29/nfl-players-
union-and-harvard-team-landmark-study-football-injuries-and-
illness/aCGnf96h7ptWX2Lnp5MIiP/story.html)

The NFL seems to disagree. Do you have a citation to back up your claim?

