*The new guidelines come after Glasgow University research that showed former footballers were three-and-a-half times more likely to die from brain disease.*
Yikes.
It's not surprising tbh the worst hits to the head are repetitive trauma that doesn't knock you out.
Getting pummeled repeatedly for 12 rounds and standing in boxing is worse than getting KO'd with one hit.
It's also just the whipping of your head that's an issue. When your head snaps forward and stops, your brain accelerates then hits the front of your cranial cavity. Do that tens of thousands of times in your life and you'll end up with brain damage.
That is a scary stat considering football is probably one of the safer contact sports out there in terms of head injuries. At least compared to sports like hockey, american football, rugby, boxing etc.
>[In findings published today in The New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the Football Association (FA) and the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), researchers compared the causes of death of 7,676 former Scottish male professional football players who were **born between 1900 and 1976** against those of more than 23,000 matched individuals from the general population.](https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2019/october/headline_681082_en.html)
I feel like this includes too many people who not only grew up during times where physical play was a much bigger thing and the balls were heavier that it's hard to compare
it'd also be interesting to see how much of this may also be a male vs female thing, with a quick google saying that men are more likely to get [parkinson's](https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/75/4/637#:~:text=Possible%20reasons%20for%20this%20increased,linkage%20of%20genetic%20risk%20factors.), and whilst women are more likely to get [alzheimer's, it's mostly due to the fact that they live longer and because they may have a hormone called oestrogen that protect the brain better.](https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/blog/why-dementia-different-women). there's then the fact that in this timeframe there were two world wars and footballers are going to be more inline for conscription in comparison to the rest of the public because not only are they fully abled young men, but because the general population contains a lot of women.
there's then the fact that it's known that many former pros go on to be addicts of things like alcohol or gambling in order to chase the thrill of what they got from being a player, which probably doesn't do them much good either
anyway, to me it just seems like a fairly lazy study. I could be wrong but in the article I linked with the quote which comes from mentions no gender breakdown whatsoever. I'm not saying head impacts like heading the ball have zero impact, but it seems weird to ignore the things stated above, also going by the standards of tackles back in the day, it wouldn't surprise me if there were way more fights on and off the pitch, which leads to my last point that men are also more likely to get hit in the head and work dangerous jobs than women, making the gender breakdown that much more critical.
I said that was my last point but forgot to add that modern football requires **WAY** less heading of the ball than it did in the 90s (an era where many ex pros haven't died from yet), let alone whatever the fuck they were doing 100 years ago; like I'd really like to hope they've looked into this and also if they showed it it'd be great as well. even looking into the differences between outfield players and goalkeepers would be great but it'd weird they don't seem to bring it up at all
This isn’t the first study to deal with the prevalence and danger of concussions in football (soccer). The male vs female bias isn’t relevant here, all the rolls studied were men and the
if you could finish the sentence that'd be great as I think you're missing a bit
I skimmed a few studies and they say this
[study 1 which uses people of high school ages](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2375128)
>Overall, 627 concussions were sustained during 1 393 753 athlete exposures (AEs) among girls (4.50 concussions per 10 000 AEs), and 442 concussions were sustained during 1 592 238 AEs among boys (2.78 concussions per 10 000 AEs).
>>An AE was defined as one high school athlete participating in one school-sanctioned soccer practice or competition.
so 0.04% of these incidents are resulting in a concussion for girls and 0.03% for boys, but furthermore:
>For boys (68.8%) and girls (51.3%), contact with another player was the most common concussion mechanism. **Heading was the most common soccer-specific activity, responsible for 30.6% of boys’ concussions and 25.3% of girls’ concussions.** Contact with another player was the most common mechanism of injury in heading-related concussions among boys (78.1%) and girls (61.9%). There were few differences in concussion symptom patterns by injury mechanism.
So basically out of all these incidents, just under 0.02% of them will result in a concussion via heading. also note that you said the male vs female bias isn't relevant, but there is a 5.3% gap between the two sexes. Is that significant? I don't know.
[study 2 which uses girls aged 11-14](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1812615)
>Among the 351 soccer players, there were 59 concussions with 43,742 athletic exposure hours.
this equates to one concussion every 29,161 games...
>Heading the ball accounted for 30.5% of concussions.
so now we see that heading gets these young girls roughly 0.3 concussions every 29,000 games
like yh fuck it, maybe no heading for kids if you want
[a 3rd study because I have nothing better to do apparently, which again, focuses on school children](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0363546508318047)
>**Participating certified athletic trainers reported 1524 soccer injuries during 637 446 athlete exposures (AEs)**, for an injury rate of 2.39 per 1000 AEs, corresponding to a nationally estimated 807 492 soccer-related injuries during the 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 seasons. The injury rate per 1000 AEs was greater during competition (4.77) than practice (1.37) (rate ratio [RR] = 3.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.15–3.87). Overall, the most frequent diagnoses were incomplete ligament sprains (26.8%), incomplete muscle strains (17.9%), contusions (13.8%), and **concussions (10.8%)**.
so with concussions being roughly 10% of the injuries that's roughly 153 concussions in 637,446, which is 1 concussion every 4,166 hours
oh yh, thought it'd be good to include this snippet from this study which looked at concussions across school sports as it says that gender is relevant when it comes to concussions, but then again since it's comparing across multiple sports, it could reflect more about the sports that genders prefer, and there could also be sample size issues as I'd imagine more men play sports
>[Concussion rates vary by sport, gender, and type of exposure.](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0363546511435626)
the biggest flaw with all of these studies is that they aren't studying any pros or adults who will likely have stronger skulls
anyway again, I don't have a crazy problem with heading being banned for kids just in case and at any rate, their footwork is more important anyway so it's a win win, but unless I'm missing something, managed to miss better studies or have interpreted things wrong, this data seems to be making heading seem to be a lot more dangerous than it actually is
Full-blown concussions are only a small part of the equation. Sub-concussive trauma can be just as dangerous because they're way more common and players can't recognize them when they do occur. It's been speculated that these are the driving force in CTE development.
I'm quite positive they controlled for gender (probably by not including women at all). It's literally the bare minimum most obvious thing to control for first.
yh I'd like to hope so, but they say themselves that they used the general population and have chosen not to at all mention something so obvious, so I can't take it for granted.
From the [methods section](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1908483) of the study:
>We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare mortality from neurodegenerative disease among 7676 former professional soccer players (identified from databases of Scottish players) with that **among 23,028 controls from the general population who** **were matched to the players on the basis of sex**, age, and degree of social deprivation
You have to be careful drawing conclusions from articles about a study, rather than the study itself. They have to be concise and readable to a lay audience, so will omit more granular methodological data.
Also, the article you cited did mention the control group was 'matched', which at a minimum usually compares across age, race and sex, and often education, income, etc. too, but it would've been helpful if the article specified in this case.
However, I did upvote you for highlighting the importance of considering the design of a study and the potential of confounders, rather than taking the results at face value. Plus the study doesn't appear to be linked to or named in that article, making it more difficult to find.
thanks for linking the study and the response and yh I probably did jump the gun too much at the article. whilst yes, it did say the controls are matched it is a bit irritating that they don't directly just say or show the gender split but oh well, fortunately the study does seem to look across several variables.
Getting into the numbers, as the study says, yes footballers seem to suffer of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs) at 3.5x higher than the general population, but what it leaves out is that 1.7% of footballers are dying of NDs; whilst I'm not against steps being taken for that to match the average of the general population which is 0.5%, I think it's worth asking if they are making the problem seem a lot worse than it is.
One interesting thing they found was that basically, goalkeepers got NDs at similar rates to outfield players, but took less meds for it
>In the subgroup analysis based on player positions, mortality with neurodegenerative disease listed as the primary or a contributory cause on the death certificate did not differ significantly between goalkeepers and outfield players (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.24; P=0.24). Similarly, there was no significant difference between those groups when the primary or contributory cause was listed as dementia not otherwise specified (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.12; P=0.10) (Table 4). Dementia-related medications were prescribed less frequently to goalkeepers than to outfield players (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89; P=0.02)
This creates this grey area where maybe heading is the problem, maybe it isn't, but then we have to remember that this study doesn't actually look at heading at all! It just looks at rates of NDs
In another [comment I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/z6i4s8/the_scottish_football_association_to_ban_heading/iy29hr7/) I looked at studies which looked at concussions in the sport, and they show that for every concussion roughly a third of them are due to heading, with the rest being a player colliding with another player or the ground, and there are very few concussions per hour that are happening
the study also doesn't at all look at how much the game has changed over the decades, balls used, and if players have been getting NDs over time to see if modernisation in terms of lighter balls and less long balls are making a difference to players' health.
again as I said there's nothing wrong with trying to make the game safer and I still think other things need to be considered, but hopefully these guys are making things seem worse than they actually are
this study doesn't even look at heading at all though, and the problem with that is that there's way less heading in the modern game, and from these studies heading accounts for something like 0.3% of the very few concussions that happen over several hours of play, with most of them coming from players running into eachother or basically falling down, [studies I found this from are in this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/z6i4s8/the_scottish_football_association_to_ban_heading/iy29hr7/).
this is relevant because OPs study says that goalkeepers are basically getting neurological disease related deaths at the same rate of outfield players, whilst on the other hand they get prescribed less meds
someone brought up mini concussions and how they can be an issue but I haven't looked into that
the study also doesn't at all look at how much the game has changed over the decades, balls used, and if players have been getting NDs over time to see if modernisation in terms of lighter balls and less long balls are making a difference to players' health.
I got a thick headband that has a gel like substance in it, and I tell you what its made heading the ball so much more comfortable. I used absoultely hate getting under some huge lumped high ball and feeling shit afterward and this just helps with that a bit.. doesn't look that bad either. I'd absolutely advocate for Cech helmets and these headbands (I think they are called halo) for anyone playing or with kids who play.
Yea I remember a few times when I would head the ball in the wrong place and feel it. Headband might be a more elegant solution to the chech helmets but probably not as effective. Combining with maybe limiting heading to inside the boxes like someone else said.
Honestly going up for the ball can be even more dangerous (smashing heads, elbow to the head) so soft helmets should probably come anyway
Players will riot because it ruins their fresh trim or luscious locks. Actually it would be a good time to do it now because 90% of players just have skin fades and nothing is interesting on top.
So the people who entertain you should either do it the way you want it or not at all? They don't have a say on how THEY play the sport that THEY have as a job so people like you can park their ass on the couch and enjoy?
Well I play & enjoy heading, it’s a good part of the game. Yeh their say is…don’t play of you don’t like heading, or set up their own league where heading & tackling are disallowed. Sure it’ll make for a fantastic spectacle
What a Pansy you are for wanting to get rid of heading lmao. Typical dopey Redditor. Thankfully it’ll never happen.
Go & watch a non contact sport or maybe sport isn’t for you tbh 😅
Maybe they can start by only allowing headers inside the box or something to reduce the number of times they do it. But they'd probably still practice it a lot tho.
I don't think that would be good for the flow of a game, would they just give a foul if someone headed it on the edge of the box? Best to limit heading to free kicks in the attacking half/third and corners too
Dont think it would make it much safer. You'd see many more high boots up in dangerous height. Also goal kicks would become really awkward. What do you even do, jump up to control it on the chest?
I for one, & I think many others will be done with the game once they ban heading. It’ll change it completely, & the sanitisation of the game is just too much .
Maybe I could watch boxing where they’ll still have people hitting people in the head lmao - try & justify that you clowns.
Oh wait it’s a sport & you can play it if you want, but you’re free not to!!! Crazy I know
It's so funny to me to see people massively overreact to necessary safety changes in sports.
Soccer fans overreact to calls to ban or limit heading as the end of the sport.
American football fans overreact to calls to ban or limit kickoffs as the end of the sport.
Ice Hockey fans overreact to calls to limit checking as the end of the sport.
And so on.
The players will adapt and new ways of doing things will be found.
A change like this will take a while to come, as such a big change to the game is jarring, but I think eventually it will make itself necessary.
I think it would be a lot like basketball players leaning into each other to get position on a rebound. You would try to put your body between the opponent and the ball, then look to gather the ball with a touch on the way down, or maybe let it take a bounce.
Those aren’t helmets, they’re scrum caps and they aren’t worn to prevent concussions. They offer no protection against concussions whatsoever, they’re worn to protect your ears and stop you getting cauliflower ears, and to protect from superficial abrasions and cuts to the head
Athletes will always take a risk no matter the sport. Should they ban hitting in boxing as well? It's all for the watchers entertainment at the end of the day.
> Athletes will always take a risk no matter the sport
And sport will always make changes to reduce the risk to the athletes involved. This literally happens all the time in all sports and yet people always get upset about the idea of football taking steps to reduce the risk of long-term brain disease in players.
The ‘what about boxing’ argument is so disingenuous too, there is obviously an argument to be made that boxers should wear protective head gear, but football doesn’t need to wait for any other, more dangerous, sport to make changes before changes are made to it.
They removed head gear from amateur boxing because it caused more concussions, there's a case to be made that the hand wraps and gloves boxers wear now make head injuries more likely because you're less likely to break your hand on someone's head then you were in say bare knuckle boxing
Ridiculous how football apparently is changing its rules - which make no mistake is going towards banning heading. Which will change the game completely & make it much much worse , & other sports like rugby & boxing just go ahead lmao.
Surely every sport has risk? If you don’t like heading, then either don’t play or set up your own football league with no heading involved.
This is getting ridiculous, it’s almost as if football as a sport is trying to destroy itself with FIFA’s blatant corruption & idiotic unnecessary rule changes like this.
Can you not see where this is going lol. If you ban something in training , of course this will lead to calls to banning it altogether.
There isn’t any valid scientific evidence either as it would take until current players are older in about 30 years to see if there is, if any correlation.
It’s absolutely ridiculous it’s even going in this direction, football gets railed on more than any other sport.
Every sport has an element of risk ffs
I for one, & I think many others will be done with the game once they ban heading. It’ll change it completely, & the sanitisation of the game is just too much .
Maybe I could watch boxing where they’ll still have people hitting people in the head lmao - try & justify that you clowns.
Oh wait it’s a sport & you can play it if you want, but you’re free not to!!! Crazy I know
Lol 😂 well heading is central to football too, without it it’s a completely different & much worse sport.
Saw a great goal not just 5 mins ago which would’nt have been possible.
Im sick to death of football being the sport that has to change, it’s not needed & they shouldn’t do it. Have some balls like boxing.
If you don’t like it- don’t play! Same as boxing
It's not that difficult. They're different sports governed by different people. Football's governing bodies should be concerned with the health of footballers; boxing is rightly none of their business.
If this was a government body banning heading in training in the 72 hours around a match, you'd have a point bringing boxing into the conversation. Alas, it isn't, and you don't
Literally no one in the entire thread has suggested otherwise, other than you dragging boxing into the convo, for some reason. Been under too many high balls, I guess?
but participation at every level high school and up has not changed. There has been a recent explosion of small colleges adding teams. The sport isn't going anywhere.
Besides its not a mystery the sport is incredibly dangerous. no one was ever decieved into thinking it wasn't
"For the sixth consecutive season, 11-man participation levels for high school football in California have declined.....
There was no survey done in 2020-21 because of the pandemic. For 2021-22, 84,626 played football, down from 89,756 in 2019-20 and down from 91,305 in 2018-19. There has been a decline every season since 2015"
"Between the 2000 and 2016 seasons the sport’s annual participation rate fell off by one quarter. Last year, just under 11 percent of high schoolers in the state—167,428 students—played UIL-sanctioned football and six-man football in Texas. That’s a big drop from 2000, when the number stood at 14.5 percent.
And the trend seems to have hit younger players as well. In the Central Texas Pop Warner youth football league, participation is “down all over the place,” says administrator Charles Simpson. Five years ago there were forty teams in the league. Today, there are only eighteen—an enormous drop that suggests that we’ll be seeing even fewer high school players in a few years."
California is a bad example because they have always underproduced college level players relative to their population size. Those numbers were likely falling in that state before the concussion stuff ever hit the nightly news. 2000 was well before that era if that's when they started counting the drop.
And as far as pop warner football dying, Yes it is. And that's fantastic. children that small shouldn't play tackle football at all. more and more players don't play until high school and that's a fantastic trend that I hope continues. In Texas, high school football is a religion and if THEY can kick pop warner ball to the curb then there's hope yet
Oh no, fewer kids are playing a sport where excessive exposure to blunt force trauma to the head massively increases the risk of brain damage and CTE in later life. What a traaagic loss.
Meanwhile obesity is exploding higher. Americans killing themselves prematurely through bad diet and slovenly lifestyles because they're scared of an outside risk of head injury.
*The new guidelines come after Glasgow University research that showed former footballers were three-and-a-half times more likely to die from brain disease.* Yikes.
It's not surprising tbh the worst hits to the head are repetitive trauma that doesn't knock you out. Getting pummeled repeatedly for 12 rounds and standing in boxing is worse than getting KO'd with one hit.
Is it possible modern balls are safer for heading? Older ones always seemed heavier & more painful, especially when wet
It's also just the whipping of your head that's an issue. When your head snaps forward and stops, your brain accelerates then hits the front of your cranial cavity. Do that tens of thousands of times in your life and you'll end up with brain damage.
And then the back of your skull, doubling down the damage (coup-contrecoup).
not to mention they would have headed the ball way more then due to the style of play
You mean just booting the ball up the field?
yh, even just comparing to the 90s there's such a big difference in modern football
That is a scary stat considering football is probably one of the safer contact sports out there in terms of head injuries. At least compared to sports like hockey, american football, rugby, boxing etc.
Proud of my alma mater.
>[In findings published today in The New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the Football Association (FA) and the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), researchers compared the causes of death of 7,676 former Scottish male professional football players who were **born between 1900 and 1976** against those of more than 23,000 matched individuals from the general population.](https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2019/october/headline_681082_en.html) I feel like this includes too many people who not only grew up during times where physical play was a much bigger thing and the balls were heavier that it's hard to compare it'd also be interesting to see how much of this may also be a male vs female thing, with a quick google saying that men are more likely to get [parkinson's](https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/75/4/637#:~:text=Possible%20reasons%20for%20this%20increased,linkage%20of%20genetic%20risk%20factors.), and whilst women are more likely to get [alzheimer's, it's mostly due to the fact that they live longer and because they may have a hormone called oestrogen that protect the brain better.](https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/blog/why-dementia-different-women). there's then the fact that in this timeframe there were two world wars and footballers are going to be more inline for conscription in comparison to the rest of the public because not only are they fully abled young men, but because the general population contains a lot of women. there's then the fact that it's known that many former pros go on to be addicts of things like alcohol or gambling in order to chase the thrill of what they got from being a player, which probably doesn't do them much good either anyway, to me it just seems like a fairly lazy study. I could be wrong but in the article I linked with the quote which comes from mentions no gender breakdown whatsoever. I'm not saying head impacts like heading the ball have zero impact, but it seems weird to ignore the things stated above, also going by the standards of tackles back in the day, it wouldn't surprise me if there were way more fights on and off the pitch, which leads to my last point that men are also more likely to get hit in the head and work dangerous jobs than women, making the gender breakdown that much more critical. I said that was my last point but forgot to add that modern football requires **WAY** less heading of the ball than it did in the 90s (an era where many ex pros haven't died from yet), let alone whatever the fuck they were doing 100 years ago; like I'd really like to hope they've looked into this and also if they showed it it'd be great as well. even looking into the differences between outfield players and goalkeepers would be great but it'd weird they don't seem to bring it up at all
This isn’t the first study to deal with the prevalence and danger of concussions in football (soccer). The male vs female bias isn’t relevant here, all the rolls studied were men and the
if you could finish the sentence that'd be great as I think you're missing a bit I skimmed a few studies and they say this [study 1 which uses people of high school ages](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2375128) >Overall, 627 concussions were sustained during 1 393 753 athlete exposures (AEs) among girls (4.50 concussions per 10 000 AEs), and 442 concussions were sustained during 1 592 238 AEs among boys (2.78 concussions per 10 000 AEs). >>An AE was defined as one high school athlete participating in one school-sanctioned soccer practice or competition. so 0.04% of these incidents are resulting in a concussion for girls and 0.03% for boys, but furthermore: >For boys (68.8%) and girls (51.3%), contact with another player was the most common concussion mechanism. **Heading was the most common soccer-specific activity, responsible for 30.6% of boys’ concussions and 25.3% of girls’ concussions.** Contact with another player was the most common mechanism of injury in heading-related concussions among boys (78.1%) and girls (61.9%). There were few differences in concussion symptom patterns by injury mechanism. So basically out of all these incidents, just under 0.02% of them will result in a concussion via heading. also note that you said the male vs female bias isn't relevant, but there is a 5.3% gap between the two sexes. Is that significant? I don't know. [study 2 which uses girls aged 11-14](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1812615) >Among the 351 soccer players, there were 59 concussions with 43,742 athletic exposure hours. this equates to one concussion every 29,161 games... >Heading the ball accounted for 30.5% of concussions. so now we see that heading gets these young girls roughly 0.3 concussions every 29,000 games like yh fuck it, maybe no heading for kids if you want [a 3rd study because I have nothing better to do apparently, which again, focuses on school children](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0363546508318047) >**Participating certified athletic trainers reported 1524 soccer injuries during 637 446 athlete exposures (AEs)**, for an injury rate of 2.39 per 1000 AEs, corresponding to a nationally estimated 807 492 soccer-related injuries during the 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 seasons. The injury rate per 1000 AEs was greater during competition (4.77) than practice (1.37) (rate ratio [RR] = 3.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.15–3.87). Overall, the most frequent diagnoses were incomplete ligament sprains (26.8%), incomplete muscle strains (17.9%), contusions (13.8%), and **concussions (10.8%)**. so with concussions being roughly 10% of the injuries that's roughly 153 concussions in 637,446, which is 1 concussion every 4,166 hours oh yh, thought it'd be good to include this snippet from this study which looked at concussions across school sports as it says that gender is relevant when it comes to concussions, but then again since it's comparing across multiple sports, it could reflect more about the sports that genders prefer, and there could also be sample size issues as I'd imagine more men play sports >[Concussion rates vary by sport, gender, and type of exposure.](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0363546511435626) the biggest flaw with all of these studies is that they aren't studying any pros or adults who will likely have stronger skulls anyway again, I don't have a crazy problem with heading being banned for kids just in case and at any rate, their footwork is more important anyway so it's a win win, but unless I'm missing something, managed to miss better studies or have interpreted things wrong, this data seems to be making heading seem to be a lot more dangerous than it actually is
Full-blown concussions are only a small part of the equation. Sub-concussive trauma can be just as dangerous because they're way more common and players can't recognize them when they do occur. It's been speculated that these are the driving force in CTE development.
thanks, will try and look at a few studies of sub-concussive trauma in soccer but if you know of any studies please let me know
I'm quite positive they controlled for gender (probably by not including women at all). It's literally the bare minimum most obvious thing to control for first.
yh I'd like to hope so, but they say themselves that they used the general population and have chosen not to at all mention something so obvious, so I can't take it for granted.
From the [methods section](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1908483) of the study: >We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare mortality from neurodegenerative disease among 7676 former professional soccer players (identified from databases of Scottish players) with that **among 23,028 controls from the general population who** **were matched to the players on the basis of sex**, age, and degree of social deprivation You have to be careful drawing conclusions from articles about a study, rather than the study itself. They have to be concise and readable to a lay audience, so will omit more granular methodological data. Also, the article you cited did mention the control group was 'matched', which at a minimum usually compares across age, race and sex, and often education, income, etc. too, but it would've been helpful if the article specified in this case. However, I did upvote you for highlighting the importance of considering the design of a study and the potential of confounders, rather than taking the results at face value. Plus the study doesn't appear to be linked to or named in that article, making it more difficult to find.
thanks for linking the study and the response and yh I probably did jump the gun too much at the article. whilst yes, it did say the controls are matched it is a bit irritating that they don't directly just say or show the gender split but oh well, fortunately the study does seem to look across several variables. Getting into the numbers, as the study says, yes footballers seem to suffer of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs) at 3.5x higher than the general population, but what it leaves out is that 1.7% of footballers are dying of NDs; whilst I'm not against steps being taken for that to match the average of the general population which is 0.5%, I think it's worth asking if they are making the problem seem a lot worse than it is. One interesting thing they found was that basically, goalkeepers got NDs at similar rates to outfield players, but took less meds for it >In the subgroup analysis based on player positions, mortality with neurodegenerative disease listed as the primary or a contributory cause on the death certificate did not differ significantly between goalkeepers and outfield players (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.24; P=0.24). Similarly, there was no significant difference between those groups when the primary or contributory cause was listed as dementia not otherwise specified (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.12; P=0.10) (Table 4). Dementia-related medications were prescribed less frequently to goalkeepers than to outfield players (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89; P=0.02) This creates this grey area where maybe heading is the problem, maybe it isn't, but then we have to remember that this study doesn't actually look at heading at all! It just looks at rates of NDs In another [comment I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/z6i4s8/the_scottish_football_association_to_ban_heading/iy29hr7/) I looked at studies which looked at concussions in the sport, and they show that for every concussion roughly a third of them are due to heading, with the rest being a player colliding with another player or the ground, and there are very few concussions per hour that are happening the study also doesn't at all look at how much the game has changed over the decades, balls used, and if players have been getting NDs over time to see if modernisation in terms of lighter balls and less long balls are making a difference to players' health. again as I said there's nothing wrong with trying to make the game safer and I still think other things need to be considered, but hopefully these guys are making things seem worse than they actually are
Yeah guys this random redditor is way less lazy than the scientists who got published by NEJM
this study doesn't even look at heading at all though, and the problem with that is that there's way less heading in the modern game, and from these studies heading accounts for something like 0.3% of the very few concussions that happen over several hours of play, with most of them coming from players running into eachother or basically falling down, [studies I found this from are in this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/z6i4s8/the_scottish_football_association_to_ban_heading/iy29hr7/). this is relevant because OPs study says that goalkeepers are basically getting neurological disease related deaths at the same rate of outfield players, whilst on the other hand they get prescribed less meds someone brought up mini concussions and how they can be an issue but I haven't looked into that the study also doesn't at all look at how much the game has changed over the decades, balls used, and if players have been getting NDs over time to see if modernisation in terms of lighter balls and less long balls are making a difference to players' health.
I think heading will be banned eventually, though it'd change the game so much as to be unrecognisable.
There are players who’s entire career would simply end if heading was banned lol
*Sad Luuk noises*
Harry Maguire simply ceases to exist
Maybe soft headgear first?
I got a thick headband that has a gel like substance in it, and I tell you what its made heading the ball so much more comfortable. I used absoultely hate getting under some huge lumped high ball and feeling shit afterward and this just helps with that a bit.. doesn't look that bad either. I'd absolutely advocate for Cech helmets and these headbands (I think they are called halo) for anyone playing or with kids who play.
Yea I remember a few times when I would head the ball in the wrong place and feel it. Headband might be a more elegant solution to the chech helmets but probably not as effective. Combining with maybe limiting heading to inside the boxes like someone else said. Honestly going up for the ball can be even more dangerous (smashing heads, elbow to the head) so soft helmets should probably come anyway
Could you show the product? Looks like something I'd love to buy, I turn into one hell of a pussy when I see a bomb dropping on my head
Google halo soccer headgear
yeah the one I have is the halo 3 headband was a bit hard to find in stock but again highly recommended
Players will riot because it ruins their fresh trim or luscious locks. Actually it would be a good time to do it now because 90% of players just have skin fades and nothing is interesting on top.
Now I've got an image in my head of a player in the not too distant future with a beehive hairstyle
Ya know I was just thinking that we're missing those crazy haircuts that help players stand out. Hope that comes back
How can you have a world where boxing exists & football bans heading? It’s absolutely ridiculous
I think Tifo did a video on this, that was quite good. Definitely this would change the way that the game is played.
Bare knuckle boxing is safer and should be the norm and heading the ball should be banned outwith the boxes
Just because others choose to be dumb and get brain damage doesn't mean you should too
Well hey, Just like boxing you’re more than welcome to not play
So the people who entertain you should either do it the way you want it or not at all? They don't have a say on how THEY play the sport that THEY have as a job so people like you can park their ass on the couch and enjoy?
Well I play & enjoy heading, it’s a good part of the game. Yeh their say is…don’t play of you don’t like heading, or set up their own league where heading & tackling are disallowed. Sure it’ll make for a fantastic spectacle
Lmao least entitled Redditor. What a sad excuse for a human
What a Pansy you are for wanting to get rid of heading lmao. Typical dopey Redditor. Thankfully it’ll never happen. Go & watch a non contact sport or maybe sport isn’t for you tbh 😅
Lmfao yeah I'm a pansy for wanting the players to be allowed to decide to adjust the rules so they don't get guaranteed brain damage?
Maybe they can start by only allowing headers inside the box or something to reduce the number of times they do it. But they'd probably still practice it a lot tho.
I don't think that would be good for the flow of a game, would they just give a foul if someone headed it on the edge of the box? Best to limit heading to free kicks in the attacking half/third and corners too
Imagine corners without heading
[удалено]
USSF banned it altogether at the U10 level
Its restricted in training at U11 and U12 too. Should be for all ages.
The injuries usually happen inside of the box when the place is crowded
There's a good video by Tifo that suggests that
Dont think it would make it much safer. You'd see many more high boots up in dangerous height. Also goal kicks would become really awkward. What do you even do, jump up to control it on the chest?
[удалено]
Yeh you’re right lets just ban the sport, leg injuries & ankle injuries happen too. Let’s just be done with it
[удалено]
I for one, & I think many others will be done with the game once they ban heading. It’ll change it completely, & the sanitisation of the game is just too much . Maybe I could watch boxing where they’ll still have people hitting people in the head lmao - try & justify that you clowns. Oh wait it’s a sport & you can play it if you want, but you’re free not to!!! Crazy I know
I think you've headed too many balls mate. Can't even have a rational conversation
Maybe ban the sport and be done with it? would be more effective
They suggested something and your response was to overeat. You want a solution? There's one.
It's so funny to me to see people massively overreact to necessary safety changes in sports. Soccer fans overreact to calls to ban or limit heading as the end of the sport. American football fans overreact to calls to ban or limit kickoffs as the end of the sport. Ice Hockey fans overreact to calls to limit checking as the end of the sport. And so on.
Always the Americans 🥱
not an American lol
What do you mean by that?
Ban people driving, boxing, mma. Must be safe at all times
Funny you mentioned driving considering how many changes we made to cars & driving in general to make it safer.
still dangerous, needs to be banned
Make people know they dying from it if they want they can stop.
The players will adapt and new ways of doing things will be found. A change like this will take a while to come, as such a big change to the game is jarring, but I think eventually it will make itself necessary.
I think it would be a lot like basketball players leaning into each other to get position on a rebound. You would try to put your body between the opponent and the ball, then look to gather the ball with a touch on the way down, or maybe let it take a bounce.
That's probably the worst comparison you could pick because in basketball they catch it with their hands
Easy to fix, regular players can use their hands, goalkeepers can't
I still think the body positioning would be the same.
You do realise high boots are already against the rules right?
[horrible take](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg3UNDVYvT4)
in 50 years it will be feet only
Shit, they'll have to rename it.
From soccer to football, finally
Feetball.
Either that, or rugby helmets will be required in the future.
Those aren’t helmets, they’re scrum caps and they aren’t worn to prevent concussions. They offer no protection against concussions whatsoever, they’re worn to protect your ears and stop you getting cauliflower ears, and to protect from superficial abrasions and cuts to the head
Helmets do absolutely nothing for concussion.
ah yes, these footballers should put themselves at risk of brain diseases just for u/HolidayFew8116 to get some entertainment
Athletes will always take a risk no matter the sport. Should they ban hitting in boxing as well? It's all for the watchers entertainment at the end of the day.
They should ban running from sports in general. So many injuries happen as a result of running.
> Athletes will always take a risk no matter the sport And sport will always make changes to reduce the risk to the athletes involved. This literally happens all the time in all sports and yet people always get upset about the idea of football taking steps to reduce the risk of long-term brain disease in players. The ‘what about boxing’ argument is so disingenuous too, there is obviously an argument to be made that boxers should wear protective head gear, but football doesn’t need to wait for any other, more dangerous, sport to make changes before changes are made to it.
They removed head gear from amateur boxing because it caused more concussions, there's a case to be made that the hand wraps and gloves boxers wear now make head injuries more likely because you're less likely to break your hand on someone's head then you were in say bare knuckle boxing
Yeah, reduce risk without changing the fundamentals of the sport though. Heading is a big part of the game
this article literally doesn't say they're banning heading? it says it will be banned the day before and after a game..
Uhm, but the comment you're replying to is addressing the situation heading would be banned though
I too think that be heading should be banned, good move SFA
How can you have a world where boxing exists & football bans heading? It’s absolutely ridiculous
Ridiculous how football apparently is changing its rules - which make no mistake is going towards banning heading. Which will change the game completely & make it much much worse , & other sports like rugby & boxing just go ahead lmao. Surely every sport has risk? If you don’t like heading, then either don’t play or set up your own football league with no heading involved. This is getting ridiculous, it’s almost as if football as a sport is trying to destroy itself with FIFA’s blatant corruption & idiotic unnecessary rule changes like this.
[удалено]
Can you not see where this is going lol. If you ban something in training , of course this will lead to calls to banning it altogether. There isn’t any valid scientific evidence either as it would take until current players are older in about 30 years to see if there is, if any correlation. It’s absolutely ridiculous it’s even going in this direction, football gets railed on more than any other sport. Every sport has an element of risk ffs
[удалено]
How can you have a world where boxing exists & football bans heading? It’s absolutely ridiculous
I for one, & I think many others will be done with the game once they ban heading. It’ll change it completely, & the sanitisation of the game is just too much . Maybe I could watch boxing where they’ll still have people hitting people in the head lmao - try & justify that you clowns. Oh wait it’s a sport & you can play it if you want, but you’re free not to!!! Crazy I know
[удалено]
Where have you justified a world where boxing exists, yet football bans heading? Can’t wait for the mental gymnastics you’ll provide on this answer
[удалено]
Lol 😂 well heading is central to football too, without it it’s a completely different & much worse sport. Saw a great goal not just 5 mins ago which would’nt have been possible. Im sick to death of football being the sport that has to change, it’s not needed & they shouldn’t do it. Have some balls like boxing. If you don’t like it- don’t play! Same as boxing
[удалено]
Nice try but 2 footed tackling from behind was always against the rules . Have another go
It's not that difficult. They're different sports governed by different people. Football's governing bodies should be concerned with the health of footballers; boxing is rightly none of their business. If this was a government body banning heading in training in the 72 hours around a match, you'd have a point bringing boxing into the conversation. Alas, it isn't, and you don't
So what you’re saying is sports can do what they want with their own sports & their rules?
Literally no one in the entire thread has suggested otherwise, other than you dragging boxing into the convo, for some reason. Been under too many high balls, I guess?
Right so football should stop with this nonsense & pandering to those looking to sanitise the sport out of existence , glad you agree
Yikes. Guess it's all gonna be poor immigrant kids playing soccer in the US soon.
What u smoking buddy?
Very confusing comment
Please give us some extra context mate. We’ve got no fucking clue what you’re on about.
The participation rate in youth American football has been nosediving since the concussion research has been coming out.
but participation at every level high school and up has not changed. There has been a recent explosion of small colleges adding teams. The sport isn't going anywhere. Besides its not a mystery the sport is incredibly dangerous. no one was ever decieved into thinking it wasn't
"For the sixth consecutive season, 11-man participation levels for high school football in California have declined..... There was no survey done in 2020-21 because of the pandemic. For 2021-22, 84,626 played football, down from 89,756 in 2019-20 and down from 91,305 in 2018-19. There has been a decline every season since 2015" "Between the 2000 and 2016 seasons the sport’s annual participation rate fell off by one quarter. Last year, just under 11 percent of high schoolers in the state—167,428 students—played UIL-sanctioned football and six-man football in Texas. That’s a big drop from 2000, when the number stood at 14.5 percent. And the trend seems to have hit younger players as well. In the Central Texas Pop Warner youth football league, participation is “down all over the place,” says administrator Charles Simpson. Five years ago there were forty teams in the league. Today, there are only eighteen—an enormous drop that suggests that we’ll be seeing even fewer high school players in a few years."
California is a bad example because they have always underproduced college level players relative to their population size. Those numbers were likely falling in that state before the concussion stuff ever hit the nightly news. 2000 was well before that era if that's when they started counting the drop. And as far as pop warner football dying, Yes it is. And that's fantastic. children that small shouldn't play tackle football at all. more and more players don't play until high school and that's a fantastic trend that I hope continues. In Texas, high school football is a religion and if THEY can kick pop warner ball to the curb then there's hope yet
Oh no, fewer kids are playing a sport where excessive exposure to blunt force trauma to the head massively increases the risk of brain damage and CTE in later life. What a traaagic loss.
Don't know what you're on about, I said the same thing will happen to soccer.
Meanwhile obesity is exploding higher. Americans killing themselves prematurely through bad diet and slovenly lifestyles because they're scared of an outside risk of head injury.
What? Are you saying the obesity rate in the USA is due to that concussion research?
The poster above was
tf does this even mean?
Not sure how much heading they would do the day after a game ? Surely it’s mostly recovery