49ers LB Chris Borland this week announced his retirement from the league due to long-term concerns about head trauma, though he said he was not "eager to wave the banner, or be a poster child for anything," according to Fainaru & Fainaru-Wada of ESPN.com. Still, Borland said his retirement inevitably "makes a pretty profound statement." Asked what that statement is, he replied, "That health is more important than a career in football." Borland said that he became "increasingly aware of the concussion issue while still in college" at Wisconsin, "particularly the plight" of Pro Football HOFer Mike Webster, the first player to be diagnosed with CTE. Borland: "It wasn't like an everyday thought. I wanted to fulfill my dream of playing in the NFL." But Fainaru & Fainaru-Wada noted that "changed during last year's preseason." Borland played through an "apparent concussion" after a hard hit in practice, but he was "profoundly affected." Borland: "That play was the realization of what could happen if I did this for a long time." He said he began reading "League of Denial: The NFL, Concussions and the Battle for Truth" in December. Borland added that his decision to retire "was actually simple as he weighed the potential repercussions of a long career." Borland: "To me it's like jumping into the water and you can't see how deep it is" (ESPN.com, 3/17).
COULD THIS BE A TIPPING POINT? In San Jose, Mark Purdy in a front-page piece writes Borland "knew what he needed to do," but the "question is whether the NFL knows what it needs to do next." The league realistically needs to do "nothing" at the current time, and pro football "has never been more popular." But "that is today," and the future "can be different." The NFL "cannot ignore Borland's fear and Borland's choice." His choice is a "marker on the timeline of where the concussion issue is taking football." Purdy: "Not a turning point. But a marker" (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 3/18). The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Jason Gay writes, "To be clear: Football isn't on the edge of doom. Not even close." But this "isn’t a call to ignore," as it is "coming from the inside." Borland "loved football, but not enough to further risk his own well being" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 3/18). The MMQB's Peter King said, "I don’t really think there are a lot of conclusions to draw yet. It’s a singular case. How many more players are thinking this way? Will any player follow in his footsteps? ... The one thing I do know is that I don’t think this means a death knell for football. But people at Park Avenue have to hear the voice of Chris Borland" ("SI Now," SI.com, 3/17). In Boston, Ron Borges writes Borland’s decision is a "reminder to the NFL that while their game might be the most popular, it is more and more viewed by many as too dangerous for not only grown men but, more importantly for the league’s business model, the young boys who worship them" (BOSTON HERALD, 3/18). In Ft. Lauderdale, Dave Hyde writes, "The league fears you'll quit football. Not today. Not next year. But like the cigarette companies preaching health in the 1960s it's concerned with what's over the horizon." The NFL's problem "is a fundamental one: How do you market head trauma? How do you sell entertainment steeped in serious health issues?" (South Florida SUN-SENTINEL, 3/18). In Chicago, Rick Telander writes this "is a big moment." Borland is an "elite player who has finally heard the warnings about dementia, Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease and the other brain issues that often demonize tough old players" (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 3/18).
FACE OF THE MOVEMENT: In New Jersey, Tara Sullivan writes thanks to Borland’s "bold decision, former players who have suffered for years while the NFL ignored their plight have a modern spokesman." Sullivan: "Potential future players? Well, they might just have a new role model, someone with the courage to act on a fear that everyone who plays football knows they felt" (Bergen RECORD, 3/18). SI.com's Don Banks wrote the NFL is "at the point where the game's dangers are at last being portrayed accurately, with players understanding that there are great costs that come with playing football" (SI.com, 3/17). USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell writes the league is "clearly put on the defensive when a kid who was considered a rising star opts to walk away." Bell: "Will this suddenly open the floodgates leading to players retiring in a similar vein? Probably not." The NFL has "been proactive on many fronts in recent years to address its concussion conundrum." But then "along comes Borland to provide a face for football safety" (USA TODAY, 3/18). In S.F., Ann Killion writes, "Is Borland just an isolated case? Or is he the canary in the coal mine?" Former NFLer Gary Plummer: "I definitely think this is something we're going to see more of in the future" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 3/18).
NOT ENOUGH TO TURN PLAYERS AWAY: In Phoenix, Dan Bickley writes Borland's "message is chilling," but "contrary to popular opinion, the NFL will never feel the pain." There will "always be more than enough quality football players to fill NFL locker rooms, going crash and boom for our enjoyment" (ARIZONA REPUBLIC, 3/18). GRANTLAND's Bill Barnwell wrote it is "natural to want to pinpoint moments in time like that and extrapolate a domino effect, but I’m skeptical of that reading." Barnwell: "The pool of young men who want to play professional football remains enormous. ... There are dozens of inside linebackers who will be under consideration in the upcoming draft, and there are thousands more around college football who would be in the running to be drafted behind them." He added, "The player pool for professional football is just so enormous that it’s going to take thousands of people making this same decision over several generations before the future of the game is seriously threatened" (GRANTLAND.com, 3/17). FOXSPORTS.com's Alex Marvez wrote it will "take years to determine the big-picture impact if any made by Borland's move," and the "most significant trickle-down effect could come at the youth level." Marvez: "Although the likelihood of football talent completely running dry is unrealistic, some of the best athletes may choose other pursuits they consider safer" (FOXSPORTS.com, 3/17).
THE RIPPLE EFFECT: In N.Y., Ken Belson in a front-page piece writes Borland's decision "may have ripple effects well beyond the professional ranks." The "increasing evidence of links between repeated head trauma and long-term cognitive problems has persuaded more parents to steer their children into sports like baseball, basketball and soccer." The decision by a "highly regarded player like Borland to leave the NFL while still young might accelerate that trend." While there is "constant turnover in the NFL, Borland’s retirement may not prompt a string of other young, talented professional players to retire simply because of concerns about brain trauma." But his retirement "could send a chilling signal to parents who are debating whether to let their children play tackle football." If they see his retirement as "evidence that talented players view the game as too risky, it could further erode participation in youth football leagues and ultimately shrink the pool of potential NFL talent" (N.Y. TIMES, 3/18). FS1’s Mike Garafolo said, “The fact that this was being talked about on news programs, not even just sports programs, is what the NFL doesn’t want. They’re trying to get youth participation in football up, so now you’ve got moms and dads out there watching this. This is not what they want; this is not ideal for them" (“America’s Pregame,” FS1, 3/17). Smith College sports economics professor Andrew Zimbalist said, "This is the most serious challenge for the NFL in the short run and the long run. It's being manifested in lower participation rates in youth football around the country" (REUTERS, 3/17).
FEAR FACTOR: In DC, Mark Maske writes it is "clear that for the foreseeable future, at least, football will not suffer from a manpower shortage." But if enough players and enough parents of prospective players "reach the same conclusion that Borland reached, there will be consequences for football, even if they are felt far down the road" (WASHINGTON POST, 3/18). In L.A., Vincent Bonsignore notes he will "lay out the reasons" to his 10-year-old son why he "won't be playing tackle football." Bonsignore: "We will show him the story about Chris Borland." With "so much data and so many statistics supporting the dangerous element football presents, it behooves anyone to seriously weigh the precarious long-range health issues versus the fame and riches" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 3/18). In DC, Thomas Boswell writes the potential '25 NFL Draft class "is now 12 years old and needs many years of permission slips from adults to put on pads." Boswell: "How many signatures will they get?" (WASHINGTON POST, 3/18). In Pittsburgh, Bob Smizik writes with "no deliberate attempt, Borland has significantly raised the fear level in football" (PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 3/18). Denver Post columnist Woody Paige said, "You're going to find the parents say, ‘Go to soccer, go to baseball, go to other sports.’ But as long as that $114 million contract’s out there, there’s going to be a lot of parents who say, ‘Go for that’” ("Around The Horn," ESPN, 3/17).
HAS A PRECEDENT ALREADY BEEN SET? ESPN’s Tony Kornheiser said the "worst-case scenario" for the NFL is that it "becomes boxing." Kornhesier: "Boxing is not a sport anymore. It's five events a year, and that's all it is. If too many parents don't let their kids play football, then down that road, your better athletes will go to other sports. ... I think we’re talking between 20 to 30 years” (“PTI,” ESPN, 3/17). The Orange County Register’s Dan Woike said, “You start to wonder if people are going to start looking at football the way people looked at boxing maybe 25 or 30 years ago, where you start to say, ‘Are the physical risks worth the payoffs and payouts?’ ... I don’t know what the NFL can do about it” (“Rome,” CBS Sports Network, 3/17). The L.A. Times' Bill Plaschke said football "is on that slow road to becoming like boxing” in that it “was once the most popular sport around and just got too dangerous.” But espnW.com's Kate Fagan said, “The assumption is that people stopped paying attention to boxing because they didn’t have an appetite for the brutality. But really that was about network TV money and how boxing with unpredictable length of bouts was not good for network TV. Football is in no such danger" ("Around The Horn," ESPN, 3/17).
FROM THE EDITORIAL BOARD: A Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE editorial states Borland’s decision "will intensify the focus on making football a safer sport from youth leagues to the NFL" (Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE, 3/18). A SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS editorial states. "Every parent of a son playing or thinking about playing football should listen to Chris Borland" (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 3/18). A SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE editorial states the NFL "is a juggernaut and will shrug this off." But Borland's decision "is likely to lead even more parents to say no way to their kids playing football -- and to far more players contemplating what their future holds if they keep taking the field" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 3/18). A S.F. CHRONICLE editorial states, "The NFL is a $10 billion business with celestial TV ratings, but the question is emerging: for how long?" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 3/18).
