an appropriate sport for kids to play.”
It turned out that, as with so many things, Americans were split down the middle.
And there were various demographics that separated the two camps, Warner says. Not surprisingly, heterosexual men voiced more support for kids’ tackle football, versus women and people who identified as gay or bisexual.
Much of those differences were explained by personal experiences, as heterosexual men had often played football as kids. But broader ideologies came into play, too: Self-described conservatives, for example, were more likely to support youth tackle football.
Meanwhile, lower-income and Black Americans took a more favorable view than higher-income and white survey respondents.
Warner says that might reflect the fact that those families have fewer options as far as their kids’ activities go. Plus, they may see football as a way to gain scholarships to college.
“People’s beliefs and opinions on this are complex,” Warner adds. And that, she says, may be why it’s so hard to find agreement on proposals like tackle bans.
The findings were published online March 26 in the journal Social Currents.
So, whose side is “right?” That’s complicated, too.
It’s true that relative to many other sports kids play, tackle football has a higher rate of concussion, says Thayne Munce, a sports scientist with Sanford Health, in Sioux Falls, S.D., and a fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine.
But he also says people’s opinions may be overly influenced by media attention on CTE among