Ethics CasesSport

Cases · Youth football / State legislatures · 2016–present

Should Children Play Tackle Football?

Tackle football remains a rite of passage for millions of American children, some starting as young as five. Research into chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) has raised concern about repeated head impacts in childhood. A 2018 Boston University study of deceased former players with CTE found that those who began tackle football before age 12 developed cognitive and mood symptoms years earlier than those who started later, though starting earlier was not linked to more severe CTE. Youth organizations have changed rules, such as Pop Warner eliminating kickoffs for its youngest players in 2016. California limited full-contact practices in 2019. In 2024, a California bill to phase out tackle football for children under 12 was withdrawn after the governor said he would veto it. The case raises questions about children's consent, parental rights, scientific uncertainty and the role of the state.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Pop Warner eliminates kickoffs in its three youngest divisions.
  2. A Boston University study in JAMA finds CTE in 110 of 111 brains of deceased former NFL players donated to its brain bank.
  3. A Boston University study links starting tackle football before age 12 to earlier symptom onset among players with CTE.
  4. California signs the California Youth Football Act, limiting full-contact practices from 2021.
  5. California Assembly Bill 734 proposes phasing out tackle football for children under 12 by 2029.
  6. The bill's author withdraws it after Gov. Gavin Newsom says he would veto it.

The ethical issues

  • Children's consent: whether young children can accept long-term risks.
  • Parental rights: who decides what risks a child may take.
  • Scientific uncertainty: how strong the evidence must be to justify restrictions.
  • Equity: football's role in communities and scholarship pathways.
  • Alternatives: whether flag football and rule changes are enough.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Children who playTheir health, enjoyment and development.
ParentsThe right to make choices for their children.
Youth leagues and coachesParticipation, safety and their programs' survival.
High schools and collegesThe pipeline of experienced players.
Researchers and physiciansAccurate public understanding of risk.
LegislatorsChild welfare and limits on state power.

The case

Tackle football is one of the most popular youth sports in the United States, and some children begin full-contact play as young as five. Over the past two decades, research on chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disease associated with repeated head impacts, has changed how many parents, doctors and lawmakers see the sport.

Background

The 2017 JAMA findings went beyond the NFL. Researchers found CTE in 177 of the 202 players studied (87%). That included 48 of 53 former college players and three of 14 former high school players, all three with mild pathology. Most former college and professional players had severe pathology.[8] The corresponding author, Ann McKee, said that “it is no longer debatable whether or not there is a problem in football; there is a problem.” The authors also stressed that the donors were mostly college and professional players, while most players play only at youth or high school level, and that the study could not estimate the risk of developing CTE from playing football.[8]

The 2018 study in the Annals of Neurology spelled out its own limits.[2] It found similar links between age of first exposure and symptom onset in the smaller group of players without CTE, suggesting the link might not be specific to CTE. Its authors noted earlier, conflicting evidence. One study of 45 former NFL players found no link between first exposure and clinical outcomes, and a study of people who played high school football in Wisconsin in the 1950s found no later cognitive or mood problems.[2] They warned that families of symptomatic players may have been more likely to donate, that relatives’ recollections could have inflated the effects, and that some families may have had compensation claims in mind. They called for prospective studies with clinical assessments.[2] The authors cited helmet-sensor research showing youth players can take a median of 252 head impacts a season, and noted that ages 9 to 12 are a period of peak brain development in boys.[2]

The rules and governance

No national body sets youth tackle rules, so policy is made by youth organizations, such as Pop Warner’s kickoff ban, and by state legislatures. California’s 2019 law limited contact in practice rather than banning tackle play.[4][5] The later proposal to bar tackle football for children under 12 drew a veto threat from the governor, and its author withdrew it.[6][7]

The research raises a policy dilemma. The most-cited studies come from brain donations and cannot measure the risk for a typical child who plays youth football.[2][8] Their authors call the findings a reason for more research, not proof of a specific risk level.[2][8] Lawmakers must decide how much evidence justifies restricting a popular activity that parents choose for their children.

The research

In July 2017, Boston University researchers published a study in JAMA of 202 deceased football players whose brains had been donated. They found CTE in 110 of 111 former NFL players.[3][8] The authors stressed that the sample was not representative. Families of players with symptoms were more likely to donate brains, so the study could not estimate how common CTE is among all players.[3] By highest level of play, the paper reported CTE in 0 of 2 players whose careers ended before high school and 3 of 14 who stopped after high school, compared with 48 of 53 college players.[3] Among 27 donors with mild pathology, informants reported behavioral or mood symptoms in 26 and cognitive symptoms in 23. The authors called their sample a “convenience sample” and concluded only that CTE “may be related to prior participation in football.”[3] Their published conflict-of-interest disclosures included research funding from the NFL and the NFL Players Association for several authors.[3]

In 2018, a Boston University team published a study in the Annals of Neurology of 246 deceased football players, 211 of whom had CTE. Among those with CTE, players who began tackle football before age 12 developed cognitive symptoms about 13 years earlier, and behavioral and mood symptoms about 13 years earlier, than those who started later. Starting earlier was not associated with more severe CTE pathology. Each year younger at first exposure predicted symptom onset about two and a half years earlier.[2] Like the JAMA study, it relied on donated brains, which limits how far its findings can be generalized.[2]

Rule changes

Youth organizations responded with rule changes. In 2016, Pop Warner became the first national youth football organization to eliminate kickoffs, one of the most violent plays, in its three youngest divisions, covering children roughly 5 to 10.[1]

Legislation

In July 2019, California enacted the California Youth Football Act. From 2021, youth tackle teams may hold no more than two full-contact practices a week during the season, of no more than 30 minutes each, and no full-contact practices in the offseason.[4][5]

California Assembly Bill 734 went further. It would have phased in restrictions, ultimately barring tackle football for children under 12 by 2029. As amended on January 11, 2024, it would have barred youth leagues from enrolling players under 6 from 2025, under 10 from 2027, and under 12 from 2029.[6] In January 2024, after Gov. Gavin Newsom said he would veto it, its author withdrew the bill.[6][7]

Aftermath

Newsom’s office said: “I will not sign legislation that bans youth tackle football… an outright ban is not the answer.” It promised to work with the Legislature “to strengthen safety in youth football — while ensuring parents have the freedom to decide which sports are most appropriate for their children.”[9] The governor pointed to the 2019 Youth Football Act as the existing safety framework.[9] The bill’s author, Assembly member Kevin McCarty, had argued that families had other sports to choose from: “Banging your brains around for little kids just isn’t safe.”[9] The Concussion Legacy Foundation supported the bill. Sacramento Youth Football, a league that says it has 9,000 players aged 6 to 14, opposed it.[9] California therefore kept regulating how youth tackle football is practiced rather than who may play it.[4][9]

The core dilemma

Children cannot meaningfully consent to long-term risks, so adults decide for them. The evidence that early tackle football causes lasting harm is suggestive but not conclusive. Football also provides exercise, community and opportunity. Who should decide, and how much evidence is enough to restrict children’s participation?

Competing values

  • Child welfare vs. parental rights: protecting children against families’ freedom to choose.
  • Precaution vs. proof: acting on risk against waiting for stronger evidence.
  • Tradition and community vs. change: football’s social role against its health costs.
  • Regulation vs. reform from within: legislation against league-led rule changes.

Strongest arguments

For age limits: children’s brains are developing, and research suggests earlier exposure is linked to earlier symptoms among those who develop CTE. Flag football teaches skills with far fewer head impacts. Society already restricts children’s exposure to other serious risks.

Against age limits: the evidence is drawn from biased samples of donated brains and does not prove that youth football causes CTE. Rule changes and contact limits reduce risk. Bans may push families away from organized, supervised sport, and parents should make the decision.

Applying the frameworks

Ethics of care

The care lens centers children who cannot fully weigh long-term risks, and the responsibility of parents, coaches and leagues to protect them while still providing the benefits of team sport.

Rights

A rights lens weighs parents’ authority to choose activities for their children and children’s interests in play and opportunity against the state’s role in protecting children from serious, possibly irreversible harm.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian lens weighs the health risks suggested by research against the physical, social and developmental benefits of football. It asks whether limits on contact, age bans or alternatives such as flag football produce the best outcomes under uncertainty.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are a state legislator considering a bill to ban tackle football for children under 12. The stakeholders include children, parents, coaches, youth leagues, schools, doctors and researchers. The codes in play are existing state law on youth sports, league safety rules and medical guidance.
  2. Gather facts. What do the studies show, and what are their limits? How many children play, and at what ages? What alternatives exist, such as flag football or limits on contact?
  3. Test options. Options: (a) no new law, relying on education and league rules; (b) further limits on contact and stronger safety requirements; (c) an age-based ban on tackle football. Weigh children’s safety, parental choice, evidence quality and access to sport.
  4. Check codes and law. Would your approach be defensible to parents if new evidence emerged in either direction? Is it proportionate to the evidence?
  5. Decide and document. Record the evidence reviewed, the stakeholder input and the rationale for your position.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Explain your decision clearly to families and leagues, fund research and data collection, and plan to revisit the policy as the evidence grows.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: the findings and stated limitations of the 2017 and 2018 studies; California’s practice limits; the withdrawal of AB 734.
  • Contested: how much youth tackle football contributes to later brain disease; the right age for full contact; whether the state should decide.

Why this case matters

Youth tackle football is where questions about consent, risk and scientific uncertainty are most acute. The choices made by leagues, parents and lawmakers will shape the sport’s future and children’s health.

Key terms

Duty of care
The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.
Paternalism (hard and soft)
Restricting someone’s choices for their own good. Hard paternalism overrides competent, informed adults; soft paternalism steps in when information or autonomy is compromised.
Consent and autonomy
Whether people have agreed freely and with full information, and whether their right to make their own choices is respected.
Non-maleficence
The duty to avoid causing harm, often paired with care ethics when setting safety rules.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Children cannot fully understand long-term risks. Who should decide whether they play tackle football: parents, leagues or the state?
  2. The 2018 study found earlier symptom onset, but not more severe CTE, among players who started before 12, and it studied only players with CTE. How much should such evidence shape policy?
  3. Is a law banning tackle football for children under 12 comparable to other child-safety laws, such as car seat or helmet requirements? Why or why not?
  4. How would age limits affect communities where football provides structure, identity and scholarship opportunities?
  5. Are rule changes such as eliminating kickoffs and limiting contact practice enough?

Sources

  1. Pop Warner bans kickoffs in 3 youngest age divisions — Associated Press
  2. Age of First Exposure to Tackle Football and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (Annals of Neurology, 2018) — PubMed Central
  3. Clinicopathological Evaluation of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in Players of American Football (JAMA, 2017) — JAMA
  4. AB-1 Youth athletics: California Youth Football Act — California Legislative Information
  5. California law to limit youth football practices — Associated Press
  6. AB-734 Youth tackle football — California Legislative Information
  7. California governor quashes bill to ban tackle football for kids — Reuters
  8. New Study of 111 Deceased Former NFL Players Finds 99 Percent Had CTE — Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine
  9. Newsom to block California bill that would ban youth football — KCRA