With the wave of helmet-to-helmet injuries in the NFL [National Football League], the powers that be are reevaluating the rules of the game. Some say that professional soccer is a Spartan sport, that men are men and therefore let players play without protective limitations. Others say that it is becoming too dangerous and that restrictions regarding helmet-to-helmet clash should be put in place to keep players safe within the game.

Discussion is good. However, beyond the rules of the game, some questions can certainly be asked:

Question #1: How is “game” defined?

Question #2: What determines true masculinity?

Professional soccer is a rough and tough game, no doubt about it. But at the end of the day, football is just a game, not a war. Should civilized societies allow the rules of the games to permanently insult or attempt to insult others? The games and their participants are competitive, but should they promote violence to such a degree that the lives of the players and the future of their families are negatively affected? When games allow such excessive and injurious violence to take place, games cease to be games and become wars. Are wars the fabric of a civilized or uncivilized society?

Another theme in professional football is ‘masculinity’. What constitutes masculinity? One definition includes being tough, tough, strong, and brave. These are certainly admirable features, but to what extent should they be applied?

If a man is truly strong and brave, shouldn’t he exercise his strength and courage by restricting his ability to hurt or permanently harm others, potentially destroying the careers of injured players in the process? If a man is really a man and spends his life playing a game…a game…shouldn’t he be tough and professional enough to keep his passions in check?

In short, when games allow the destruction of physical abilities that negatively affect the personal health and financial stability of their players, including the well-being of their families, are they still “games” or something more? And when a man purposely sets out to insult another man under the “Aspect of the Game” with utter contempt and disrespect not only for another player and his welfare but for the game itself, does he not cease to be a man and returns more than one animal? Games are games, right? Should they be relegated to so-called “games” like those in the ancient Colosseum in Rome, or contests of more sensible and civilized spectators for the entertainment and enjoyment of all without the unpleasant and contemptuous ruin and pain of personal and professional destruction of life and wellness?