Former Varsity Football Player Attacks Many Injuries, Proselyting, Commercialism In Sport

The following article was written for the Crimson by Francis Call Woodman '88, former Harvard Varsity football player.

The present writer feels that he can speak with some sense of authority upon the subject in hand, as he is doing so out of an experience of four years' connection with Harvard football, as a regular member of the Varsity team (three years) and as a substitute (one year)-- no intercollegiate football having been permitted in his sophomore year by reason of President Eliot's wise judgment in the face of discreditable tactics on the part of the players, the coaches, and the management of Harvard teams and their competitors,--and as a first year student in the Harvard Law School.

The writer's first objection to the game (and this applies to the present game as well as to the football of other days) lies in the fact that too many of his friends, or contemporaries, who were members of the Varsity team, or squad, are at present suffering either from the effects of football in some part of their anatomy, or have died too soon--usually of a "heart attack." This statement has the corroboration of no less a personage than the late Dr. 'Ed.' Nichols, who had charge of the physical and nervous condition of the Harvard players for many years, and whose statement can be verified by many living men, to the effect that, "nearly every man who has played varsity football at Harvard was either permanently injured at the time, or has suffered in later years from the development of a football injury."

Apart from the physical damage brought upon as by football is the moral harm through dishonest and mean methods of play taught by some coaches who are determined to see their team a winning one 'at any price.'

Not the least serious condition, in our school and college football, is that of 'proselyting' on the part of some college graduates and football coaches in college who approach schoolboys with the intention of diverting them to their particular college, and for no other purpose than to strengthen the football team in that college, and these 'proselyters' offer inducements by way of 'athletic scholarships,' jobs as waiters, etc., and sometimes by direct payments in cash. The writer, when presiding over a boarding school, was well aware that the best football players in his school were constantly being approached by college alumni and coaches with alluring offers to enter their respective institutions purely for football purposes.

Another objection to present methods in American football, especially college football, is the commercial aspect of the whole thing. The amount of money charged for admission to games, and the amount spent (and wasted) upon expensive and unnecessary 'machinery,' in carrying a team through a football season, is out of all proportion to the importance of this phase of college life. (See Harvard Alumni Bulletin of October 7, 1932, p. 35.) The fact that many college graduates are charged approximately five dollars to see their college play football against its chief rival, or that an undergraduate student must pay a like sum for the same privilege, is in itself sufficient commentary upon the commercial aspect of American college football. In justice to some colleges it must be recognized that these earnings are well spent by supporting the college crew and other non-earning sports. Such charges for admission, however, are exclusive and undemocratic, and prevent hundreds of students from attending the most important games of their respective colleges.

American football appears to have become largely a public spectacle conducted on a commercial basis. The writer once asked President Eliot why it was that he was never seen at one of his own college football games. His reply was, substantially, that English rugby football was spoiled when the so-styled 'father of American college football' attempted to 'Americanize' the game, and that it has degenerated ever since through constant 'doctoring' of the rules from year to year until only the football experts really know what is actually going on--his final remark being: "I don't like the American game of football--it's too much like a circus."

'But what shall we put in its place?' is asked, and with reason, for it is right that red-blooded young Americans should have their football in the football season. The writer of this article unhesitatingly recommends 'English rugby' and 'soccer' (Association football) as played by the best schools and colleges in the British Empire and on the Continent. Such a move would have the added advantage of a regular exchange of games with those countries (the rules being identical), a custom which now happily exists in the case of rowing, track games, tennis, polo, and other forms of sport.

Finally, the writer recommends without question the advisability of parents forbidding their sons to take part in 'American football'--thus encouraging participation in a much safer and saner game, namely, 'English rugby' football or 'soccer' football, or both, which, when understood and well played, will be generally and genuinely loved by Americans.