I don't follow sports, but I also don't go around professing my ignorance. If someone changes the topic to sports, I still engage with them. I ask questions, and they're usually happy to answer. A couple days ago, someone delighted in telling me the story of Marshawn Lynch. (I had to look up the name, but I did remember his antics with the press.)
Having common ground with more people is not a bad argument for learning about sports. But I do have some qualms with the author's decision.
First, I cannot stress this enough: American football is an odious sport. Players regularly suffer concussions, traumatic brain injuries, and joint trauma. Permanent and debilitating injuries are common. The average player lasts 3.5 years in the NFL. Then they are spat out and left to deal with a lifetime of health issues. Yes, players freely choose their profession. So what? The same argument can be used to defend dueling. Football is bad and people should feel guilty watching it. If you're going to watch a popular sport, watch baseball.
But really, what's so bad about being out of touch with most Americans? Why draw the line at political borders? By population, vastly more people love cricket or soccer than American football. I don't mind being out of touch with sports enthusiasts regardless of their country of origin. If you're like me and you spend most of your time with people who aren't interested in sports, there's no point in learning about football or baseball. You already have common ground. Is that living in a bubble? Yes. I like living in a bubble. Economist Bryan Caplan explains the position better than I can.[1]
> American football is an odious sport. Players regularly suffer concussions, traumatic brain injuries, and joint trauma. Permanent and debilitating injuries are common.
In Europe, spectators suffer those while watching football.
> Yes, players freely choose their profession. So what? The same argument can be used to defend dueling.
I think that duelling should be legal, for that same reason. Likewise, football and boxing should be legal: the participants have chosen to engage in them; why shouldn't the spectators enjoy the spectacle?
Having common ground with more people is not a bad argument for learning about sports. But I do have some qualms with the author's decision.
First, I cannot stress this enough: American football is an odious sport. Players regularly suffer concussions, traumatic brain injuries, and joint trauma. Permanent and debilitating injuries are common. The average player lasts 3.5 years in the NFL. Then they are spat out and left to deal with a lifetime of health issues. Yes, players freely choose their profession. So what? The same argument can be used to defend dueling. Football is bad and people should feel guilty watching it. If you're going to watch a popular sport, watch baseball.
But really, what's so bad about being out of touch with most Americans? Why draw the line at political borders? By population, vastly more people love cricket or soccer than American football. I don't mind being out of touch with sports enthusiasts regardless of their country of origin. If you're like me and you spend most of your time with people who aren't interested in sports, there's no point in learning about football or baseball. You already have common ground. Is that living in a bubble? Yes. I like living in a bubble. Economist Bryan Caplan explains the position better than I can.[1]
1. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/03/my_beautiful_bu....