The Whole Story Behind Soccer Helmets

Is this the future of the "beautiful game"?

Yesterday both Reason's Nick Gillespie and Radley Balko pointed to a reference about a proposed law in Massachusetts that would require children playing Soccer to wear helmets.

While I was aware about a number of studies that had been published in recent years about heading in Soccer and brain injury -- I had never heard of anyone calling for the mandatory use of helmets.

Needless to say, my BS detector went off right away. Could they really mean helmets? As somebody who started playing youth ice hockey in an era where we didn't wear full face shields, it was hard not to laugh.

During the NHL lockout of 2004-05, I spent a lot of time watching Fox Soccer Channel, a period during which I became familiar with a brand of Soccer head gear called Full90. I also knew that a number of Soccer players -- both male and female -- at the highest levels of the sport in the U.S. wore them, including D.C. United's Alecko Eskandarian:

"Before my latest concussion I was one of those guys who vowed not to wear one because it looks silly," Eskandarian said in a telephone interview, referring to the apparatus made by Full90 that gives players protection against head-to-head and head-to-ground collisions. "Now I don't even realize I have it on. It gives me added security. It feels like a headband. If anything, I feel more comfortable to be physical on the field."

Eskandarian has played in three games this season and scored one goal. He will be with United for Saturday's game against the Red Bulls at Giants Stadium.

Eskandarian missed much of last season after a collision with New England goalkeeper Matt Reis. It was the third concussion in his four-year professional career; he also had surgery for a hernia less than three weeks ago. It has been a rough adjustment for a player who was the man of the match in the 2004 M.L.S. championship game, but played only 12 games last season.

"I can't even put into words how tough and frustrating the last 10 months have been," he said. "I had migraines for six months. I couldn't go out or do any physical activity.

I have to hand it to the folks at Full90. Despite the fact that I wouldn't have worn a head guard on the field, at least their product looks pretty slick, unlike those helmets you see above.

In any case, I thought it might be a good idea to do some more digging. I was shocked to find that actual Soccer helmets exist, and that the Massachusetts law that still seems to be working its way through the state legislature didn't just mandate the use of helmets, it actually originally sought to outlaw heading the ball from youth leagues to colleges and universities.

A piece from the Boston Globe from last December lays it all out in pretty good detail. At the behest of a local brain injury activist, Representative Deborah D. Blumer from Framingham introduced House Bill No. 1137 -- " AN ACT To Prohibit the Use of Headers in Soccer Games sponsored by Public and Private Schools and Colleges."

The text is as follows:

SECTION 1. For purposes of this Act, the following words shall have the following meanings, unless a different meaning is required by the context or is specifically prescribed:?

(a) "Soccer Match" any school sanctioned competition organized for recreational purposes

(b) "Header", any use of the head during a soccer match to field, pass, aim or otherwise actively and affirmatively direct the movement of the soccer ball.

(c) "Player", any student in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts engaging in the sport of soccer. Players include, but are not limited to students enrolled in any elementary, secondary, post secondary, college, public or private educational institution in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

SECTION 2. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, no player participating in a soccer match in any public or private school including elementary, middle and high school, or any public or private college in the Commonwealth, shall use a header during a soccer game. All players shall wear helmets designed to protect against head injuries.

There are moments when the nanny state in America clearly gets out of control. But in this case it totally ran off the rails.

Luckily for Representative Blumer, a last minute re-write removed the language banning headers, but left the requirement for helmets intact. And after looking through this legislative history, we can see that the measure has actually wound its way through the House, while the State Senate is dealing with a companion bill that doesn't include the helmet requirement.

How did we get to this point? The text of the bill credits Robert Edwards, a Framingham resident who suffered a brain injury himself and volunteer with the Massachusetts Brain Injury Association. As it turns out, Edwards tried to convince his local school board in Framingham to approve a two-year moritorium on heading that would have forced school teams to abandon that basic technique at home games while the school board collected evidence supporting his position on headers and brain injury. When he wasn't successful there, Edwards decided to go after bigger game, and get the ban instituted at the state level.

As we've seen, this effort has been the subject of lots of ridicule all over the country, something that helped derail this effort early on. And there's considerable disagreement in the medical community on the issue. The American Academy of Pediatrics said that while wearing eye and head protection might limit the severity of non-lethal injuries, there was insufficient evidence to support a ban on heading the ball, though they called for further study.

The response of the U.S. Soccer Federation, however, was more definitive:

USSF’s Sports Medicine Committee has reviewed a great deal of scientific literature relating to head injuries in soccer and the safety benefits of padded headgear. After careful review, the Sports Medicine Committee finds no evidence that wearing this sort of headgear is beneficial to players, and is concerned that it might actually lead to more injuries.

The Sports Medicine Committee’s conclusion is based upon an understanding of the mechanism by which concussions occur in soccer and other sports. Concussions are frequently caused by the force by which the head and neck snap back after impact, with the brain impacting on the inside of the hard skull – not the actual force of the impact. These injuries are common in American football and hockey despite elaborate helmets and padding. Padded headgear designed to decrease impact will not reduce the prevalence of these types of concussions.

The Sports Medicine Committee is also concerned that the use of headgear in soccer may alter the game in ways that would be detrimental. For example, players may develop a false sense of security, play more aggressively, and not learn proper technique – thus potentially increasing the frequency of concussions. As an example, head and neck injuries have increased in ice hockey and football since the introduction of helmets in those sports.

Yet another concern with this equipment is that parents and coaches are using headgear to return players to play who have already suffered a concussion. Headgear should not be a substitute for proper medical evaluation and treatment of concussions, and should not be used to hasten return to play after a concussion. Again, the Sports Medicine Committee is concerned that this headgear gives players a false sense of security.

Ironically, the major push for use of headgear has been within the community of players least likely to need head protection. There appears to be a significant increase in the use of headgear by youth players 12 and under, even though players at this level are the least likely to engage in play that would lead to concussions.

I should note that USSF would not support making the use of protective head gear mandatory, it did not ban the use of headgear, so those who would like to use it still can.

However, it looks like the supporters of the measure in Massachusetts are willing to take a quarter loaf now in order to bag the whole enchilada down the road. As it turns out, there is one provision of the bill that as far as I can tell is still kicking around. Here's the exact language from House Bill 1137:

SECTION 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law to the contrary, there is hereby established a Sports Injury Commission to investigate and report on the incidence of sports injuries in elementary, middle and high school children. Said commission shall collect data of the types of sports injuries, frequency, severity, identify high-risk sports, and long term impact of sports injuries on young athletes, including but not limited to the rate and type of eye, facial and head injuries incurred and the types of sports most frequently associated with such injuries. The commission shall develop strategic and legislative recommendations to reduce the incidence of sports injuries including the mandatory use of protective eye wear and/or headgear in all high-risk sports.

Click here for the Senate version.

In other words, Massachusetts is about to create a body that's all but assured to endorse the mandatory use of head gear in Soccer. And when that happens, something tells me that companies that manufacture the protective head gear will be the first to tout those findings.

Don't believe me, just take a look at the press release archive over at Full90. There, you'll find plenty of examples of the company touting studies that support their position on head injuries in Soccer. The company even solicits submissions from people who have suffered head injuries, and features them on its Web site.

For companies like Full90, the stakes are enormous. According to figures from the Massachusetts Youth Soccer Association, there are about 185,000 youth Soccer players in the state. Based on the price range of the headgear manufactured by Full90, that's potential sales of between $4.6 million and $7.4 million in Massachusetts alone in the first year of a mandatory helmet law. Nationally, U.S. Soccer claims that 17.6 million children play the sport.

Through 2004, Full90 had sold around 100,000 pieces of head gear. You do the math.

A couple of thoughts: I can't help but point out just how clueless the initiative in Massachusetts was at its inception. Remember, this originally wasn't a mandatory helmet law, it was a law designed to ban heading, a change that would alter the very essence of the game. Further, this wasn't a law designed to simply protect children, it also would have applied to legal adults playing at the collegiate level -- something I find particularly abhorrent.

If you look back at the minutes of that Framingham meeting in 2003, you'll see that a few members of the school board hadn't taken complete leave of their senses:

Mr. Dinsky said the Massachusetts Brain Injury Association should work with the MIAA [Mass. Interscholastic Athletic Association -- EMc] to effect change. If the Massachusetts Brain Injury Association can convince the MIAA to change the guidelines, there would be no need for a particular school system to change the guidelines.

Which is exactly how it should be. Government has enough to worry about already, and shouldn't be used as an instrument to effect change on the playing field, a responsibility that ought to rest with a sport's governing body.

I also have to shake my head at the notion that we can somehow completely legislate risk out of life. Again, I can't help but point out this passage from the USSF response to head gear proponents:

The Sports Medicine Committee is also concerned that the use of headgear in soccer may alter the game in ways that would be detrimental. For example, players may develop a false sense of security, play more aggressively, and not learn proper technique – thus potentially increasing the frequency of concussions. As an example, head and neck injuries have increased in ice hockey and football since the introduction of helmets in those sports.

In other words, the use of head gear might give players the impression that they have been relieved of the responsibility to avoid reckless play that could lead to injury. In ice hockey, the penalty for high sticking is enforced not on intent, but on the result of the infraction. It's based on the idea that every player on the ice is responsible for controlling their stick, and that's the case whether or not the infraction is incidental or accidental.

In simpler terms, no rule and no law can ever subsitute for the informed judgement of the individual on the playing field. At bottom, these efforts to legislate changes on the Soccer field attempt to do just that.

Eric 10:02 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ericmcerlain.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6315

Comments

Posted by: at July 12, 2006 12:57 PM

Posted by: at July 12, 2006 10:53 PM

Post a comment