Next fall, I’ll be teaching freshman composition to the college football team, so I’m looking at the topic of football for one of their essay units.
Here are three argumentative essay prompts that compare the book Against Football by Steve Almond with the film Concussion (2015, dir. Peter Landesman), all designed to be suitable for a 9-paragraph college essay structure (intro, 3 body sections with 2 paragraphs each, counterargument and rebuttal, conclusion).
Each prompt pushes students to wrestle with ethical, cultural, or systemic questions in a way that connects to their personal investment as student-athletes, without being simplistic or moralizing.
Prompt 1: “The Morality of the Game”
To what extent does Against Football and Concussion suggest that supporting or playing football is morally indefensible in light of what we now know about brain trauma, exploitation, and the business of the sport? Should young people still pursue football as a career path, given the risks?
- In your essay, compare how Almond and the film depict the ethical stakes of football: What arguments do they make about the price players pay—physically, emotionally, and socially?
- Analyze how both texts address public complicity: fans, media, institutions.
- Take a clear stance: Can football be reformed, or is it inherently harmful?
- Address the counterargument that football builds character, community, and economic opportunity—especially for marginalized groups.
Prompt 2: “Who Owns the Narrative?”
Both Against Football and Concussion challenge the dominant narrative that football is a patriotic, character-building institution. Who controls the narrative about football, and what do these two texts reveal about the gap between myth and reality?
- Analyze how each text critiques the institutional power of the NFL and media: what’s hidden, denied, or spun?
- Discuss how truth-tellers like Steve Almond and Dr. Bennet Omalu are treated when they challenge football’s mythology.
- Evaluate the cultural need to preserve football’s heroic image. Who benefits?
- Address the counterargument that critique undermines a beloved national tradition and can have unintended consequences for working-class athletes.
Prompt 3: “Risk, Choice, and Exploitation”
Do players—especially college athletes—truly understand and consent to the risks of playing football, or are they part of a system that exploits them for entertainment and profit? Use Against Football and Concussion to explore how knowledge, agency, and power intersect in the sport.
- Analyze how the film and book portray informed consent—do players know what they’re signing up for?
- Compare how the NCAA and NFL manage risk and liability, and who bears the consequences.
- Examine the role of race, class, and opportunity: how does background shape one’s ability to walk away?
- Address the counterargument that players have free will, financial incentives, and personal responsibility to weigh the risks.
Here are five counterarguments that defend football against the criticisms raised by Steve Almond’s Against Football and the film Concussion—each paired with a rationale that students can expand into argumentative paragraphs or use in rebuttal sections:
1. Football Builds Character, Discipline, and Resilience
Defense:
While Almond argues that football glorifies violence and toxic masculinity, defenders claim the sport instills discipline, work ethic, time management, and perseverance. Players must memorize complex plays, train year-round, and learn how to function under pressure—skills transferable to education, careers, and life.
Example expansion:
For many young athletes, football teaches more than just how to tackle. It’s a structured environment that requires commitment and accountability, often keeping students academically eligible and socially supported in school communities.
2. Informed Consent and Autonomy
Defense:
Critics like Almond and Concussion raise serious concerns about brain injuries, but players—especially adults—now have increasing access to information about those risks. If someone chooses to play football despite those risks, it’s their right. To suggest otherwise is to infantilize athletes and undermine their agency.
Example expansion:
We allow adults to drive motorcycles, box, or climb Everest—why should football be different? Autonomy means respecting a person’s right to assess danger and still choose to participate.
3. Football Creates Educational and Economic Opportunities
Defense:
For many students, especially from low-income communities, football offers a path to college, scholarships, and sometimes even professional careers. Removing or diminishing football could eliminate one of the few structured pipelines to higher education.
Example expansion:
Steve Almond critiques the exploitative nature of college football, but what alternatives exist that offer the same combination of structure, community, and opportunity? For some, football is the only shot at upward mobility.
4. Reforms Are Happening—Football Isn’t Static
Defense:
Football has changed. Rules have evolved to protect quarterbacks and defenseless receivers, and protocols around concussions are stricter than ever. Critics assume the sport is frozen in time, but it’s adapting to new science and pressure from advocates.
Example expansion:
While Concussion dramatizes the NFL’s history of denial, today’s league invests in helmet technology, baseline testing, and return-to-play guidelines. Youth leagues are teaching safer tackling methods. Progress is slow, but it’s happening.
5. Football Builds Community and Cultural Unity
Defense:
Football isn’t just a sport—it’s a shared cultural ritual. From Friday night lights to Super Bowl Sunday, it creates bonds between families, towns, and regions. For many Americans, football is one of the few communal experiences left.
Example expansion:
Almond sees fandom as complicit, but fans see themselves as part of something larger—cheering for their school, city, or nation. That sense of belonging can be powerful, especially in an increasingly fragmented society.
Cinemorphosis 
Leave a comment