In both sports, it’s expected that someone or something “almost always get[s] hurt,” writes Malcolm Gladwell in this New Yorker article, where he goes over the sports’ similarities — including the reason why, despite their brutality, both will likely stick around for a long time. [%comments]
What Do Dogfighting and Football Have in Common?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Isn’t it BECAUSE of their brutality that they will stick around for a long time?
I thought the answer was “Michael Vick.”
Jim you beat me too it.
Uh, but people choose to play football; dogs in dogfighting have no option.
Of course, what do they not have in common: Football occurs with the meaningful consent of it’s partcipants.
Still not completely through the article so I assume they get to this but there is an all-important distinction. Football players know the risks (presumably), know the alternatives, and make a decision. Dogs do not. The two “sports” are not morally equivalent.
Bear and bull baiting (with dogs, not matadors) have disappeared, and so did gladiatorial games in Rome.
The informed consent argument has some appeal, but can’t you make the argument that coaches and management at all levels have downplayed the brain injury risks to the players, so the consent is not truly informed?