Brain-Injured Footballers, Voluntary Choice and Social Goods. A Reply to Corlett

Francisco Javier Lopez Frias, Michael John McNamee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


In this essay, we respond to Angelo Corlett’s criticism of our paper ‘Ethics, Brain Injuries, and Sports: Prohibition, Reform, and Prudence’. To do so, first, we revisit certain assumptions and arguments Corlett makes concerning intercollegiate football and brain injuries in his 2014 paper ‘Should intercollegiate football be eliminated?’. Second, we identify and criticize two key elements in his response regarding (a) ‘luck egalitarianism’, and (b) ‘public goods’. We conclude by reaffirming our critical reading of Corlett’s original 2014 paper and by identifying further elements (i) luck and the nature of individual responsibility; and (ii) the nature of sports as public rather than merely private goods, that he would have to address for his latter 2018 position to hold true.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)269-278
Number of pages10
JournalSport, Ethics and Philosophy
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 2 2020

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Philosophy


Dive into the research topics of 'Brain-Injured Footballers, Voluntary Choice and Social Goods. A Reply to Corlett'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this