75% CTE in ex-NFL players makes head trauma an outcome, not a risk

When three out of four people who did a job end up with the same brain disease, can we still call it an occupational risk? Or is it just what the job does to you?

That is the question the NFL has to answer after a new Boston University-led study, published Wednesday in JAMA Network Open. It estimates that 74.5% of former NFL players who died between 2008 and 2023 had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. The sample behind the estimate was 2,362 deceased players, with a 95% confidence interval of 69.6% to 78.3%, according to The Washington Informer.

The caveats are real, but they shrink the number, not the problem

The raw number is even starker. Among 387 donated brains with conclusive examinations, 362 showed CTE, roughly 94%. That figure is biased, because families who see cognitive decline are more likely to donate. The researchers modeled that, estimating that players with clear symptoms were about five times more likely to donate, and adjusted down to 74.5%. Senior author Yorghos Tripodis told ABC News that even under very conservative assumptions the estimate doesn't fall below 60%.

The limits deserve to be stated plainly. The study covers only deceased players. It says nothing about how many living former players or current ones have the disease. Nondonors weren't examined, so their symptoms were inferred from death records. This is a statistical estimate, not a count.

The debate over "if" is over; the one over "how much" is not

We think those limits change the size of the problem, not its nature. Lead author Julia Gallini noted, as CBS News reports, that CTE is consistently found in less than 1% of donors to community brain banks. Compare that with roughly 75% in a population defined by a single profession. Even the low end of the adjusted range is a rate that, in our view, no one would tolerate in any other workplace.

That is why we'd argue the framing has shifted. "Risk" implies a chance that you can roll the dice and avoid. A figure like this suggests that, for players of that era, brain damage was closer to the expected result of a career. Maybe the current generation is better off. The study can't say, and we won't pretend it can. But the burden of proof has now flipped. The league can no longer assume modern players are safe; it has to show it.

The league's answer is mostly a communications answer

The NFL's statement says it "continuously strives to make the game of football safer," pointing to Guardian Caps and rule changes. It also stresses resources for former players to seek treatment. The NFL Players Association, for its part, called studies like this "critical" to understanding football's long-term impacts and said it is committed to supporting research and expanding access to care.

In our reading, both responses lean on care after the damage and on equipment, and neither commits to cutting the number of hits. And exposure is the whole story: CTE is tied to repetitive head impacts, including collisions that don't produce a diagnosed concussion. A helmet cover can soften a hit, but it doesn't reduce how many hits a lineman absorbs on every snap of a season. That is a design question about the game: practice contact, play structure, the sheer count of collisions. If the league wants us to believe it is serious, it should publish what it is measuring about head impacts and commit to changing the sport where the numbers point.

We also find Patriots coach Mike Vrabel's reaction revealing, and not in a bad way. He said players knew the risks and that he knew what he was signing up for, while adding that the league trying to make the game safer is good. That is an honest athlete's view, and it deserves respect. But "I knew what I signed up for" works only if the contract is fully disclosed. The league went through years of denials before acknowledging a link between football and CTE in 2016, according to AP reporting carried by WBUR. Informed consent that arrives after the fact is not consent.

The real fight is over kids

The most uncomfortable implication isn't about professionals. Neuroscientist Chris Nowinski, a co-author, told Spotlight on America that only about 26,000 men have ever played in the NFL, while hundreds of thousands of kids as young as six play youth tackle football every year. He pointed to restrictions on heading in soccer and checking in hockey, and said football has faced no comparable reckoning.

We agree. Adults can weigh a salary against a diagnosis. Six-year-olds can't. Former NFL player Matt Hasselbeck put it simply: "we can't accept these numbers for the next generation of players." The easiest, cheapest place to act is at the youth level, where, in our view, delaying the age of first tackle costs the league nothing in entertainment value.

Our verdict

Don't read this study as proof that every player is doomed, because it doesn't say that. Read it as the end of the comfortable ambiguity. The NFL should treat head-impact exposure as the metric it manages, not the reputation problem it answers. That means changing practices and rules, not just adding equipment and resources, and backing meaningful limits on youth tackle football. If the league keeps responding with statements, the next study will make that look worse.