In a column four years ago, I wrote about my moral confusion with football. 

On one hand, America swoons for the sport more than ever. 

Witness the tailgate tables in Lawrence this weekend: the Jayhawk tablecloths, the ornate crimson-and-blue cupcakes, and novelty KU cocktails. In Topeka, the state of Kansas doles out tax breaks to the Kansas City Chiefs, desperate for them to move across the state line to build their domed stadium.

As Kansas State head coach Collin Klein said at a Wildcats media day, channeling the mood of many Kansans, football is “the greatest sport in the world.”

On the other hand, I wrote, fans often feel icky because of the specter of football head injuries.

Witness the wide receiver slicing across the secondary. Oblivious to safety in his blind spot, he catches and turns just in time to see the opponent’s helmet filling his field of view. We wince and shush one another in the bleachers. The reverence for a big hit and a concussed kid. The medical staff sprints out before he fully slumps to the turf. 

In that column, I wondered: How can we watch football with a clear conscience? 

Looking back, my confused hand-wringing about being a fan completely missed the point. How self-absorbed to care about my comfort rather than the safety of the players on the field. 

And so we arrive in September: the launch of a new football season paired with gloomy football news. This year, a new study of former NFL players further demonstrates how hundreds of American men are dying, plagued by life-changing neurological injuries caused by football’s cumulative violence to their heads. 

Published by The BMJ, the study delivers dark news about the prevalence of brain injuries among professional players who died between 2016 and 2021. The most optimistic analysis of the data suggests that one in four former NFL players suffers from CTE, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is a progressive neurological disease. 

The most dire possibility? That more than 90 percent of the brains of former pros show signs of such disease. 

The study also documents a strong association between severe CTE and dementia. NFL players whose brains showed the most advanced CTE — labeled stage IV — were radically more likely to be clinically diagnosed with dementia. 

Data like this sends me toward catastrophizing about football. 

As someone ready to lambast the sport on even the flimsiest of evidence, I knew I needed an expert to help me analyze the study. I found one on the University of Kansas campus, where I also teach. 

Thayne Munce started as an associate professor in the Department of Health, Sport, Exercise Sciences last year while also directing the Jayhawk Athletic Performance Laboratory.

“The majority of our research is applied sports science research, where we’re taking measurements of athletes in the field, monitoring them while they’re performing, and trying to generate insights and make observations related to their performance,” Munce said. 

That means outfitting athletes with all kinds of wearable devices. In recent years, for sports associated with head injury risk (such as football, rodeo and soccer), Munce said that researchers used helmets outfitted with electronic monitors. The data they collected described rapid decelerations and accelerations that accompany hard hits.

“But now the accelerometers are in mouth guards,” Munce said. “That allows the work to expand beyond helmeted sports and beyond football.”

I asked him to put the new study into context: does it reveal something new or confirm something that we already knew? 

“I think when you see the headline or even the summary of a study like this, saying that at least one in four — at least 25% of NFL players have CTE — that’s that’s alarming,” Munce said. 

However, that summary omits context, Munce said. First, because these players died recently, their average age was much higher, meaning they were likely to have played in the 1960s and 1970s. The head injury data might be worse or better for current players because the playing atmosphere has changed during the last 50 years. (Conducting a widespread study of CTE in current players is impossible because players must be deceased to allow for an inspection of the brain tissue.)

Munce cautions that the study also does not address the prevalence of CTE among players who played youth, middle school, high school and college football during any era. His current research does show that “the impact severities” in youth football are “nearly identical to what others have reported for high school players.”

“We don’t know what that is compared to the NFL because those studies haven’t been publicly shared or publicly released,” Munce said. “But at least from the youth and middle school, up through college, the median impact severities are very similar.”

Munce’s context doesn’t change the basic conclusion: Between 25% and 95% of professional football players walk away from the sport with degenerative brain injuries. College players are the next most likely to have similar CTE rates because their careers involve more seasons and more impacts.

For the sake of the players, I’d like to think football in 2026 is a kinder game than it was for players during the 60s and 70s, in regards to head injuries. That’s Munce’s point of view. He points out the long list of football reforms: “better surveillance, management, care of brain injuries and concussion in particular, for football players of all ages.”

“In the past, concussions weren’t often recognized or talked about, and it’s very likely that players played through their concussions,” Munce said. “Players are better educated on recognizing the signs and symptoms of a concussion.”

Munce listed other reforms: rule changes (targeting restrictions and new kickoff formats), improved helmets and coaching on safer tackling. 

For the sake of players, I’d like to believe, as Munce does, that football is safer now than it has ever been, but I don’t think so. 

Football seasons are longer today, with more games and more practices in both the NFL and college football. Today’s five-star recruit at nose tackle is likely faster and stronger than generations past as football training, diet and coaching have improved. I imagine today’s 300-pound lineman is just as likely to inflict damage on his opponent’s brain — and more likely to receive it too — as his own strength creates forceful collisions that rebound to him. 

The professionalization of America’s favorite sport means more football and more ferocity in football, which means more damage to players’ brains. If years of cumulative violent hits create CTE, today’s game seems just as brutal or nearly so, even with reforms.

There’s more in The BMJ study, such as an explanation of how rare CTE is in the general population (as low as .6%). However, it’s difficult to imagine the study changing this year’s football season.  

The concern about head injuries comes and goes as studies emerge or catastrophes unfold. Even at the high points of CTE coverage, it seldom rivals the coverage of one player, such as Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes. (Munce suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic distracted the public’s concern about football head injuries in 2020 by taking control of the safety conversations surrounding sports.) 

I reviewed every press conference this fall from the three biggest football teams in the region. Listen to the coaches — Andy Reid of the Chiefs, Lance Leipold of KU and Klein from Kansas State — talk to the news media. No mention of head injuries l that I could find. No talk of helmets, concussions, head injuries and certainly not CTE. 

Along with sports gambling, it’s the biggest story in the sport.

And no one is asking about it. 

Journalists treat head injuries in football as a news story, not a sports story. (Let the science reporter handle it.)

We treat it as a story for the preseason, not game day. (Listen in vain for a mention of CTE during an NFL broadcast or college pregame show.)

Sweeping away the talk of head injuries has been the magnificent, Machiavellian project of the NFL and college football conferences. 

The NFL’s playbook? Create a polished arm of the league titled, “Player Health & Safety” that stresses innovations like “the Digital Athlete” and “Helmet Laboratory Testing.” Enact a few reforms to dial back the shocking hits that disrupt games. Publicize flag football for kids. 

At least one NFL player, New York Giants running back Cam Skattebo, believes that the brain condition is fake news.

Say it with me: “The NFL has made important progress in an effort to make football safer – and we remain committed to sharing that progress.”

Yet, the elemental, rumbling threat to player safety remains: the repeated, destructive collisions between players all over the field.

Football’s marketing and our insistent love for the game has convinced America that we fixed football. 

The scientific research suggests differently.

Eric Thomas teaches visual journalism and photojournalism at the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

Sony’s ability to generate anger lately is pretty impressive. After the company announced that there would be no more physical media versions of games made starting in 2027, to the resounding anger of many people, Sony also demonstrated yet again that it’s capable of ripping away the digital “purchases” people had made once its own licensing arrangements expire. While some folks out there understand that in the cases of some digital goods you’re not actually buying a thing, but a temporary license, many others either don’t know that or simply don’t like it, spurring on further anger against Sony across the internet. And that’s leaving aside entirely the subject of game and cultural preservation in all of this.

Sony is bad enough at this that they can manage to piss me off even when I probably agree with them when it comes to a particular lawsuit. Let’s get through the part where I’m on their side first.

There is a lawsuit going on in California, brought against Sony by a group of PlayStation gamers, that is arguing that the platform doesn’t comply with a relatively new California law for digital purchases that has strict rules around disclosing that the nature of the purchase is a license. The suit argues for non-compliance because the PlayStation Store uses the phrases “buy” and “purchase”, which is forbidden by the law.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, that’s not the full story. Here’s the relevant section of the law:

(b) (1) It shall be unlawful for a seller of a digital good to advertise or offer for sale a digital good to a purchaser with the terms “buy,” “purchase,” or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good, or alongside an option for a time-limited rental, unless either of the following occur:

(A) The seller receives at the time of each transaction an affirmative acknowledgment from the purchaser indicating all of the following:

(i) That the purchaser is receiving a license to access the digital good.

(ii) A complete list of restrictions and conditions of the license.

(iii) That access to the digital good may be unilaterally revoked by the seller if they no longer hold a right to the digital good, if applicable.

(B) The seller provides to the consumer before executing each transaction a clear and conspicuous statement that does both of the following:

(i) States in plain language that “buying” or “purchasing” the digital good is a license.

(ii) Includes a hyperlink, QR code, or similar method to access the terms and conditions that provide full details on the license.

And here’s what it looks like if you were to make a purchase for a license for a digital game on the PlayStation Store:

So let’s go back to the law. Yes, the page uses the term “purchase”. It also asks for acknowledgement via the “Confirm Purchase” button that the customer understands they’re buying a license (and it’s in plain language), links to the SPLA and TOS which outline the restrictions and conditions of the license, and details the revokable nature of that license. Sony is arguing it’s compliant and I’m compelled to agree.

And if Sony left it at that, I wouldn’t be writing this post right now. But then the company just had to further and say something really stupid.

Now, as reported by Game File, Sony recently filed its response to the lawsuit, claiming that customers are not only told “your purchase of this digital product amounts to a licence”, but that “reasonable consumers” already understand this anyway without having to be told.

Sony’s argument is that because digital copies of games are not a finite resource, and that because multiple people can buy a digital copy of the same game, that means nobody actually ‘owns’ it – if they did, nobody else would be able to have it.

“As plaintiffs admit, Section 1 of the SPLA likewise explains that ‘the Software is licensed to you, not sold’, Sony’s filing reads. “This makes sense. In the digital age, it is not plausible to allege that reasonable consumers believed they were obtaining ‘ownership’ of a digital game.

“Were that the case, then Plaintiff Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026 for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after Plaintiff Jason Mendoza had obtained Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, because Mr Mendoza, not Sony, would have owned it then.”

And on this, Sony can fuck all the way off. This is completely wrong on a variety of levels.

Let’s start with the fact that the internet is chockablock with discussions trying to unconfuse many people when it comes to what they bought in a digital purchase. There are Reddit posts asking this question. There are tech blogs that have put out specific articles answering the question of ownership of certain digital goods. Or, if the wider internet doesn’t suffice for you, the FTC has articles on its own website that try to help address ownership rights for the public for digital goods. Here’s a snippet that will help drive home the second reason Sony’s statement is so dumb.

When you buy a physical item, you’ve got it. It’s yours. But when you click the “buy” button on a digital product, it really depends. You may have access to it only while you have an active account with the platform or website that sold it, or only for as long as that platform or website stays in business. Another factor is Digital Rights Management (DRM) software, which is attached to many digital items and is the thing that makes it impossible, for example, for you to play a video game on a different console brand.

Another reason why you might not have full control of your digital product is that what you really got when you clicked “buy” is often merely a license to access the content. This fact is often explained only in fine print in the terms of service — terms that the seller can usually change at will. And if the seller itself has licensing issues with the content you bought, then your own license to use the digital item can become worthless. All things beyond your control.

So all of these entities putting out all of this information to try to educate the public about what the hell they bought with a digital purchase are only speaking to the unreasonable? That’s, dare I say, an unreasonable thing to say.

And in that FTC post, did you happen to notice just how many qualifiers are stuffed into those two paragraphs? It depends. May. Many. Might. Often. So why all of those qualifiers?

Because some digital purchases can and do confer ownership to the buyer. Not everyone is out here selling a license. Some digital goods are sold as permanent ownership.

So, no matter how this particular lawsuit shakes out, Sony needs to either understand their own customers’ sentiments and knowledge far better than they do, or they need to stop saying things that they know are false. I can attest that the general public does not have a firm understanding of their ownership rights and what they’re actually buying with digital purchases. Pretending otherwise is nonsense.

1Password faced immediate backlash from customers this week over a $300,000 pledge in support of a Linux distro created by David Heinemeier Hansson, who has regularly published overtly racist blog posts that include comments calling for deportation of ethnic minorities in Europe. The popular password manager is now a "distinguished corporate patron" of Omacom, the nonprofit foundation that oversees a popular Linux distribution known as Omarchy.

One viral blog post declared that 1Password "Supports the Ethnic Cleansing of Europe" because of the donation. Others on social media asked for suggestions for alternative password managers so they w …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Google Maps Changes Lake Ontario to Lake America. Totally pathetic and stupid. Maps are wayfinding tools and this toadying political change will help no one find their way.

On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order demanding Lake Ontario be renamed to Lake America. At the signing of the order, he sat next to a big poster board map of the Great Lakes, with a big red arrow labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America," with the words "Making the Great Lakes Even Greater." 

The Canadian province of Ontario borders the north, west, and southwest sides of the lake, with New York State on the south and east.

It was unclear in the days immediately following the order whether Google would respect the name change. MapQuest, the 1996 navigation service that still exists but most people stopped using in the early 2000s as Google Maps took over, went viral last week after posting a screenshot of Lake Ontario on X, saying "We're not changing it." MapQuest also launched a "Rename Lake Ontario" web toy. 

Google follows the U.S. Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), which formally changed the name for 'Lake Ontario' to 'Lake America' in the United States, according to Google's announcement about the change, posted Saturday: "Since we update Google Maps to reflect name changes in official government sources, which is GNIS for the U.S., people using Maps in the U.S. will see 'Lake America,' those in Canada will continue to see 'Lake Ontario,' and those outside of the U.S. and Canada will see both names. These updates follow our long-standing policy for bodies of water with names that vary from country to country, and are starting to roll out now." 

Apple Maps still shows it as Lake Ontario as of Sunday morning.

When Trump issued an order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America in early 2025, Google Maps changed it for the same reason — to be consistent with GNIS. People review-bombed the location on Google Maps so aggressively following the change, Google shut down reviews.

Trump has been degrading historically neighborly U.S. and Canadian relations since his first term, and that formerly friendly relationship has devolved into a trade war. Trump announced that the U.S. will start imposing 50% tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods last week; Canada, in turn, responded with tariffs on $20 billion of American goods, including steel, farm equipment, dairy products, and appliances.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul said she's not calling it that. “I'm speechless. It is so patently absurd,” she said in an interview with NY1. “Shame on them for deflecting from the real needs that Americans are feeling that we have here in New York. The high cost of energy, prescription drugs, utility bills, groceries. And this is what the president spends his time on? Renaming a lake that was named after our Indigenous peoples. Shame on you.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also called Trump's insistence on renaming the lake “juvenile.”