Dissecting the ‘sport structured brain trauma is child abuse’ argument: how a flawed analogy risks undermining effective ethical action

Anderson, Turner, Hardwicke, and Parry (2023) argue that youth contact sports ‘structure’ brain trauma and therefore amount to ‘child brain abuse’, warranting prohibition. We share their concern but contend that their comparison with children’s sexual activity is inadequate on conceptual, logical, and moral grounds. This framing risks shifting debate away from the central ethical questions toward categorical condemnation. We instead advocate proportionate, evidence-led measures and a more appropriate comparative framework that preserves moral symmetry.