Researchers Attempt To Count Drunk Sports Fans

Of 362 fans willing to be tested leaving pro football and baseball games, 8 percent were over the legal alcohol limit. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

It’s a "now-they-know-how-many-holes-it-takes-to-fill-the-Albert-Hall" situation. Because researchers have measured the actual blood alcohol level of fans leaving professional football and baseball games. And they found that eight percent of all the spectators willing to take the breathalyzer exam were over the legal limit for driving. The work appears in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. [Darin Erickson et al., "Can We Assess Blood Alcohol Levels of Attendees Leaving Professional Sporting Events?"]

The investigators managed to get breath samples from 362 fans exiting 13 different baseball games and three football games. Forty percent registered some level of alcohol on the meters. Fans under the age of 35 were nine times more likely to be over the limit than older fans. And tailgaters were 14 times more likely than other fans to be over the limit.

Lead researcher Darin Erickson of the University of Minnesota points out that, if the 8 percent finding holds for the whole crowd, at the conclusion of an NFL game some 5,000 people over the limit could spill out into the streets and potentially behind the wheel. Remember, these results apply to those willing to be tested. So the true percentage of uncooperative inebriates may be higher.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe