Why Don't Most Athletes Wear Masks During Competition?

If the answer is that athletes are not required to wear masks on the field because it could interfere with play, this seems to be an admission that masks DO have a negative effect on the wearer.

If Covid is so contagious and deadly that ordinary people are required to wear masks anytime they enter stores or restaurants (and even outdoors in some places regardless of distancing), how is it safe or permissible for professional athletes to play their respective sports without masks? I know that these athletes are tested more than most other populations, but if a negative Covid test is the reason provided for athletes being permitted to play without masks, why are players (and coaches) still required to wear masks on the sidelines? If the response is that there could be a false negative so masks must be worn on the sideline as an extra safety measure (“just in case”), why are players permitted to take them off on the field of play when they are clearly very close to one another?

If the answer is that athletes are not required to wear masks on the field because it could interfere with play, this seems to be an admission that masks actually DO have a negative effect on the wearer’s ability to breathe and function normally. I personally have experienced these negative effects, and many who suffer headaches or have difficulty breathing in a mask would also affirm this to be true. Indeed, because of these negative effects, I think most everyone would agree that it’s unreasonable to ask athletes to wear masks during competition. But if masks are required to be worn on the sidelines because there is still the risk of infection, would there not still be a risk of infection DURING competition when athletes are not wearing masks?

I think the only logical response is that there is still a risk to the athletes. And while I personally believe athletes should be permitted to take this risk if they desire to play, it’s unclear to me why athletes are permitted to take this risk but ordinary people are not. And if the decision not to wear a mask is not only putting yourself at risk of exposure but also putting others at risk if you are asymptomatically infected (as some have argued), who determines that this is an acceptable risk? And if the risk of spreading Covid during athletic competition is seen as acceptable, why are the risks that ordinary people would take in not wearing masks viewed as unreasonable or selfish?

I want to be very clear: I am NOT saying that athletes should be forced to wear masks during competition; to the contrary, I wish they were permitted to remove their masks on the sidelines and especially during practice. What I am simply trying to show is one of many logical inconsistencies in the response to Covid. I do not believe that governments, public health officials, etc. should be determining for everyone else what level of risk is tolerable, especially when exceptions are made for certain classes of people but not for others. Life is FULL of risks. There is a risk every time I drive to the store that I will hit someone else or that they will hit me, yet we are still permitted to drive (and most of us would drive to the store without even thinking about the risk). There is also a risk every flu season that my children will get sick from the flu or another illness, and there is a risk (albeit small) that they could die. Should I never travel to the store but only have groceries delivered to my house to avoid the risk of driving? Should I prevent my children from going to school or church during the winter in an effort to avoid the risk of flu? I could provide many more examples and ask many more questions, but I hope the point of this questioning is clear: People (athletes or otherwise) are taking risks every single day, and in my view people should be permitted to take the risks they deem appropriate instead of governments or other entities making these decisions for them.