Because other sports still don't have (from the article) an almost guaranteed chance of brain damage long-term. That's what we can literally see from differences in the brain tissue, not even considering what we can't see and don't know.

It's singled out because it's the single sport that appears to lead to life-altering effects from invisible injuries, rather than an acceptable cost/risk of accidental injury or increased chance of extremely rare events in other sports. They are open for debate just the same if evidence comes to light.

The real question is why you believe your personal experience has any bearing on the facts presented, to the point of farcical argument. It's a shame that anything we enjoy may later turn out to be harmful, but you are arguing the equivalent of: "I smoked all my life and I'm fine", "but red meat gives you cancer too", "why are you targeting smoking when people drink", "people have died choking on air".