1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NFL reaches concussion settlement

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Inky_Wretch, Aug 29, 2013.

  1. Gator

    Gator Well-Known Member

    Busted!!

    Here's the best line:

    "I've spoken with a lot of current players on this matter, and while they are concerned about the dangers of head shots, one -- yes one -- told me they wouldn't do it all over again. They love the game. They love the checks.

    And, to me, that's what this is all about. It's a money grab."

    Personally, this is not a black and white issue. I know there are guys who played decades ago for $500 a game. I can feel for those guys, but when you look at some of the high-profile names listed as plaintiffs -- Eric Dickerson, Art Monk, Junior Seau, etc. -- it makes me question things.

    And the columnist is right. If a college player goes undrafted, then doctors come to realization he took one too many shots to the head, and his brain is loaded with CTE, can he sue the university? Can a high school kid sue the school department? The door is wide open, and not every industry is a $9 billion industry.
     
  2. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Did the university lie about the long-term impact of concussions? Did the high school? You keep going on about the money grab, but you don't even understand what the NFL was accused of.
     
  3. Elliotte Friedman

    Elliotte Friedman Moderator Staff Member

    Michael,

    One of the judges who worked on the settlement argued the exact opposite.

    They wrote that the basis of the plaintiff's case was that the NFL knew about the dangers of concussions, but hid the information. Maybe 10-50 years ago, you could still say that we did not know the dangers. Now, we do. Knowledge and information is much more in the open.

    The argument was that it would be more difficult for current players to claim NFL negligence now.
     
  4. Gator

    Gator Well-Known Member

    Apparently that didn't matter all that much, did it? Why wouldn't I call it a cash grab, when in the end, the plaintiffs agreed to clear the NFL of any wrongdoing?
     
  5. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Taking money you need to cover medical expenses is not a cash grab, but by all means, continue to wallow in your ignorance.
     
  6. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    You really don't understand what the lawsuit is about do you?
     
  7. Gator

    Gator Well-Known Member

    Look, I'm not saying taking the cash to cover medical expenses is a bad thing. But it also goes to prove that truly exposing the NFL for what they perceived was hiding the long-term affects of concussions -- the basis of this suit -- wasn't the No. 1 priority.
     
  8. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    Since as far back as the 70s there have been stickers in the helmets saying something about the danger of leading with the helmet. The league not doing enough to help former players who played before it was a billion dollar business is as bad as any information that wasn't disclosed. What is going to change? Are GMs going to tell guys 'you have a concussion, maybe you should consider retiring.' I don't have a link but I've read more than 1 survey where a huge majority of players say they would still play in the NFL if it would lessen their life expectancy.
     
  9. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    You really don't know what you are talking about on this one. Have you even followed this at all before the news of the settlement? Have you heard the statements along the way from players involved? Do you really think allowing the NFL to put in a line saying that the settlement isn't an admission of guilt is fooling anybody?

    The former players helped to expose the issue for the public. Sure, forcing the NFL to go to trial would have done even more to expose it, but they used that leverage to get the money that many of them needed. This isn't a bunch of rich former superstars. Most of them weren't making the kind of money we think of players making now and those that did make a lot, that was a long time ago.
     
  10. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    If players who played before 1993 (is that the date?) are still not covered by the league health insurance, this was a big win for the NFL.

    In the next CBA, the players need to push for any player who spends one day on any active, or practice, season roster (or game day or whatever it is called) needs to get full medical benefits of the rest of their lives.
     
  11. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I was scrolling through the list of plaintiffs. A few big names there, but not many. I didn't see any players who are plaintiffs that are currently drawing a check as a TV analyst (which I find curious given the number of former players on TV and the number of players in the lawsuit). And the thought that all of the plaintiffs made "millions" is a joke. A typical NFL salary is probably closer to 200 to 400k. An avg. NFL career is three years.
     
  12. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    merrill hodge wasn't 1? not sure if he's still an analyst but he definitely talked in the past about his concussions.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page