Thread: Congress invokes antitrust

[size=13pt]Congress invokes antitrust[/size]

Posted on Tue, Jun. 24, 2008

House subcommittee chairwoman Linda Sanchez takes up fight for NFL's retired, disabled players.

By Charles Chandler
[email protected]


Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), who chairs the House subcommittee probing the concerns of NFL retirees, says she isn't satisfied the league and union have done enough to assist former players and that she would “absolutely” support threatening removal of the league's antitrust exemption if necessary to spur action....

Thanks for the read my friend......

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I think that the NFL should take care of its own a bit better, however, at somepoint I need to raise the bullshit flag.

Didn't these players, at some point, sign some sort of settlement/retirement agreement that IS being honored/or has been honored?

Who's fault is it that that agreement didn't take into account the long term affects of playing a game or the growth (in bucks) that the NFL would eventually become?

"Marrdro" wrote:

Thanks for the read my friend......

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I think that the NFL should take care of its own a bit better, however, at somepoint I need to raise the bullshit flag.

Didn't these players, at some point, sign some sort of settlement/retirement agreement that IS being honored/or has been honored?

Who's fault is it that that agreement didn't take into account the long term affects of playing a game or the growth (in bucks) that the NFL would eventually become?

I'll be second.

I don't like the government sticking its nose into sports (even Spector going after Belicheat). What's next...are they going to institute a minimum wage of $8.25 per hour? Or is OSHA going to install guidelines for safety regulations and change the game to flag football? It's a very bad omen when senators and congressmen start nosing around the game.

The minimum salary in the NFL is still many times the average salary in the US.
If someone plays in the NFL enough years for these serious issues to occur, they should have generated enough income in those years playing football to take care of themselves.
Why are our elected officials concentrating on issues that affect maybe 1,000 people out of the 300,000,000 citizens in this country?
Don't they have anything better to do?

"VikingMike" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

Thanks for the read my friend......

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I think that the NFL should take care of its own a bit better, however, at somepoint I need to raise the bullshit flag.

Didn't these players, at some point, sign some sort of settlement/retirement agreement that IS being honored/or has been honored?

Who's fault is it that that agreement didn't take into account the long term affects of playing a game or the growth (in bucks) that the NFL would eventually become?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/sports/football/01araton.html

You may have believed it would be a snowy day at the Super Bowl when a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame would stand up at a news conference to talk about what he calls the N.F.L.’s “dark secret,” as the Vikings great Carl Eller did here Thursday.

After six years in the trenches left him with a broken body, Pear needed his pension early and was later denied a disability claim. The $606 pension check he receives monthly barely covers half the cost of the 38 pills he consumes daily.

I'll be second.

I don't like the government sticking its nose into sports (even Spector going after Belicheat). What's next...are they going to institute a minimum wage of $8.25 per hour? Or is OSHA going to install guidelines for safety regulations and change the game to flag football? It's a very bad omen when senators and congressmen start nosing around the game.

I don't like the government getting involved. The NFL should start building it's own stadiums and live with the same anti-trust laws every other business sector does.

As far as the players making enough to take care of themselves, that may be true of todays players but retirement benefits are going to guys who played in th 50's 60' and 70's. Salaries were no where near what they are now. Most of the players did not realize that they would suffer life long disabilities because they played the game. The NFL should just step up and give some of the billions it profits every year to the players that made the NFL great in the first place. Some of the stories I've read about this are about players who are totally disabled because they played in the NFL but because they didn't apply for benefits soon enough they are just out of luck.

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

The minimum salary in the NFL is still many times the average salary in the US.
If someone plays in the NFL enough years for these serious issues to occur, they should have generated enough income in those years playing football to take care of themselves.
Why are our elected officials concentrating on issues that affect maybe 1,000 people out of the 300,000,000 citizens in this country?
Don't they have anything better to do?

One year is enough.
Hell, one day is enough.

And the players this primarily affects aren't the rookies coming in making millions.
It is the players form the 60s and 70s who didn't even come close to making what they are today, yet suffered long term injuries that effectively make them unable to work now. The average salary in 1970 was $23,000, which was pretty much what the average salary nationwide was. http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/22/mvp-nfl-bargain-biz-cx_tvr_1222nflmvp.html

How would you like to go to work every day, making about what you are now, knowing that any day you could suffer yet another concussion that will likely have long term effects?
Or knowing that the accumulation of punishment your knees are going to take over the course of your career will cripple you in retirement?
And do all this knowing that you will get relatively little disability when you retire - no where near enough to simply cover your medical bills that are 100% related to your career.

I wouldn't want to do that.
And I don't think the NFL players should either.
I would rather see them take a significant percentage of those ridiculously inflating player salaries, match it with owners profits, and put it into a general fund for all retired players.

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"VikingMike" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

Thanks for the read my friend......

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I think that the NFL should take care of its own a bit better, however, at somepoint I need to raise the kaka del rio flag.

Didn't these players, at some point, sign some sort of settlement/retirement agreement that IS being honored/or has been honored?

Who's fault is it that that agreement didn't take into account the long term affects of playing a game or the growth (in bucks) that the NFL would eventually become?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/sports/football/01araton.html

You may have believed it would be a snowy day at the Super Bowl when a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame would stand up at a news conference to talk about what he calls the N.F.L.’s “dark secret,” as the Vikings great Carl Eller did here Thursday.

After six years in the trenches left him with a broken body, Pear needed his pension early and was later denied a disability claim. The $606 pension check he receives monthly barely covers half the cost of the 38 pills he consumes daily.

I'll be second.

I don't like the government sticking its nose into sports (even Spector going after Belicheat). What's next...are they going to institute a minimum wage of $8.25 per hour? Or is OSHA going to install guidelines for safety regulations and change the game to flag football? It's a very bad omen when senators and congressmen start nosing around the game.

I don't like the government getting involved. The NFL should start building it's own stadiums and live with the same anti-trust laws every other business sector does.

As far as the players making enough to take care of themselves, that may be true of todays players but retirement benefits are going to guys who played in th 50's 60' and 70's. Salaries were no where near what they are now. Most of the players did not realize that they would suffer life long disabilities because they played the game. The NFL should just step up and give some of the billions it profits every year to the players that made the NFL great in the first place. Some of the stories I've read about this are about players who are totally disabled because they played in the NFL but because they didn't apply for benefits soon enough they are just out of luck.

I hear ya my friend, and agree to a point, however, like any agreement, the players (back in the day) had the chance to get this right and didn't.
In fact thier settlement/retirement takes into accounts some of the very issues you discuss.

I heard Robert Smith speak on this issue sometime last year.
I will snoop around and see if I can find it, however, he says that most of the older players, back in the day, who are the ones who complain the most now, actually accepted cash settlements to support thier fast life styles and just moved on.

Now because of poor planning on thier part, they are coming with hats in hand asking for more.

Again, big picture stuff, I believe the NFL should take care of thier own and feel that maybe these older players should get some sort of relief, but can't that be handled between the players union instead of getting the govt involved?

Not sure how accurate the numbers are, but this is a pretty good article that I think gives us a good view from the older players perspective.

http://www.mensjournal.com/feature/M...softheNFL.html

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"VikingMike" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

Thanks for the read my friend......

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I think that the NFL should take care of its own a bit better, however, at somepoint I need to raise the bullshit flag.

Didn't these players, at some point, sign some sort of settlement/retirement agreement that IS being honored/or has been honored?

Who's fault is it that that agreement didn't take into account the long term affects of playing a game or the growth (in bucks) that the NFL would eventually become?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/sports/football/01araton.html

You may have believed it would be a snowy day at the Super Bowl when a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame would stand up at a news conference to talk about what he calls the N.F.L.’s “dark secret,” as the Vikings great Carl Eller did here Thursday.

After six years in the trenches left him with a broken body, Pear needed his pension early and was later denied a disability claim. The $606 pension check he receives monthly barely covers half the cost of the 38 pills he consumes daily.

I'll be second.

I don't like the government sticking its nose into sports (even Spector going after Belicheat). What's next...are they going to institute a minimum wage of $8.25 per hour? Or is OSHA going to install guidelines for safety regulations and change the game to flag football? It's a very bad omen when senators and congressmen start nosing around the game.

I don't like the government getting involved. The NFL should start building it's own stadiums and live with the same anti-trust laws every other business sector does.
As far as the players making enough to take care of themselves, that may be true of todays players but retirement benefits are going to guys who played in th 50's 60' and 70's. Salaries were no where near what they are now. Most of the players did not realize that they would suffer life long disabilities because they played the game. The NFL should just step up and give some of the billions it profits every year to the players that made the NFL great in the first place. Some of the stories I've read about this are about players who are totally disabled because they played in the NFL but because they didn't apply for benefits soon enough they are just out of luck.

Would that be the same as the NBA, MLB, PGA, NASCAR, NHL..... don't they all package and sell their TV rights the same as the NFL.
Hockey, baseball and basketball also see local governments aid in funding their venues when they see the benefits to the local economies and when they don't and teams see sweeter deals they move.
It's not like people in Wyoming are funding venues in Colorado.

"Marrdro" wrote:

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"VikingMike" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

Thanks for the read my friend......

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I think that the NFL should take care of its own a bit better, however, at somepoint I need to raise the kaka del rio flag.

Didn't these players, at some point, sign some sort of settlement/retirement agreement that IS being honored/or has been honored?

Who's fault is it that that agreement didn't take into account the long term affects of playing a game or the growth (in bucks) that the NFL would eventually become?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/sports/football/01araton.html

You may have believed it would be a snowy day at the Super Bowl when a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame would stand up at a news conference to talk about what he calls the N.F.L.’s “dark secret,” as the Vikings great Carl Eller did here Thursday.

After six years in the trenches left him with a broken body, Pear needed his pension early and was later denied a disability claim. The $606 pension check he receives monthly barely covers half the cost of the 38 pills he consumes daily.

I'll be second.

I don't like the government sticking its nose into sports (even Spector going after Belicheat). What's next...are they going to institute a minimum wage of $8.25 per hour? Or is OSHA going to install guidelines for safety regulations and change the game to flag football? It's a very bad omen when senators and congressmen start nosing around the game.

I don't like the government getting involved. The NFL should start building it's own stadiums and live with the same anti-trust laws every other business sector does.

As far as the players making enough to take care of themselves, that may be true of todays players but retirement benefits are going to guys who played in th 50's 60' and 70's. Salaries were no where near what they are now. Most of the players did not realize that they would suffer life long disabilities because they played the game. The NFL should just step up and give some of the billions it profits every year to the players that made the NFL great in the first place. Some of the stories I've read about this are about players who are totally disabled because they played in the NFL but because they didn't apply for benefits soon enough they are just out of luck.

I hear ya my friend, and agree to a point, however, like any agreement, the players (back in the day) had the chance to get this right and didn't.
In fact thier settlement/retirement takes into accounts some of the very issues you discuss.

I heard Robert Smith speak on this issue sometime last year.
I will snoop around and see if I can find it, however, he says that most of the older players, back in the day, who are the ones who complain the most now, actually accepted cash settlements to support thier fast life styles and just moved on.

Now because of poor planning on thier part, they are coming with hats in hand asking for more.

Again, big picture stuff, I believe the NFL should take care of thier own and feel that maybe these older players should get some sort of relief, but can't that be handled between the players union instead of getting the govt involved?

Not sure how accurate the numbers are, but this is a pretty good article that I think gives us a good view from the older players perspective.

http://www.mensjournal.com/feature/M...softheNFL.html

The government is very much involved with the NFL, governments have built dozens of football stadiums designed specifically for the NFL, and special laws were enacted to allow the NFL to operate the way it does(as a monopoly). I think the government has a direct hand in this because they are the ones that will ultimately pick up the tab for the uninsured former players when they need constant care in retirement. Obviously this is not the top issue facing congress but I don't think one congress person making a statement to the NFL in any way takes away from the other issues it just gives this issue more of a voice and puts pressure on the NFL and players union to get something done. If the NFL doesn't want more of a black eye from this they will do something sooner rather than later.
To me this is a much more appropriate government interference that say, steroids in baseball, barry bonds, spygate, nba betting scandal, stadiums. All of those have had much more governent involvment than this.

In my efforts to find some stuff from Robert, I found this one.
Very enlightening if you ask me.....

[size=20pt]The truth is complicated[/size]

Fact: On average, every player you saw on an NFL football field last year gave $82,000 out of his own pocket to retired players.

Fact: With every collective bargaining agreement since 1993, current players have gone back and improved benefits for retired players -- an improvement of about $800 million in 15 years.

Fact: More than $5.5 million is being spent monthly on current retired players, disabled players, widows and surviving children to compensate for all the errors made during Ditka's playing days, when the union was busy negotiating who should pay for a player's socks.

Fact: Upshaw worked as boss for free for years (plural) to improve a union that had a negative bank-account balance as recently as 1990.

Fact: Hungry for fast cash in an arrested-development world, almost 80 percent of former NFL players once elected to take benefits at 45 years old, with great financial penalty for doing so that early. The union changed the ability to do that in 1993 to protect players from themselves.

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/co...ry/502732.html