Is the end of the NFL near - antitrust exemption threat by congresswoman - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***FreeTedWilliams*** · 10-28-2009, 04:35 PM

Maxine Waters is quite possible the dumbest person every elected to any office. I give you one (of many) infamous quotes:

“I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion.”

--US Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif) at Pro-Abortion Rally Sunday, April 25

Metaphors · 10-28-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

Someone should tell that dingbat that the NFL may be an 8 BILLION dollar industry, but the players take home over 5 billion of that. So, not only do the owners have to pay the players salary and healthcare while with the team, but they've got to pay it AFTERWARDS??? That's horse*****.

While I agree with you in general, the context of the discussion was around neurological problems. If an industry has a predisposition to a specific medical condition, I think it is incumbent upon the industry to work to prevent the condition (to the best of their ability) and to mitigate the effects for former employees.

When I say "the industry", I'm referring to both the NFLPA and the owners. They both bear responsibility for prevention (equipment and rules) and assistance.

***BradyFTW!*** · 10-28-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fgssand

Doesn't she have anything better to do in Washington??

I do not mean to take players injuries lightly, but with all the troubles in her own state, the USA and the world - this is her cause??

Yeesh, I so hate ploiticians, especially those from Ca.....the only good thing here is the grief she gives to Goodell.

"Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Ca.) today called on Congress to end the National Football League's antitrust exemption as a result of what she said was willful ignorance by the League of the debilitating effects the game has had on players who suffered multiple, repeated concussions during their years playing professional football"

Goodell began, "We have identified that this a priority of the owners is to take better care of the retired players." He then cited a study that the NFL had commissioned to find out which priorities the players need addressed. Some of them are medical, some of them are financial..."
Waters interrupted him. "We have heard from the NFL time and time again. You're always studying. You're always trying. You're hopeful," she said. "But I want to know now-- what are you doing in the negotiations that are going on now to deal with this problem and other problems related to the injuries of football players and the impact on their health?"
"Well again, we're in the very early stages of negotiations but I believe we will be addressing these matters in a responsible fashion," he said. "In the meantime..."
Waters cut him off again. "I think it's time for Congress of the US to take a look at your antitrust exemption,' she said. "You're an $8 billion organization who has not taken seriously your responsibilities to the players."

Rep. Maxine Waters: Yank the NFL's Anti-Trust Exemption -- Politics Daily

No, Californian politicians don't have anything better to do. They all suck.

BTW, guess how many people here in LA actually want that football stadium that we're funding? Nobody does- stadiums never make back the money like the city claims they will. It's a cash sink that we don't need, don't want, and can't afford (the state+local sales tax in Los Angeles is 9.75%, and keeps getting raised because of the dire budgetary situation, but go figure, we can afford another new stadium...). The elected 'representatives' here are a ******* disgrace, and I say that as a democrat. I'm actually interviewing for jobs at a couple of places in Boston later this week because I'm so fed up with it that I'm ready to move back if a good enough offer is on the table.

betterthanthealternative · 10-28-2009, 04:52 PM

She doesn't care about the anti trust exemption. Someone on her staff told her that NFL head injuries was a good issue to run up the flag pole, that it would be consistent with an image she's trying to build as a friend of labor or of the working person (or something similar). When she asked how to get the NFL to pay attention, someone else on her staff told her to raise the anti-trust exemption. It's just a negotiating gambit.

***jmt57*** · 10-28-2009, 04:54 PM

Politicians such as Waters are posturing for face-time in front of a camera. The NFL's antitrust exemption is very narrow and specific. It applies only to television - nothing else. It allows the NFL teams to pool their broadcasting rights and lets the league work out the contracts with the networks, and it allows for blackouts when games are not sold out.

That's it. The antitrust exemption has nothing to do with the draft, free agency, allowing more franchises to enter the league, the salary cap, the collective bargaining agreement, or anything else.

Now granted if it was removed owners like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder would leap at a chance to negotiate their own television contract, which could foul up the competitive balance in the league, but I wonder if Rep. Waters bothered to even look at what the NFL's antitrust exemption entails before she threatened to take it away.

WelshPat · 10-28-2009, 05:14 PM

The problem i have with this, is that the players willingly play a sport and they know theres a VERY high chance they will get hurt.

It's great that they wanna look after retired sportsmen that are hurt, and even better if that guy didn't make much money. But sooner or later, a guy who gets hurt and allready has the money too live a good life after the game ends up taking that money.

But what happens if random joe slips and breaks his leg playing amature football? He's playing the same game. But he won't get the same benefits.

Help the hurt players, god yes. But they know the risks when it comes too playing.

DESERTPAT · 10-28-2009, 05:44 PM

Don't let Florio get to you. Maxine Waters is California kook. I would think Bob Kraft and more than a few other owners have the ear(s) of more influential politicos.

Metaphors · 10-28-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshPat

But what happens if random joe slips and breaks his leg playing amature football? He's playing the same game. But he won't get the same benefits.

Help the hurt players, god yes. But they know the risks when it comes too playing.

If the only damage was broken bones and torn ligaments, this wouldn't be an issue. Even chronic conditions like arthritis could reasonably be considered a consequence of playing the game.

However, neurological consequences like depression and dementia are a different story. It is only recently that these conditions and their causes have been better understood. Past players wouldn't have had any reason to anticipate this byproduct of playing football (some still are skeptical of the linkage). Just like cancer from asbestos or PTSD in the military, these people deserve care from the industry or through the courts...preferably the former since the latter enriches lawyers more than the injured.

***BradyFTW!*** · 10-28-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshPat

The problem i have with this, is that the players willingly play a sport and they know theres a VERY high chance they will get hurt.

It's great that they wanna look after retired sportsmen that are hurt, and even better if that guy didn't make much money. But sooner or later, a guy who gets hurt and allready has the money too live a good life after the game ends up taking that money.

But what happens if random joe slips and breaks his leg playing amature football? He's playing the same game. But he won't get the same benefits.

Help the hurt players, god yes. But they know the risks when it comes too playing.

Practically speaking, the difference is that the NFL player is part of a union, and the guy playing recreationally isn't. Moreover, though, NFL players generate billions of dollars of revenue in people who are fans of them and show up/turn the dial to watch them play. There's enough money being made off of them that it should be pretty reasonable for them to be taken care of.

That said, this is totally a union issue: I don't see how it's the owners' problem. The union needs to get its **** together and figure out what's most important to it. It shouldn't be protecting astronomical salaries of a tiny percentage of its players who haven't even played a down yet. The union should be doing everything that it can to protect the interests of the guys who are closer to the middle of the pack and on the fringes- those are the ones whose quality of life is really hanging in the balance.

At the end of the day, though, owners know that they have the unions over the barrel in any CBA negotiation, because players in every sport manage their money horrendously. Basketball's the worst, but football players suck at it too, so Kraft, Jones, Snyder et al know that when it comes down to it they can always wait out the players and get pretty much whatever they want. It's on the union to install some discipline in the players, prepare them for a strike/lockout if it comes to it, and then make a hardline stance that creates a PR battle that the owners absolutely can't win (retired players/player safety/disability).

robertweathers · 10-28-2009, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

No, Californian politicians don't have anything better to do. They all suck.

BTW, guess how many people here in LA actually want that football stadium that we're funding? Nobody does- stadiums never make back the money like the city claims they will. It's a cash sink that we don't need, don't want, and can't afford (the state+local sales tax in Los Angeles is 9.75%, and keeps getting raised because of the dire budgetary situation, but go figure, we can afford another new stadium...). The elected 'representatives' here are a ******* disgrace, and I say that as a democrat. I'm actually interviewing for jobs at a couple of places in Boston later this week because I'm so fed up with it that I'm ready to move back if a good enough offer is on the table.

BradyFTW........The Commonweath of Massachusetts welcomes you, and your prospective income back with open arms (just so it can be spent on pork-belly, pet projects so these hacks on Bacon Hill can line their wallets with kickbacks).

Sorry, Ian...Political forum next time...