MoLewisrocks

In theory I agree. In practice I realize it's a crippling concept because when players and others parrot it they mean free care for life. Players and the association* that represents them (not to mention agents) never wants to contribute remotely enough to fund that level of benefit for past, present or future NFL retirees at the expense of current earnings.

The league proposed extending lifetime NFL plan eligibility to players including setting up player benefit accounts to help fund post career health insurance as part of their initial offers back in March. The offer De termed the worst in the history of sports as I recall. They also proposed assisting in funding extended care policies for retired players. Because few people grasp that health plans don't cover dementia care let alone upscale care in an assisted living facility or memory impaired unit. That offer formed the financial basis of the one still on the table, $141M cap including benefits. Only the players balked at $27M of the figure being devoted to benefits. As usual they wanted cash up front. And no responsibility for funding post career care because apparently they believe an employer should bear the brunt of that.

I think this is the crux of the issue that is holding up the CBA, rhetoric about rookie deals aside. The league proposed half of the savings from capping rookie deals go to retiree benefits funding while the other half went to maintaining or enhancing veteran salaries. The NFLPA countered that half had to remain earmarked for eventual return to those rookies. The NFLPA and it's members remain committed to maximizing up front cash for their current constituents while paying lip service to the concept of lifetime health care and benefits for all who played the game as something that should be provided in exess of maximized career earnings. Owners are increasingly tiring of being painted as somehow callous for not providing better benefits to players who historically have chosen to pass on them while simultaneously pointing the finger back at ownership when the need inevitably arises because so many players also historically chose to live beyond even their comparatively substantial means or made poor post career investment choices.

Lomas Brown: NFL should provide health care for life | ProFootballTalk

So as fans, who do you think is responsible for a players health and welfare post career? Are the players responsible because they've historically chosen to maximize cash earnings, or should the league be required to care for past, present and future retirees in addition to any contractual obligations they met at the time, or should that responsibility be shared or optional, and if so should that not be calculated as part of the overall division of revenue?

spacecrime

The players are starting to annoy me.

If not for the NFL, few would have decent jobs. Are they grateful? What is James harrison qualified to do besides hit people? Not MMA. Not him. Harrison specializes in hitting defenseless people half his size who aren't looking ... oops, getting off track here.

My point is that these guys are making millions. Guys like Mayo were surprised at how much health insurance costs and how much it hurt. WTF? The tenth pick in the draft is complaining about the cost of health insurance?

I'm not surprised at how much health insurance costs, and neither are most people. Some us us work at jobs we hate because the job provides health insurance. And we don't call our boss a dictator and a puppet because we'd be fired. (Excuse me, James, how can someone be a dictator and a puppet at the same time?)

BAck on track, we lose our $40,000 a year job and health insurance becomes a huge issue. They, who could afford so much easier that any of us, cry about this and that, and worse, they deep down believe they are entitled.

Spoiled brats.

__________________
“When we look at the board, based on everything we want in a football player at that particular time, we evaluate them and take the player that fits best for our football team. That’s what we always do, and I think the last nine years we’ve put a pretty competitive team out there on the field every year. I think that’s how you do it – you get good football players. Sometimes they are not always at the No. 1 position, but I don’t think you pass up good football players to get the guys who aren’t as good just because they’re at a position that somebody feels you need.”
BB on his draft philosophy, April 2010

TheGodInAGreyHoodie

I think it is a good idea.

Percentage of the pot issues aside (how much the players get vs. the owners)

I think any program that gives players less money now and does more to provide them with benefits later is a good idea for several reasons.

1. Many of the players are going to wind up broke. I would much rather the NFL pay for their later life health care, than my tax dollars.

2. Many young NFL players have TOO much money.

3. Helps the little guy at the expense of super stars. If being a UDFA who is just a camp body gets you insurance for life but results in less money being available for the Brady and Mannings of the league I see that as a good thing.

__________________
Citing the Bible as proof of God is like citing comic books to prove the existence of Superman.

MoLewisrocks

I tried to make the pole fairly clear. I guess I failed since your vote doesn't match your post...

ctpatsfan77

Frankly, I think there should be some cost sharing (e.g., players' healthcare expenditures should be limited to, say, 20% of their pension), but that the NFL and NFLPA should, in some manner, be jointly responsible for most of the costs.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie

I hit the wrong button. You poll was okay.

__________________
Citing the Bible as proof of God is like citing comic books to prove the existence of Superman.

part-timer

The contractual obligation of both the NFLPA and the owners was set in the agreement and signing of each CBA. To expect that any shortsidedness of any party in the agreement can expect future compensation to make up for that is out of the question. If a party with no foresight looks to put his total compensation in current pay and ignore the need for future benifits, that is to be blamed on no one other than the party and his current greed for imediate compensation. NO ONE reading about this after working for their whole life will even think to aproach their previous employer in retirement for better retirement benifits than they had agreed to during their working career.

The attitude of entitlement shown by players in their short NFL careers that expect to be compensated for LIFE is realy out of touch with reality. You loose one job you go get another, just like everyone else. You want medical benifits for life you give up current compensation to pay for it.

Every job has its hazzards, and many are much worst than the NFL and are paid insignificant amounts when compared to the NFL, So I for one have no compassion for the players that were well compensated for their service asking for more than they agreed to, haveing squandered their huge windfalls of their paydays.

Frezo

50/50 split down the middle, until the player has had insurance from another source for, say, two years. They would then be dropped. This would take care of players that were too injured to get a good job elsewhere while ensuring that loafers aren't just clamped onto the NFL teat. There should probably be an exception for players that were so injured they have trouble getting out of the house or forming a sentence. They should get full coverage if they qualify for disability.

Deus Irae

Whatever the CBA comes up with

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

lamafist

A couple problems with your argument: First of all, when talking about retired players, all but the most recent played in an era before the "huge windfalls" of the contemporary NFL. What's more, those playing before 1993 were subject to restrictions regarding where they could shop their talents that the courts have deemed to constitute wage fixing and illegal restraint of trade. While the NFL may have avoided direct legal liability for diminished wages by settling White vs. the NFL, that doesn't change the fact that the contractual obligations you refer were in part products of the league's antitrust violations.

Secondly, from miners with black lung to the 9/11 first responders, there have been many, many cases in this country in which a class of employees have been awarded retroactive compensation for the harmful effects of unsafe working conditions. Even before OSHA made it explicit, the disposition of our judiciary has long held that American workers have a basic, non-waivable right to safety in the workplace and that the onus is on the employer to anticipate all potential dangers, and provide compensation for even the unpredictable. Proof of not acted-upon foreknowledge of potential harm is only necessary for determining punitive damages.

Not that the league really has a solid defense in any case. There's been sufficient evidence suggesting lasting permanent and degenerative damage from a career in professional football for multiple decades, and until recently, the NFL's sole strategy has been to deny, suppress, and even solicit bogus contradicting science-for-hire studies. So while one can argue whether a retired player deserves health coverage for a tonsillectomy or for his family, there's no way around the fact that the NFL needs to own its responsibility for the degenerative orthopedic and neurological damage endured by its former players.

Now, as for who should shoulder the financial burden for the health care the NFL clearly owes its retired players, that's more complicated. I can't think of a logical argument for why today's crop of player's should be considered to own a priori any of this debt incurred by the NFL before they had any connection to the league, but nothing says that the owners can't make 'buying into' this old obligation part of signing on to the new CBA. So, in terms of 'cosmic justice,' I would say that the financial burden for the health care of retired players naturally falls on the owners of the franchises that insufficiently - if innocently - underestimated the dangerous effect of the sport. But then, once we start talking in terms of abstract ethical questions, I believe that the current players, as indviduals who, by circumstance, have both the means to help the retired players and a heightened ability to empathize with them, have a direct moral imperative to do so.

So ultimately, I hope the players recognize that just because they could justify not having an intrinsic obligation to contribute to the retired players' health care doesn't mean they need to or should.