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?