M
mayo44
Guest
Did you sustain injuries in the line of work for your former employers?
That's not what you've been talking about. You've been talking about the NFL covering ALL healthcare expenses for players.
Did you sustain injuries in the line of work for your former employers?
Roger Goodell is that you? -It's probably worth checking out some differing opinions on the average NFL career stat. Given the fact that the Packers' recent success has been bolstered by late round and undrafted players, I hate to see their importance discounted... Either way, the injuries these players sustain in camp or on the practice squad are real and likely pose future healthcare costs for which the NFL offers little help. If a player doesn't have the resources to pay for healthcare, those costs will eventually be covered by taxpayers.
I think you get at some of the practical difficulties with the issue here (Jack mentioned them above as well). I'm not sure how I would work everything out, but I think the NCAA and the NFL should have to bear the majority of healthcare costs arising from football, because (1) they're largely responsible for spurring interest in the game, (2) they incentivize participation in the sport (through scholarships and salary), and (3) they profit from organized play.
As I said before: this reflects a very popular sentiment but glosses over the reality that most players don't earn $25 million.
How fortunate you are to have gained the knowledge and experience necessary to manage such an enormous sum of money if it were to ever fall in your lap.
That's not what you've been talking about. You've been talking about the NFL covering ALL healthcare expenses for players.
Aside from being a pro NFLPA piece, the article you referenced more or less made my point. Because of the high volume of turnover on the lower end of the roster, the "average career" stat is driven down severely. There's a lot more guys who play a year or less than there are guys who play for 6 or more, which greatly skews the average.
NFLPA is not concerned with ex-players. They are there to represent their current membership.This is something that should have been negotiated during the lock out.
NFLPA is not concerned with ex-players. They are there to represent their current membership.
Well it is a union. And as far as I know, not to many unions really give a hoot about you once you stop paying dues.So future retirees should look to the PA and themselves to blame if they have future complaints
Well it is a union. And as far as I know, not to many unions really give a hoot about you once you stop paying dues.
Whoever disagreed what part did u disagree with? Yes our Gov't is in so much debt when a baby is born he/she is automatically $50,000 in debt & I'm sure that number has climbedExactly, as our Gov't already is in debt like never seen before, in our times.
By my count 13 Times Champs disagreed with 4 posts on this thread and all them have something to do with the UnAffordable Care Act (I think that's its proper name ) or the massive debt of the Federal Government. No doubt 13 Times Champs disagrees with this post too, but if he is so adamant in doing so, why not post his actual disagreement?Whoever disagreed what part did u disagree with? Yes our Gov't is in so much debt when a baby is born he/she is automatically $50,000 in debt & I'm sure that number has climbed
As opposed to labeling the average career length stat misleading, which is decidedly pro-NFL... Look, I'm not disputing your observation that many players have very brief NFL careers. I included the Business Insider article link for its observation that these players toiling and sweating on the practice squad, often for just a brief time, are an integral part of the NFL product. While such players are treated for their injuries until cut, I don't believe they qualify for continuing healthcare coverage through the league until they reach four years experience. This leaves many chronic and latent injuries uncovered amongst those that tend to have short careers and earn relatively little.
If these players can't somehow pay for healthcare on their own (which happens frequently), that cost eventually falls on the public at large through the social safety net. It would be nice to see the NFL and the NFLPA get together on a CBA that offers broader coverage for all pro football-related injuries rather than dumping so many of these costs on the general public.
Well it is a union. And as far as I know, not to many unions really give a hoot about you once you stop paying dues.
Maybe I wasn't clear...
Yes it's a union. This is an issue that isn't going away. If in the future players complain that they aren't covered they should blame themselves for not making it an issue when they had the chance to handle it
70% of professional athletes squander their money. During their in season pretty much all their needs are taken care of by the owner. Their ticket/airfare food lodging medical. They have blow money which is exactly what they do w/it.Interestingly, right now on ESPN is a show about this very topic of pro athletes squandering their money.
Thanks for the explanation. I think I better understand your point now. How long would you propose the NFL offer health care for the players at the lower end who really only play one or two years?
I would like to see the NCAA and the NFL (two government-sanctioned monopolies)...
The NFL isn't a monopoly. It is 32 individual businesses regulated by a sanctioning body which imposes regulations and anti-collusion measures much like anti-trust laws. Even if you want to say that they are not individual businesses, the NFL still isn't a monopoly. There's also the AFL and UFL. The NFL does nothing to prevent viewers from watching these those leagues, nor does it do anything to prevent players from playing in those leagues. It's not the NFL's fault these upstart leagues can't compete.
Yep, that's what happens when you don't pay for two wars and bail out wealthy financial firms for their gambling addictions.Whoever disagreed what part did u disagree with? Yes our Gov't is in so much debt when a baby is born he/she is automatically $50,000 in debt & I'm sure that number has climbed
I agree: How we can ask our brave men and women in uniform to sacrifice their lives while the rest of us sacrifice nothing is sad. And why there hasn't been a huge outcry to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act (more correctly known as the Banking Act of 1933) which separated commercial banking from investment banking after the Great Depression is beyond me. But those are not the major drivers of our fiscal mess. From the Wall Street Journal article I linked on the previous page of this thread: "The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure."Yep, that's what happens when you don't pay for two wars and bail out wealthy financial firms for their gambling addictions.
Federal precedent has approached the NFL as a single entity in the past. Even if we treat the NFL as 32 individual businesses "regulated" by "a sanctioning body," this represents a pretty obvious Sherman Act violation as an agreement by separate businesses in restraint of trade (e.g., salary caps). The NFL may not be a monopoly in your mind or, as I think of it, the NFL may be a necessary monopoly in order to establish competitive balance; but I'm not sure where arguing over fairly settled law gets us...