The Swamp

Searched to see if their was a thread about this already, couldn't find one.

I don't understand how athletes and former athletes of professional sports leagues can get away with suing their respective league for damages caused during their career. There is a reason they get paid hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year to play whatever sport they are in. You will get hurt. No two ways about it, sooner or later you will get an injury, maybe a concussion. What did they expect was going to happen? No one will touch you if you play professional hockey, football, or wrestle? They are all contact sports!

Anyone in any job can suffer a concussion. Let's say you work for the postal service and a box drops on your head and gives you a concussion. Then, you deserve compensation. If you hit someone hard into the boards while playing professional hockey and then fall and hit your head on the ice? no compensation. The difference is, one guy gets paid $30,000 a year to do a job that should never involve blows to the head, and the other guy gets paid $400,000+ to pretty much hit someone or take a hit to whatever body part is available. They don't even compare. A workplace injury in the NFL, NHL or, WCW should be expected.

I can understand some of the people that filed lawsuits though. They played before anyone really knew what kind of brain damage getting knocked around all day, every day, caused. And got paid peanuts compared to the athletes of today.

Anyway, I haven't really thought this completely through, just thought it'd make a good topic.

I really just don't understand what happened with or is happening with all the lawsuits involving concussions. I just need someone to explain it to me in simple terms. The NFL one was settled right? but the NHL one is still kicking around? Is it mostly athletes who's careers ended early? or are there players with long careers involved too? It all just seems like a money grab to me.

Even if one was settled I can't imagine hat prohibits future ones from being filed. I guess the cbA could do so but if it does it's stupid.

One of the fundamental premises of your post, which I do not agree with, is that pro athletes are paid as much as they are because of the risk of injury. Isn't it just as likely, if not moreso, that they are paid so much because they generate massive amounts of revenue for their team owners? Take Troy Aikman, for instance, whose career was ended due to concussions. Whatever Jerry Jones paid him in salary paled in comparison to the amount of money Aikman put in Jones's pocket via Super Bowl wins, ticket sales, TV revenue, memorabilia sales, etc. As another example, LeBron didn't just get a 3 year/$100M contract due to the danger of what he does. (In fact, he hasn't suffered any major injuries in his career.) He got that contract because by returning to Cleveland in 2014, he singlehandedly increased the value of Dan Gilbert's franchise by hundreds of millions of dollars.

TheHumanComa wrote:Anyone in any job can suffer a concussion. Let's say you work for the postal service and a box drops on your head and gives you a concussion. Then, you deserve compensation. If you hit someone hard into the boards while playing professional hockey and then fall and hit your head on the ice? no compensation. The difference is, one guy gets paid $30,000 a year to do a job that should never involve blows to the head, and the other guy gets paid $400,000+ to pretty much hit someone or take a hit to whatever body part is available. They don't even compare. A workplace injury in the NFL, NHL or, WCW should be expected.

Yeah, but if the NFL, NHL and WWE all knew that players participating in their respective sports can cause permanent, life-altering injuries but downplayed the damage caused by said respective sports, doesn't that change things quite a bit? A lot of these suits are pursuing that angle.

This retroactive "everyone knew concussions could be life altering versus short term issues and that's what was knowingly signed up for" is the most bullshit, NFL-fed propaganda line imaginable. Even like 15 years ago, the general public believed at worst certain select people (Aikman, Young, the Lindros brothers) were simply more prone to suffering them. And that was a personal weakness of theirs. The idea people knew how deadly football was in 1990 is water-carrying idiocy, intentional or not.

I like what joe k said but must note that lebron James is a cyber human sent here to destroy the world.

Joe K wrote:One of the fundamental premises of your post, which I do not agree with, is that pro athletes are paid as much as they are because of the risk of injury. Isn't it just as likely, if not moreso, that they are paid so much because they generate massive amounts of revenue for their team owners? Take Troy Aikman, for instance, whose career was ended due to concussions. Whatever Jerry Jones paid him in salary paled in comparison to the amount of money Aikman put in Jones's pocket via Super Bowl wins, ticket sales, TV revenue, memorabilia sales, etc. As another example, LeBron didn't just get a 3 year/$100M contract due to the danger of what he does. (In fact, he hasn't suffered any major injuries in his career.) He got that contract because by returning to Cleveland in 2014, he singlehandedly increased the value of Dan Gilbert's franchise by hundreds of millions of dollars.

I wasn't trying to make a point. I just wanted to know what others thought and put forth my initial thoughts. Yes, they are paid because of the revenue they bring in. I think if anything, I was trying to say they have millions of dollars already, suing for more seems like an easy pay day. "i only got to play 11 years of professional sports before i suffered a career ending injury" is not a good enough argument for me.You got paid millions of dollars over that time, get a fucking real job, your luck ran out. minimum salary for one year in the NHL = 525,000 right now. NFL = 435,000. A normal person doesn't make that in ten years. you play one year professionally and get injured? milk your money get a job and stop thinking you deserve more than everyone else.

What percentage of NFL players go 11+ years?

mister d wrote:What percentage of NFL players go 11+ years?

I believe the median NFL career length is between 3 and 4 years. If you are a minimum salaried player whose career lasts that long, your lifetime NFL earnings will be less than $1.5 million. Maybe $750K after taxes. Sure, if you manage to limit your expenses and invest wisely, that amount of money can go a long way. But if someone offered me, at age 23, a lump sum offer of $750K in exchange for lifelong concussion-related medical issues, there is no chance I would take that deal.

And even for the players who make a lot more money than that, there's still a basic fairness issue. Just because you are a highly paid employee, it doesn't mean your employer should be allowed to engage in fraud or deception. (Nor does it mean that you shouldn't be allowed to pursue money damages.) As others have pointed out here, the legal claims are essentially based on a fraud theory -- i.e., that the leagues knew of the health risks but concealed them from the players and/or promoted junk science. If the owners were just as much in the dark as the players, any legal claims would be much, much weaker.

I haven't looked into the specifics, but I think the suits were about the NFL covering up or lying about studies showing the severity of concussion related problems. While yes, players assume the risk of injury, the NFL is liable if they lied or withheld information about concussions, or acted in a way that put the players in greater danger. Usually a "gross negligence" standard if I remember my Torts class correctly after... holy fuck, where did 17 years go????

I'm pretty surprised that workers' comp laws don't preclude these lawsuits. I'm pretty sure they would in Utah.

But I do agree that the mere fact that some players make tons of $$$ is not really relevant when it comes to concussion lawsuits.

And even for the ones who did cash in ... how many people here are accepting a seven or eight figure check today in exchange for potentially debilitating and/or life-shortening ailments?

Wouldn't the NFL have to admit that concussions are caused by football to have Worker's comp cover it?

nm

A_B wrote:Wouldn't the NFL have to admit that concussions are caused by football to have Worker's comp cover it?

Not necessarily - the team would say that *if* the concussion was caused by football, then it is a work-related injury covered by comp. And if it is not caused by football, then we aren't liable.

It may have to do with suing a team versus suing the league, or with a claim for fraud versus a claim for personal injury.

The Concussion Diaries: One High School Football Player’s Secret Struggle with CTE

a rough read

Wow. You were reading the Jamboroo, too?

A_B wrote:Wow. You were reading the Jamboroo, too?

Before you, I guess.

Did the Florida Panthers play Aaron Ekblad while he was still recovering from a concussion?

Probably.

11 Brains Tested - 110 Had C.T.E.

Horrifying.

I'll say

scary story out of New Brunswick

High school football game ends after 9 players suffer head injuries
Coach of École L'Odyssée’s Olympiens says team was forced to forfeit due to safety concerns

He said all players were taken to a hospital as a precaution. Four players showed serious symptoms of concussion, such as nausea and vomiting.
Scott O'Neal, the coach of the Titans, said his team was playing football within the rules, and was not penalized for any wrongdoing.
He said if any players were injured, it was because their coaches failed to prepare them.
"They were outmatched, that's as simple as it was," he said. "That's how football is."

Football isn't anywhere as big in Canada as it is in the US so I see this as the end of the line. Parents aren't going to read articles like this one and rush out to register their kids to play the game.

MaxWebster wrote:Ken Dryden has a new book out.

the NHL legend says the time for talk is over. We need a non-negotiable rule on every rink, every game, he argues: No hits to the head, no excuses

Makes sense.

Hell yes. And you live with all the “not his fault” penalties until avoiding anything close is a learned process.

Marek would argue that many concussions come from body hits, not head shots. He's been out on that branch, nearly alone for a while.

I don’t think he’s wrong (and don’t know that direct hits like that shouldn’t also be looked at), but that strikes me as “you shouldn’t solve some of it unless you can solve all of it” logic.

Maybe we are gonna have to accept that any contact sports of any sort are gonna involve concussion risk. Either that or stop playing sports altogether?

DC United's Steve Birnbaum had 3rd of the year. Seems like DC just has lots of problems with this. More than other teams?

wlu_lax6 wrote:DC United's Steve Birnbaum had 3rd of the year. Seems like DC just has lots of problems with this. More than other teams?

Or maybe they are taking more care in diagnosing.

Was going to say the same, odds are variances are in diagnosis and not events.



(And an ethics question: Lets say an NFL/NHL team somehow came up with a way to mitigate like 50% of concussions. Is there an obligation to share w/ the rest of the league and the general public?)

duff wrote:

wlu_lax6 wrote:DC United's Steve Birnbaum had 3rd of the year. Seems like DC just has lots of problems with this. More than other teams?

Or maybe they are taking more care in diagnosing.

Well DC has a history of lawsuits related to concussions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soc ... dc099ec264

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soc ... dismissed/

tennbengal wrote:Maybe we are gonna have to accept that any contact sports of any sort are gonna involve concussion risk. Either that or stop playing sports altogether?

That's kind of Marek's argument. He doesn't present his argument as "shouldn't prevent some if you can't prevent all", but more that there are a lot of things to consider with the concussion issue.

But doesn't that kind of frame it, intentionally or not, as a binary choice of either stop contact or accept concussions?

mister d wrote:But doesn't that kind of frame it, intentionally or not, as a binary choice of either stop contact or accept concussions?

I kinda see it that way.

mister d wrote:(And an ethics question: Lets say an NFL/NHL team somehow came up with a way to mitigate like 50% of concussions. Is there an obligation to share w/ the rest of the league and the general public?)

I'd think ethically the answer is obviously yes. Is there a counter argument you're thinking of?

I guess the counter argument is obvious too, but I'm curious where people fall on ethics vs proprietary advantages. I assume I know how the vote would go here, but I wonder how sports fans in general would react if they found out some ethically bankrupt team, lets say the Pittsburgh Penguins, have been sitting on data or technology for the last two seasons that could have prevented dozens of concussions.

tennbengal wrote:

mister d wrote:But doesn't that kind of frame it, intentionally or not, as a binary choice of either stop contact or accept concussions?

I kinda see it that way.

Maybe for soccer, but it doesn't have to be binary in hockey, because penalizing all head shots would certainly be a great step forward to reduce the number of concussions without affecting the quality of play.

And its weird because the league will take absolute stances on technical accidents (high sticking, puck over the glass) but doesn't seem willing to touch this one.