NFL, former players settle concussion suit for $765 million

[PokerGuy]

Not info out on details yet, but it looks like the nfl has settled the suit with thousands of former players for $765 million.

Interesting.... the league must have been really scared of the possible results of the suit to settle for that large of an amount.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...layers-reach-settlement-in-concussion-lawsuit

 

[chimaxi83]

They should have players sign waivers from now on.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's a no brainer based on the payouts from other lawsuits, even those where the person suing was partially to blame (ie McD's coffee crotch burn).

Maybe the NFL should have ConcussionCare insurance.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a no brainer based on the payouts from other lawsuits, even those where the person suing was partially to blame (ie McD's coffee crotch burn).

Maybe the NFL should have ConcussionCare insurance.

No brainer. Har.

The final verdict from the McDonalds lawsuit was $640,000 and to forego an appeal the final settlement was less than $600,000. This was in line with previous settlements that McDonalds had made from scalding incidents.

 

[Retro Rob]

I've always found it a tad bit ironic that guys in droves, willingly play a dangerous game, knowing all the risks, completey ignore them, and then want to sue once they're victims of said risks.

 

[fskimospy]

I've always found it a tad bit ironic that guys in droves, willingly play a dangerous game, knowing all the risks, completey ignore them, and then want to sue once they're victims of said risks.

1.) You know as well as I do that they didn't know all the risks.

2.) Despite having information on the detrimental results of repeated head trauma the NFL did very little to address that in league policy until recently.

There's a reason why the NFL just settled for 3/4 of a billion dollars.

 

[Retro Rob]

1.) You know as well as I do that they didn't know all the risks.

2.) Despite having information on the detrimental results of repeated head trauma the NFL did very little to address that in league policy until recently.

There's a reason why the NFL just settled for 3/4 of a billion dollars.

There is some truth to that, and what I am about to say is probably somewhat a simplification:

Sure, they may not understand all the long-term risks, or all the medical details concerning head injuries, but it doesn't take an Enstien to know that nearly every collision is physically dangerous.

As the saying goes: "any hit can be your last".

Secondly, you hear player complaining about the "changes" to blind-side blocks, and "high hits". Didn't a Jets TE get his knee oblitherated due to a player abiding by the no high hits policy?

You CANNOT make the game "safe" -- the sheer nature of it makes that futile.

 

[fskimospy]

There is some truth to that, and what I am about to say is probably somewhat a simplification:

Sure, they may not understand all the long-term risks, or all the medical details concerning head injuries, but it doesn't take an Enstien to know that nearly every collision is physically dangerous.

As the saying goes: "any hit can be your last".

Secondly, you hear player complaining about the "changes" to blind-side blocks, and "high hits". Didn't a Jets TE get his knee oblitherated due to a player abiding by the no high hits policy?

You CANNOT make the game "safe" -- the sheer nature of it makes that futile.

The thing is that they aren't suing over the fact that someone might ever get injured ever, they are suing over the idea that the league had knowledge of the brain damage this sport can cause and did nothing to mitigate it and in fact worked to conceal it.

I agree that any rational player had to know that repeated head collisions were likely to be harmful to their neurological health. That doesn't mean that the NFL wasn't liable for bad work conditions though. (hence the settlement, I imagine)

 

[Retro Rob]

The thing is that they aren't suing over the fact that someone might ever get injured ever, they are suing over the idea that the league had knowledge of the brain damage this sport can cause and did nothing to mitigate it and in fact worked to conceal it.

I agree that any rational player had to know that repeated head collisions were likely to be harmful to their neurological health. That doesn't mean that the NFL wasn't liable for bad work conditions though. (hence the settlement, I imagine)

Then comes the 5 million dollar question: at what point has the NFL made the game as safe as possible?

I'm not siding with the NFL as I wish to hold players responsible as well. What if the NFL takes away tacking altogether to avoid lawsuits?

Then players can have a "safe" work environment. To me, I think ex players are broke and greedy and this is a money grab, partly, not totally.

I just hold the players accountable too.

 

[moonbogg]

LOL that's using your head! PROFIT!

 

[Smoblikat]

1.) You know as well as I do that they didn't know all the risks.

2.) Despite having information on the detrimental results of repeated head trauma the NFL did very little to address that in league policy until recently.

There's a reason why the NFL just settled for 3/4 of a billion dollars.

My little brother is 7, if I asked him if he thought he would get hurt if he put on a suit of armor and a helmet and smashed into his friend head on his answer would be yes.........

How exactly is it possible that these guys dont know that slamming into eachother isnt dangerous?

 

[PokerGuy]

The idea that the players didn't know that concussions would be harmful is idiotic, but I agree with eskimo that the NFL settled because they probably have a lot of information they gathered over the years that showed long term effects and problems, and they probably made sure that information never saw the light of day. That's the part they probably would have gotten nailed over.

 

[Lash444]

My little brother is 7, if I asked him if he thought he would get hurt if he put on a suit of armor and a helmet and smashed into his friend head on his answer would be yes.........

How exactly is it possible that these guys dont know that slamming into eachother isnt dangerous?

Okay. Well since its so easy, then whats the percentage of people who have long term health effects from concussions?

How many concussions does it take?

How bad does the concussion have to be?

15 years ago, if you asked everyone in the world if rugby, football, soccer, were all dangerous and wed all tell you...Sure. Any one of those sports you could get hurt in. What did we all worry about though? Broken legs, broken arms, or worse...a broken neck.

Now its looking like 1 or 2 good concussions, and you are already putting yourself into a category of people who has a higher than average chance of having severe mental issues later in life.

Since your 7 year old understands all these concepts, why don't you ask him where to draw the line on how much risk is acceptable for these sports? Cause clearly the owners who had probably some of the highest paid doctors on the planet were seeing these effects as well and sweeping them under the rug.

Would you be upset if you found out that your local lake association knew that there was a huge infestation of brain devouring amoebas in your local lake, and that swimming there was almost a surefire way to die, but didn't tell you? Could we then say you are a huge idiot for swimming in there, because as we all know "Swimming is incredibly dangerous." I mean, isn't drowning one of the number one causes of death in human history?

 

[fskimospy]

My little brother is 7, if I asked him if he thought he would get hurt if he put on a suit of armor and a helmet and smashed into his friend head on his answer would be yes.........

How exactly is it possible that these guys dont know that slamming into eachother isnt dangerous?

If you asked your brother if he believed that smashing into his head later would lead to degenerative brain disorders that continued long after he stopped, would stand a good chance of developing seemingly unrelated mood disorders, etc, etc, his answer might be different.

I agree that the idea that the players didn't know there would be negative effects is dumb. Employers have a responsibility under the law to provide a safe work environment (well as safe as possible) and I think there's likely some good evidence out there that the NFL fell down on the job in that respect.

 

[PokerGuy]

Employers have a responsibility under the law to provide a safe work environment (well as safe as possible) and I think there's likely some good evidence out there that the NFL fell down on the job in that respect.

That's kind of my question now that they've settled.... Just how far does the NFL have to go in order to make the workplace "safe" enough (given the nature of the game). If this settlement means the NFL can stop putting in more and more ridiculous rules in the name of safety, then I'm all for it.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's kind of my question now that they've settled.... Just how far does the NFL have to go in order to make the workplace "safe" enough (given the nature of the game). If this settlement means the NFL can stop putting in more and more ridiculous rules in the name of safety, then I'm all for it.

Outside of making tackling an illegal and finable infraction, nothing.

I'd argue that players don't care about long-term consequences when weighed against an Aaron Rogers/Joe Flacco-type contract.

When assault is legally committed on a snap-to-snap basis, you cannot have a safe enviroment....when you're taught to blow a would-be tackler up for trying to stop you from crossing the goaline, you CANNOT have a safe environment.

When the NFL makes money of Sunday Countdown's "Jacked-up" segment (are they still showing that?), you cannot champion a safe working enviroment.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'd argue that players don't care about long-term consequences when weighed against an Aaron Rogers/Joe Flacco-type contract.

How many players are getting contracts like that?

 

[PokerGuy]

Outside of making tackling an illegal and finable infraction, nothing.

I'd argue that players don't care about long-term consequences when weighed against an Aaron Rogers/Joe Flacco-type contract.

When assault is legally committed on a snap-to-snap basis, you cannot have a safe enviroment.

You don't technically have to have a "safe" environment, you have to have an environment as safe as possible given the work to be performed.

IMO the NFL has been going overboard with the rules in the name of safety, to the point of negatively affecting the product on the field, because they were afraid of this lawsuit. If this provides them sort sort of cover, I hope they stop going overboard with those rules.

 

[Exterous]

While I think its safe to say everyone knew football was dangerous I don't think the players had an accurate idea of how dangerous concussions are. Getting your bell run does not have immediately and easily traceable damages like breaking a bone. The symptoms are far more subtle and may not manifest themselves until years later. As players get stronger and faster the injuries get worse but the trending data can not quickly reflect the dangers long term because there are no long term samples yet (as they needed years\decades to become available)

To me, I think ex players are broke and greedy and this is a money grab, partly, not totally.

Broke? Likely. Greedy? Probably not - at least for most of them (IMO). They are far more likely in need of unusually expensive health care that they cannot afford and didn't know they would need. A bum knee is more evident and allows for easier planning (Thats going to need surgery that will cost $X) than hidden brain damage

 

[Retro Rob]

You don't technically have to have a "safe" environment, you have to have an environment as safe as possible given the work to be performed.

IMO the NFL has been going overboard with the rules in the name of safety, to the point of negatively affecting the product on the field, because they were afraid of this lawsuit. If this provides them sort sort of cover, I hope they stop going overboard with those rules.

I don't blame them. How many organizations can afford three quarters of a billion dollars type settlements?

Fans nor players can have it both ways -- they can't complain about getting hurt and injured, while calling the NFL the Flag Football league all in the same breath.

They're a business, and money is their most valued asset. They're simply trying to protect that and Godell works for the owners, not the players.

 

[Retro Rob]

How many players are getting contracts like that?

Hardly any, but the larger point that I should have made was that money blinds them to long-term consequences.

Millions and millions of dollars are potentially at stake -- they're not missing out on that.

 

[zinfamous]

The idea that the players didn't know that concussions would be harmful is idiotic, but I agree with eskimo that the NFL settled because they probably have a lot of information they gathered over the years that showed long term effects and problems, and they probably made sure that information never saw the light of day. That's the part they probably would have gotten nailed over.

To me, this is very similar to the Big Tabacco lawsuit.

However, I think a lot of the data involving concussions and permanent brain injury is actually very new. I believe it's true that the NFL was possibly keeping records on injuries to old players for many many years, but without the knowledge of how this was happening (medically), and what to expect in terms of long term effects.

I honestly see it as almost a criminal act that the NFL has not had a lifetime insurance policy to cover such players--and I think that is what they have been trying to avoid all along, and why they may have been hiding their data.

 

[cuafpr]

what a waist they make millions, if they can't handle the risk don't play let alone invest their millions properly to cover themselves. Already over paid as it is, and for the life of me I can never understand why my friends on the left are ok with athlete / celebrity pay when they think CEO's are evil.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I suspect that one of the driving forces motivating the NFL to settle was simply to get the issue out of the public spotlight.

A high profile legal battle between the big corporate football league and sympathetic aging players with dementia just doesn't give the general public warm-and-fuzzy feelings. The other problem is that concussion concerns could derail the entire sport and thus the NFL's industry itself. What would happen if parents no longer allowed their children to play football? What would happen if insurance companies no longer wanted to provide coverage for current and former football players or wanted to deny coverage for football-related injuries?

 

[Matt1970]

Screw it, just make it flag football and get it over with.