Retired N.F.L. Players Need to Go Back on Offense
By WILLIAM C. RHODEN
Sports of the Times
June 25, 2007
Tomorrow in Washington, several retired N.F.L. players will participate in a congressional hearing on a vexing pro football conundrum: the issue of retired football players and injury. The legion of retired players has become a haunting presence for the National Football League and especially for the N.F.L. Players Association, which keeps one foot in and one foot out of the retired players’ lives.
With emerging evidence about the long-term health hazards of playing professional football, the purpose of tomorrow’s hearing is to shed light on how the disability-benefit process works — or does not work — for retired N.F.L. players.
“The fundamental question is whether this disability benefits process is a fair and level playing field for these players to walk into,” said Representative Linda T. Sanchez, who is presiding over the hearing as chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
“We’re interested in whether the N.F.L., which is a billion-dollar organization, is fairly treating the employees who built it. The vast majority are denied benefits while the N.F.L. continues to profit.”
•
There will not be any testimony under oath. The players will repeat stories that by now have become all too familiar: tales about dreadful medical conditions that may have come from a former player’s participation in a brutal sport.
While I compared retired players to coal miners in terms of ailments that become manifest after retirement, Sanchez, a California Democrat, compared them to retired child actors. “Nobody thought about what happens to these folks later in life,” she said. “It’s kind of incredible that not a lot of thought was given to, ‘How do we structure the disability process in a way that doesn’t make it unduly onerous and gives these guys a fair shake?’ ”
But while the hearings are necessary, the greater challenge for retired players will be convincing the public that it should care. The fans’ general attitude, aside from being consumed by betting lines, is why should we feel sorry for you? You knew what you were getting into.
The retired players’ second challenge is getting their message across. They are up against one of the great public-relations machines of all time, a league that has its own TV network and contracts with three other networks.
The N.F.L. has a powerful, multiplatform voice. The retired players do not.
Mike Ditka, the Hall of Fame tight end, Super Bowl coach and television commentator, has become a fiery advocate for the retired players of his era. His loose-cannon approach and public battles with Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the players association, are entertaining sideshows. But retired players, to be effective, must develop a clear message and speak with a unified — and coherent — voice to articulate a complicated message.
They must function as a team.
At this moment, there is neither a unified message nor one voice speaking out. The closest the retired players have come to a galvanizing view was last summer, when Harry Carson, the former Giants linebacker, used part of his Hall of Fame induction speech to call attention to the plight of retired players.
If I were assigning roles for this team, I’d make Carson the face of the retired players issue. I’d make the unpredictable Ditka its emotional muscle. I’d make Bernie Parrish, the former Cleveland Browns cornerback, whose 1971 book “They Call It a Game,” discussed the relationship between players and owners.
Retired players need their own organization. Obviously, their negotiating position is stronger if they are part of the current players’ bargaining unit. But if the current players are reluctant to fight for their retired colleagues, the retirees don’t have much leverage.
“They are stuck between a rock and a hard place,” Sanchez said. “A single, unified advocacy group would make sense.”
The retired players should also jettison the we-built-the-game-so-the-game-owes-us approach. The game owes them nothing.
I understand jealousy over the obscene amounts of money being paid to today’s players. But every generation had it better than the previous generation; the current generation is supposed to push to make conditions better for the next generation.
Finally, direct action is required. Retired players — who, by definition, have time on their hands — need to take their message to the people. They should consider peaceful demonstrations at N.F.L. games this summer and throughout the fall.
The players need more than a forum to blow off steam: they need a unified front, they need a face and they need a voice.
The treatment of retired players is a growing moral issue, one that the N.F.L., the players association and the retired players should be able to work out.
•
“They need to devise a system that won’t require any kind of legislative response,” Sanchez said. “We’re hoping it doesn’t require Congress getting involved.”
Sanchez said that the hearing “is about getting people in a room and facilitating an open conversation,” adding that “we’re not trying to make the N.F.L. the bad guy or put the black hat on the N.F.L.P.A.”
In the meandering tale of retired football players, there are more questions than answers. The truth will eventually come out in a court of law when players, owners and union executives are obliged to testify under oath about the conditions that brought us to this point. Until then, hearings such as the ones sponsored by Sanchez must suffice.
The N.F.L. has an emerging moral quandary greater than the pursuit of pit bulls and recalcitrant players. The league has a great product — but at what cost — to satisfy the public’s blood lust for a brutal sport?
E-mail: wcr@nytimes.com
Sports of the Times
June 25, 2007
Tomorrow in Washington, several retired N.F.L. players will participate in a congressional hearing on a vexing pro football conundrum: the issue of retired football players and injury. The legion of retired players has become a haunting presence for the National Football League and especially for the N.F.L. Players Association, which keeps one foot in and one foot out of the retired players’ lives.
With emerging evidence about the long-term health hazards of playing professional football, the purpose of tomorrow’s hearing is to shed light on how the disability-benefit process works — or does not work — for retired N.F.L. players.
“The fundamental question is whether this disability benefits process is a fair and level playing field for these players to walk into,” said Representative Linda T. Sanchez, who is presiding over the hearing as chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
“We’re interested in whether the N.F.L., which is a billion-dollar organization, is fairly treating the employees who built it. The vast majority are denied benefits while the N.F.L. continues to profit.”
•
There will not be any testimony under oath. The players will repeat stories that by now have become all too familiar: tales about dreadful medical conditions that may have come from a former player’s participation in a brutal sport.
While I compared retired players to coal miners in terms of ailments that become manifest after retirement, Sanchez, a California Democrat, compared them to retired child actors. “Nobody thought about what happens to these folks later in life,” she said. “It’s kind of incredible that not a lot of thought was given to, ‘How do we structure the disability process in a way that doesn’t make it unduly onerous and gives these guys a fair shake?’ ”
But while the hearings are necessary, the greater challenge for retired players will be convincing the public that it should care. The fans’ general attitude, aside from being consumed by betting lines, is why should we feel sorry for you? You knew what you were getting into.
The retired players’ second challenge is getting their message across. They are up against one of the great public-relations machines of all time, a league that has its own TV network and contracts with three other networks.
The N.F.L. has a powerful, multiplatform voice. The retired players do not.
Mike Ditka, the Hall of Fame tight end, Super Bowl coach and television commentator, has become a fiery advocate for the retired players of his era. His loose-cannon approach and public battles with Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the players association, are entertaining sideshows. But retired players, to be effective, must develop a clear message and speak with a unified — and coherent — voice to articulate a complicated message.
They must function as a team.
At this moment, there is neither a unified message nor one voice speaking out. The closest the retired players have come to a galvanizing view was last summer, when Harry Carson, the former Giants linebacker, used part of his Hall of Fame induction speech to call attention to the plight of retired players.
If I were assigning roles for this team, I’d make Carson the face of the retired players issue. I’d make the unpredictable Ditka its emotional muscle. I’d make Bernie Parrish, the former Cleveland Browns cornerback, whose 1971 book “They Call It a Game,” discussed the relationship between players and owners.
Retired players need their own organization. Obviously, their negotiating position is stronger if they are part of the current players’ bargaining unit. But if the current players are reluctant to fight for their retired colleagues, the retirees don’t have much leverage.
“They are stuck between a rock and a hard place,” Sanchez said. “A single, unified advocacy group would make sense.”
The retired players should also jettison the we-built-the-game-so-the-game-owes-us approach. The game owes them nothing.
I understand jealousy over the obscene amounts of money being paid to today’s players. But every generation had it better than the previous generation; the current generation is supposed to push to make conditions better for the next generation.
Finally, direct action is required. Retired players — who, by definition, have time on their hands — need to take their message to the people. They should consider peaceful demonstrations at N.F.L. games this summer and throughout the fall.
The players need more than a forum to blow off steam: they need a unified front, they need a face and they need a voice.
The treatment of retired players is a growing moral issue, one that the N.F.L., the players association and the retired players should be able to work out.
•
“They need to devise a system that won’t require any kind of legislative response,” Sanchez said. “We’re hoping it doesn’t require Congress getting involved.”
Sanchez said that the hearing “is about getting people in a room and facilitating an open conversation,” adding that “we’re not trying to make the N.F.L. the bad guy or put the black hat on the N.F.L.P.A.”
In the meandering tale of retired football players, there are more questions than answers. The truth will eventually come out in a court of law when players, owners and union executives are obliged to testify under oath about the conditions that brought us to this point. Until then, hearings such as the ones sponsored by Sanchez must suffice.
The N.F.L. has an emerging moral quandary greater than the pursuit of pit bulls and recalcitrant players. The league has a great product — but at what cost — to satisfy the public’s blood lust for a brutal sport?
E-mail: wcr@nytimes.com
posted by greenpagan at 8:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home