The NFL settlment: Who really pays?
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, Sept. 9, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Like an offense hurrying to snap the ball before the opposing coach can challenge a ruling on the previous play, the NFL surely hopes its tentative 20-year, $765 million settlement of about 4,500 retired players' concussion-related lawsuits is approved by a federal judge in Philadelphia before taxpayers realize it would burden them with the vast majority of these players' medical costs.
Writing for Columbia Journalism Review, David Cay Johnston, president of Investigative Reporters & Editors, says media reports have missed the settlement's real significance. He points out that in the context of NFL finances, $765 million is just “a fraction of one percent of likely revenues over the next two decades.” And after deducting from that total the costs of baseline medical tests, research grants and efforts to inform plaintiffs, the settlement's average player payout would be just $150,000 at best.
That, combined with NFL health insurance ending after players are retired for five years, means the settlement “cannot possibly cover the lost wages and medical bills the former players will face during their lifetimes.” And that means many of those players eventually will end up relying on such taxpayer-funded programs as Medicaid and Social Security Disability.
“What the NFL has achieved, if the settlement is approved, is to shift costs from itself to the taxpayers,” Mr. Johnston writes — which makes the public funding for NFL stadiums seem almost taxpayer-friendly by comparison.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- The Malaysian jetliner probe: Passport insecurity
- The market speaks: Cadillac dealers reject another electric folly
- Sunday pops
- Market perversions: Chrysler retreats
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- Corbett’s fortunes: Troubling truths
- The Thursday wrap
- THE BOX