NFL Owner Pushes Bill To Rip Benefits Away From His Players

Since the NFL is offering us today as a respite from worrying about our President's fondness for murdering autocrats, I'd just like to offer a glimpse as to some goings on in our state legislatures, or, as Charles Pierce lovingly calls them, "the laboratories of democracy". Erik Loomis over at Lawyers, Guns, And Money points us to a nice little story out of Illinois that has an NFL slant.

The Bears were one of the worst teams in the league this year and haven't really been competitive for a number of years. Everyone knew that betting the house on Jay Cutler was bound to end in failure but at least they could have surrounded him with something resembling talent. Matt Forte, who led the Bears in touches and total yards (at least until late season injuries) in the prior year, had enough and last year went to an even more dysfunctional team, the Jets. But it's never a good sign when your best player abandons ship, when even the Jets are a better option. And it may not get any better for the Bears any time soon.

There is a bill pending before the Illinois State Senate that will adjust the Workmen's Compensation Act in that state to stop paying out wage differential benefits to professional athletes after the age of 35. The bill is apparently being driven by the owners of the Bears, the McCaskey family, and is based on the premise that most professional athletes are not playing after the age of 35 and should therefore not receive these differential benefits. Since football is probably the one sport where players are more likely to be permanently disabled and with the knowledge of the debilitating effects of constant concussions that the sport almost demands, it is pretty clear that the football owners, and perhaps the hockey owners, would be pushing this bill far more than the baseball and basketball owners.

Needless to say, this potential legislation has not gone down too well with the NFL Players Association (NFLPA). NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith said, "I will tell you from the bottom of my heart that this union will tell every potential free-agent player, if this bill passes, to not come to the Bears. Because, think about it, if you’re a free-agent player and you have an opportunity to go play somewhere else where you can get lifetime medical for the injury you’re going to have, isn’t a smarter financial decision to go to a team where a bill like this hasn’t passed?"

And even if the bill doesn't pass, would you really want to go play for an owner who was actively trying to cut your medical benefits? With ownership like that, it will be along road back for the woeful Bears. On the other hand, this kind of cold-hearted greed is typical of most NFL owners. But it looks like some of them may be starting to get a little nervous about the potential cost of the concussion issue which looks likely to soar. In addition, there is evidence that the NFL covered up damaging findings which potentially increases their liability even more. Meanwhile, Bears fans can watch the Super Bowl and dream.