[vincesanity82]

Congress will hear testimony June 26 from retired NFL players who contend the pension plan of the league and union is insufficient, especially for disabled ex-players."The NFL is a billion-dollar industry, and yet the players who built the league are too often left to fend for themselves," Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and administrative law, said in a statement announcing the hearings.
The hearings are the latest development in a yearlong dispute between a group of retired players and Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association.
The latest flare-up came this week when Joe DeLamielleure, like Upshaw a Hall of Fame guard, said he took literally a newspaper quote from Upshaw that he'd like to "break his damn neck." DeLamielleure said he feared for his and his family's safety.
Upshaw had no comment on the hearing.
"We will participate in the hearing and let things fall where they may," union spokesman Carl Francis said Thursday.
Upshaw has been the target of a group of retired players, including ex-stars Mike Ditka, Jerry Kramer, Lem Barney and Harry Carson. They maintain the union has concentrated too much on current players and ignored the health problems of former players.
DeLamielleure contends Upshaw intentionally keeps current players uninformed about the plight of ex-players.
Last week, Upshaw told The Associated Press that he once helped pay Barney's mortgage when he heard of the medical bills of the ex-Detroit cornerback, who like Carson and Ditka is in the Hall of Fame. He also has pointed out his role in forming the "88 Plan," which provides up to $88,000 per year to families of former players suffering from dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
Sanchez said she called the hearing because the committee had seen recent reports that the benefit plan for retired players "may be stacked against players who need serious medical care."
"Specifically, we want to look into whether the arbitration procedure that can determine the health benefits of severely injured, retired players is an equitable use of the arbitration process," she said.

www.centredaily.com | 06/07/2007 | Congress to probe NFL retiree dispute

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Folks do we need Congress in this? Really now? They know the risk and most often they have a better pension plan than a lot of other people with the same tenure at another type of job. Plus the get side benefits like signing Autographs for money, Football card merchandising etc.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Folks do we need Congress in this? Really now? They know the risk and most often they have a better pension plan than a lot of other people with the same tenure at another type of job. Plus the get side benefits like signing Autographs for money, Football card merchandising etc.

I'm just guessing but I think that at the very least 99% of social security recipients would trade with any one of them. Just a wild guess. My percentage may be off a bit but not by very much.

[Romad]

when will the silliness in pro sports stop, everything has to become political, BLAH. cheers

- Romad -

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

I'm just guessing but I think that at the very least 99% of social security recipients would trade with any one of them. Just a wild guess. My percentage may be off a bit but not by very much.

Naw, you think?....and hey, is Congress even looking at my Pension plan?...We just had a meeting that said we are going into an ESOP, and our pension plan will now be a stock sharing blah, blah, blah...which if the company tanks, there goes the future. Better call my Congressman!

[Bette]

kind of hard to know if their complaint is legit or not since we dont have the numbers.
My guess is that they think they should be getting the same as when they were playing. Kind of a change in lifestyle now.
I heard though that it was hard to get disability, that they wouldnt recognize injuries caused by football. So which is it? They want more or they just want to be recognized as disable.
Its pretty darn hard to be recognized as disabled for S.S. too. I have known people who were clearly eligible and had to fight for years.

[Haynr8dr]

Generally, a CEO (Goodell) and a Union President (Upshaw) should be adversaries - it's the nature of the beast. However, just a few days ago Goodell heaped all kind of praise on Upshaw, which is an indication to this ex-Chief Steward that the bargaining unit isn't getting the kind of representation that the members are paying for.

If Goodell and Upshaw are "cozy", it doesn't bode well for the bargaining unit. And it's apparent recently with all the heavy-handed discipline Roger is handing down, and no response from the Union. It was my primary job as the Chief Steward to represent members that have been disciplined - right or wrong.

Management (Goodell) will try to get away with whatever they can - it's nearly their job. It's strictly the Union's job to look over management's shoulder at every move and keep them in check.

In this case, the moral and welfare of the old-timers is clearly bad, and apparently at a breaking point. Upshaw and the NFLPA should be doing all they can for these old-timers that laid the ground work for the current "riches" of the NFL - one of the most $ucce$$ful and lucrative operations in the world. Instead, Upshaw and the NFLPA have become an obstacle for these guys.

Otherwise, as others have touched on ^ , I don't trust our Congress to do anything right.

[Bette]

I am beginning to think there is more to this than I first thought.
Players and their families get medical coverage for only five years. And players before 1981, I think it was, get much less than those after. It costs just as much for those older players to live and pay for medical bills, as it does the others. No med. coverage after 5 years, man, that sucks.
I hope they get some real answers, but I dont have too much faith either.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Bette

I am beginning to think there is more to this than I first thought.
Players and their families get medical coverage for only five years. And players before 1981, I think it was, get much less than those after. It costs just as much for those older players to live and pay for medical bills, as it does the others. No med. coverage after 5 years, man, that sucks.
I hope they get some real answers, but I dont have too much faith either.

If you pro-rated to the years played I doubt that it's a bad plan when compared to all other careers. I have a pension plan...and its not a bad one...but it doesn't address Med coverage at all...

Now you have player who made a decent wage, sometimes in the million...who if lucky will play 10 years...and who want a bunch of benefits afterwards for it?...Sorry, we are not a socialist nation...and what business is it of Congress? Any laws broken etc?...Nope...then they should kindly stick their nose out of corporate America.

[Haynr8dr]

Originally Posted by Bette

I am beginning to think there is more to this than I first thought.
Players and their families get medical coverage for only five years. And players before 1981, I think it was, get much less than those after. It costs just as much for those older players to live and pay for medical bills, as it does the others. No med. coverage after 5 years, man, that sucks.
I hope they get some real answers, but I dont have too much faith either.

^...and it's the perception by many, especially fans, that these guys made tons of money. It's simply not true. Whereas today's minimum contract is in the hundreds of thousands (I believe $275K), in those days it was only in the 10s of thousands (I believe $60K). We hear about these multi-million dollar contracts, but the players never realize their full value. Usually, only the signing bonus is guaranteed - all the rest is based on incentives, starting with being on the field. Some of these guys that need 10s of thousands of dollars worth of medical care, that's more than they ever made as a player. Gene Upshaw made over 4 million dollars as the Union Executive, whereas the average contract of these old-timers was probably more around the area of $400K - again, the average - and again, not all guaranteed hence, not all realized.

Barack Obama covered it in one of his speeches, he said there's something morally wrong when a CEO makes in one day, what his employees make in a year. Whereas the "pot" of the NFL is nearly split in half between the players and the owners, there's only 32 owners but, over 2K players, and when you consider the other employees ... my point being, don't ever "feel sorry" for the owners. They've made the initial investment, and it's paid off handsomely.

But Ditka put it best: Goodell's legacy shouldn't be how much more millions of dollars he makes for the NFL and owners, Goodell's legacy should be what he did for the old-timers.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Haynr8dr

^...and it's the perception by many, especially fans, that these guys made tons of money. It's simply not true. Whereas today's minimum contract is in the hundreds of thousands (I believe $275K), in those days it was only in the 10s of thousands (I believe $60K). We hear about these multi-million dollar contracts, but the players never realize their full value. Usually, only the signing bonus is guaranteed - all the rest is based on incentives, starting with being on the field. Some of these guys that need 10s of thousands of dollars worth of medical care, that's more than they ever made as a player. Gene Upshaw made over 4 million dollars as the Union Executive, whereas the average contract of these old-timers was probably more around the area of $400K - again, the average - and again, not all guaranteed hence, not all realized.

Barack Obama covered it in one of his speeches, he said there's something morally wrong when a CEO makes in one day, what his employees make in a year. Whereas the "pot" of the NFL is nearly split in half between the players and the owners, there's only 32 owners but, over 2K players, and when you consider the other employees ... my point being, don't ever "feel sorry" for the owners. They've made the initial investment, and it's paid off handsomely.

But Ditka put it best: Goodell's legacy shouldn't be how much more millions of dollars he makes for the NFL and owners, Goodell's legacy should be what he did for the old-timers.

Come again?... compare to what wages of other Americans back to the same time frame?...give me a break..they might not be paid well bytoday's standards, but by the standards of their own era, the heck they weren't.

As for Obama, as any good American, he has the right to distribute his wealth any way he sees fit...He however does not have the right to distribute anyone elses...

And the owners take the monetary risk and build the business as well...should they pass along a bill to the players whenever they have a losing financial season? No?...then they get the bigger share of the pie...what does sorry for them or for NFL players who chose their profession have to do with anything?

But back to Mr. Obama's speech why is that "morally wrong?"...if the playing field is level, and anyone within reason has the chance to rise to being a CEO, why is it morally wrong?...And less morally wrong then say, for argument sake, people on welfare wanting a cut of someone elses pie without taking the initiative to go chance their situation...."Morally Wrong" to embrace a free market economy...that's a new one...and a total hard sell to a country founded on the principal.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Haynr8dr

But Ditka put it best: Goodell's legacy shouldn't be how much more millions of dollars he makes for the NFL and owners, Goodell's legacy should be what he did for the old-timers.

BTW, and why?...what makes Ditka (a former player's take) any more valid?...maybe Mike should pay Goodell's lofty salary then...

[Bette]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

If you pro-rated to the years played I doubt that it's a bad plan when compared to all other careers. I have a pension plan...and its not a bad one...but it doesn't address Med coverage at all...

Now you have player who made a decent wage, sometimes in the million...who if lucky will play 10 years...and who want a bunch of benefits afterwards for it?...Sorry, we are not a socialist nation...and what business is it of Congress? Any laws broken etc?...Nope...then they should kindly stick their nose out of corporate America.

You must be young. Only the young have such a carefree attitude about aging and medical coverages. Come on, some of these guys didnt play very long. And they played years ago. We are talking about the guys injured on the job, not just getting older and developing illness. You are seriously disabled after two years from your job, I think coverage is a little better. And besides, isnt socialism when the community or nation takes care of you? Corporate America is supposed to take care of itself. Doesnt sound like the NFL is taking care of its own.
And I am definitely not sure of my ground here. Someone help me out. Exactly why was it taken to Congress? Is this like when there is a labor dispute and a third party has to arbitrate????

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Bette

You must be young. Only the young have such a carefree attitude about aging and medical coverages. Come on, some of these guys didnt play very long. And they played years ago. We are talking about the guys injured on the job, not just getting older and developing illness. You are seriously disabled after two years from your job, I think coverage is a little better. And besides, isnt socialism when the community or nation takes care of you? Corporate America is supposed to take care of itself. Doesnt sound like the NFL is taking care of its own.
And I am definitely not sure of my ground here. Someone help me out. Exactly why was it taken to Congress? Is this like when there is a labor dispute and a third party has to arbitrate????

And you would be wrong ...I am not that young...(nor old as the case my be)...

And carefree attitude?...why, because I believe in a Capitalist society?...Hey, I was born in a Communist one…and without reservation, and great certainty, I can tell you that the opposite does not work at all…if that qualifies for carefree, then guilty as charged.

As for the players...Last I looked, no one forced NFL players to make that a career choice…they should know the risk…and if they made a decision knowing the risk…why is it suddenly anyone elses fault? Do they have access to taking out long term disability insurance? Did they?...Could they have gotten a different career?...Did they?...BTW, I haven't seen the first player call me up and say, "hey, Goth I signed a big bonus want a share?"…nor would I want or expect it of him…if they do, good for them…tuck some away for a raining day.

And Corporate America takes care of stockholders first and foremost, they take the greater finanical risk…where exactly is it written that they should take care of the rest of the work force?...what debt does the NFL owe a former player?...To top it off, they have a player's Union…if that Union was not able to secure a better deal for its members, whose fault is that? And as long as they are playing above board and by the rules of the land, what is that to Congress?

[Haynr8dr]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Come again?... compare to what wages of other Americans back to the same time frame?...give me a break..they might not be paid well bytoday's standards, but by the standards of their own era, the heck they weren't.

As for Obama, as any good American, he has the right to distribute his wealth any way he sees fit...He however does not have the right to distribute anyone elses...

And the owners take the monetary risk and build the business as well...should they pass along a bill to the players whenever they have a losing financial season? No?...then they get the bigger share of the pie...what does sorry for them or for NFL players who chose their profession have to do with anything?

But back to Mr. Obama's speech why is that "morally wrong?"...if the playing field is level, and anyone within reason has the chance to rise to being a CEO, why is it morally wrong?...And less morally wrong then say, for argument sake, people on welfare wanting a cut of someone elses pie without taking the initiative to go chance their situation...."Morally Wrong" to embrace a free market economy...that's a new one...and a total hard sell to a country founded on the principal.

So, you must be a CEO or something.

Otherwise, you've compared the "average" working American - the butcher, the baker, the candle-stick maker - to guys that play a brutally physical game - in which their bodies never recover from. And the "entertainment" of the game is what makes all this money - one of the most lucrative enterprises to ever be.

Otherwise, I think the "average" American has a problem with a CEO making as much money in one day as their employees do in a year. And it's especially troublesome when the company goes under - and their still sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in "retirement". It's why some of them are finally ending up in jail - not only "morally" wrong - but illegal.

Otherwise, I agree - the owners took the risk, made the initial investment, and their return has been great. They've more money than most of us on this board put together will ever dream of. Had it not - we're not having this discussion - there's no league, hence no beat-up old-timers to talk about.