Tackled For A Loss
Cy Smith is a lawyer in Baltimore with Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. He and attorney Bob Fitzsimmons represented Mike Webster's estate in its lawsuit against the NFL pension plan.
Mike Webster was one of the greatest players in NFL history. He played 177 consecutive games for the Pittsburgh Steelers at a position - center - which is generally considered to require high intelligence as well as great athletic ability. He was elected to the NFL's all-time team and Hall of Fame and helped lead the Steelers to four Super Bowl victories.
But from virtually the day of his retirement in 1991, Mike Webster was completely unable to hold a job. His marriage broke up, and he lost money in a series of bad investments. Eventually, he was homeless, sometimes sleeping in his car. Why was this proud, capable man unable to function in society?
Mike Webster was, according to the NFL pension plan's own doctor, "totally disabled" by "multiple head injuries" fthat were the direct result of playing pro football.
Although Mike Webster's case may have made the most headlines, it is far from being an isolated incident. More than ten years ago, the NFL pension plan decided that retired players should be entitled to full disability benefits because of head injuries, and emphasized the risk of repetitive concussions as the cause of brain damage. Independent researchers have found that football players, even at the college level, are so big, and so fast, that offensive and defensive line play is the equivalent of repeated car crashes during a game. The NFL's own study, released in September, showed that retired players suffer from dementia at a rate 19 times the general population.
And yet, despite all of the evidence, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sat in front of the House Judiciary Committee last week unable to answer one simple question: is there a connection between head injuries on the field - concussions - and mental problems later in life?
Mr. Goodell is a smart, capable executive who has led the NFL well on many issues. But given the facts, and the history, and the NFL's own statements and decisions, it is simply not good enough for him to say that the league would not wait for the debate to be resolved, or that a medical expert could answer the question better. And so the question remains: why won't the NFL own up to the connection between pro football, brain injuries, and mental problems after retirement?
The evidence suggests two answers, neither of which reflects positively on the league - or the players union.
The first has to do with the sport's reputation and appeal to fans. The closer the link between pro football and brain injuries, the more pro football looks like boxing and similar violent sports.
Boxing was once a major draw in the United States, certainly far larger than pro football throughout the 1930s, 40s and 50s. There are many reasons for the sport's decline, but one is surely the reluctance of many average fans, particularly women, to watch what used to be known as a blood sport. (Ultimate Fighting draws plenty of fans, but it will never be the commercial colossus that the NFL is.) Pro football has been successfully marketed as a thrilling, all-American sport to every conceivable corner of American society. But this broad appeal would inevitably be lessened if the audience knew that routine plays - as simple as lining up at center -could well result in brain injury and dementia. And that's why pro football is very reluctant to acknowledge the obvious.
The second answer boils down to the universal language: money. Admitting that everyday play in the NFL leads to brain injuries would effectively admit that there are many more Mike Websters out there. And once that happens, the NFL pension plan would be required to pay generous disability benefits to every one of them. These benefits are not charity or a handout: they are guaranteed by the league's collective bargaining agreement. And they could amount to a hundred thousand dollars a year or more per retired player - potentially tens of millions of dollars a year for the league's pension plan, which is funded by the owners who employ Mr. Goodell. That helps explain why Congress wanted an answer to its questions, and why the commissioner was less than thrilled about providing one.
What happens next? History suggests not much.
The league was put under scrutiny before, in 2007 after Mike Webster's estate won the first-ever case against the NFL pension plan. As they did again just recently, Congress held hearings and promised oversight. The NFL and the players union - who together control the pension plan - promised to address the problem.
As we all know, the changes since then have been limited. More money for retiree health care and faster decisions on disability claims haven't addressed the core problem: pro football, day in and day out, leads to more than just knee injuries. Either America, or pro football, will have to come to terms with that.
By Cy Smith