Should Former NFL Players or Families Be Able to Sue the NFL for Head Injuries?

Even their helmets have warning labels!!!!!!

Players play for the MONEY and will continue to play for the money even with all the data about concussions.

They should not be able to sue.

I just might be inclined to sue Mamapedia because I need a stronger prescription for my vision. I never saw a warning on their terms & agreement; the nerve of these people, LOL

I don't think so. One has only to look at Muhammad Ali to know that enough blows to the head can cause permanent damage. To me, it is a risk they assumed when they signed that million dollar contract. Maybe they should have socked some of that money away to help them through their retirement!

they are paid very well for knowingly assuming the risk of injury. I don't think there's any negligence on the part of the NFL - they require helmets, have referees moderate play, etc. Anyone who takes the field assumes the full risk of injury and should not turn around and blame the NFL

Risk goes with the job you know the risks involved in what career is persued.

I agree. People choose to engage in high-risk careers and should know full well the possible consequences and outcomes. That would be like a solider's or police officer's or fire fighter's family suing because that person was killed while performing their job. If someone was injured or killed because someone else was negligent in some way, that would be one thing. But anyone going into something like football as a career should realize that head injuries and spinal cord injuries are a very real possibility. My sympathy goes out to Junior Seau's family, but I am not even sure they can prove that his committing suicide is linked to the brain injuries he had from playing football.

Unfortunately it seems like more and more people these days want to blame others instead of taking responsibility for their own actions. Kinda like the mom on here who wants to blame her neighbor for her dog getting sick and dying, when she was the one who was negligent in repairing the fence that would have kept the dog on her property, and also didn't bother to have the dog on a leash when it was let out.

Keep in mind that people threaten to sue all the time - doesn't mean they have a case.

duh, big bad dude jumps all over you.....& you are a willing/paid participant.

Nope, I don't think a lawsuit is appropriate. Nobody holds a gun to any player's head & says...."you have to play". It's a choice of free will.

Conversely, now that we know the inherent dangers & have medical data to back it all up, I do believe injury-prevention sanctions should be placed over the entire league.....AND all players should sign legal releases. Let's acknowledge the danger, do what we can to prevent it, & ....in the end, sign off on our Free Choice to play.

How is this different from a butcher losing a digit/hand? It's part of the job. Now I want to watch the movie "Moonstruck"!

I don't know if the family has a case or not. But if they do file a lawsuit it may make the NFL and other sporting groups look into better protective gear. I agree the job comes with risk but I also think with the HUGE money involved in football the league needs to get better gear for the players.

If you are old enough to remember pro baseball before batting helmets, many players were severely hurt, then the league started using helmets.

ETA:

I live in Packer country. Brette Farve was almost a god here. When he was in college he was in a bad car accident. As a result he was in a lot of pain. After another winning season Brett entered re-hab for pain killer addiction. I know pain killers are highly addictive, most people know this. My question at the time was -- What is wrong with the team doctors and trainers. They should have been monitoring him better. Yes, he could get pain meds from other doctors also but they should have known he would get them from team doctors. I just feel his doctors should have monitored him more closely. But hey he was winning games and bringing in lots of money for the Packers and the NFL, so what he was in severe pain, so what he became addicted --- he won games.
To me it just seemed they didn't care about him as a person he was just a work horse to them. I think this is a real problem in all pro sports.

Yes they should. It's the only way the league will change to focus on injury prevention instead of ratings and will continue to provide adequate healthcare services to athletes after their careers are over, as well as offer appropriate support to families of athletes.

You are incorrect in assuming that this was a known risk to players when he started his career, which was in 1990. The research on the long-term brain damage associated with the sport (chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE) is very new and still evolving. Serious research into CTE began at Boston University in 2008.

Did players know that concussions happen? Sure. Did players know that concussions would lead to permanent brain injury and mental illness? Did their families know to look out for certain symptoms as signs of permanent cognitive and behavioral change? No.

What will come out in this lawsuit, and others like it, is how much the league knew or should have known about this type of injury. Did the league neglect its duties to protect and inform its players of the risk? Did the league invest adequately in brain injury research and prevention, or did it ignore serious warning signs? Did the league encourage or mandate injured players to get back on the field and play through concussion and if it did, did they know or should they have known the risks associated with that?

Lawsuits like this are a way to ensure that *if* the league bears responsibility, they are made to take that responsibility where it hurts, which is the wallet. If there isn't evidence to support that the league knew or should have known about these kinds of injuries and have protected players like Seau better while he played and after he retired, then the plaintiffs will lose.

At the end of the day, lawsuits and media coverage of these injuries, and the continuing research into brain injury, are making schools and athletic programs at all levels take this much more seriously. I had a student in an SAT class 4 years ago who sustained a concussion on a Friday night in a football game. His practice test score a few days later dropped more than 300 points from the last one taken prior to his injury and he was clearly out of it in class. Yet he was in school and played again the following Friday. If that had happened now, he would have been on athletic and cognitive rest until his symptoms subsided and then would have slowly eased back into school and sports. My oldest son had a concussion at the end of November and was out of school for a week, on academic rest for another week and didn't start back playing hockey until after 3 weeks.

This type of long term injury and damage to the brain is only now beginning to be understood. Most of these players feel they have no choice but to continue playing when their coaches want them to play to win this next big game - regardless of the long term effects on their brain. Players are larger and larger, and the game is getting more brutal. Newer contracts include provisions for brain damage and protective actions to be taken in the event of head injury but any contracts entered into 2+ years ago didn't include this stuff.

I read recently that even as few as 2 concussions can result in permanent damage - and these guys end up with dozens of them and as a result suffer for the rest of their life.
since the teams, and the networks are making a boatload of money on these guys their families should be able to sue for now. Once we have a better understanding of the long term impact on their brains then the "buyer can beware" and include appropriate contract language.

Yes.

Talented football players are encouraged to play with debilitating injuries starting in the peewee leagues. It's treating as a form of "goodness".

It's becoming less acceptable to cover up egregious misdeeds of talented althletes. It is also becoming unacceptable to play the talented athletes when it's extremely bad for them. Perhaps it can halt the circle in which althetes who are treated as things by fans and coaches go on to treat others as things to be misused.

Change has to start somewhere.

Working anywhere where multiple 300+ lb guys can jump onto you and /or run into you at full speed is going to be an inherently hazardous job no matter how much padding or equipment or body armor you wear.
If he somehow didn't know that when he signed his contract, you'd almost HAVE to conclude at least some of his brain injuries must have occurred before he joined the NFL, and they would not be held liable for a pre existing condition - although the job would certainly contribute more damage.
The brain injuries can start as early as high school football.

With time comes further knowledge.
Kids as young as 5 and 6 are now routinely screened here for a baseline reading for head trauma if they play contact sports.

The thing is whether the NFL KNEW lasting damage was occurring and dismissed the facts, failing to provide a safe working environment instead favoring feeding the NFL money making machine by turning a blind eye knowingly allowing "great" players to continue playing and doing further damage.

As for the office job comparison, your company would probably provide you with a larger monitor, more ergonomic desk, chair then they would be providing a safe work environment, kwim?

While there is an risk involved, I think the biggest problem is that the NFL knew for years that concussions could be damaging and denied it, therefore, allowing players to return to play even if they weren't ready. There is a culture of at all costs in the NFL and the NFL does bear some responsibility in caring for their players. As someone who played sports a lot, I always played injured, even with a concussion, because you played regardless. I was expected to suck it up and play. I wanted to play. Now imagine that mentality in someone who's livelyhood depends on their play. Jason Witten has been very public about how he would play through a concussion. Alex Smith of the 49ers got injured with a concussion and lost his starting job as a result. Do you think he would be quick to say he has a concussion again? Athletes want to play, the competitiveness inside them drives them to play at all costs. Yes they have responsibility in this, but so does the NFL in stopping players from playing and accepting responsibility that they told these players that concussions do not lead to long term effects, despite everything they knew to the contrary.

I don't know if Seau's family should sue. I think there is responsibility to be had on both sides, but I don't know if a lawsuit or a financial settlement is the way to go.

I also know that many players are suing the NFL just for medical coverage. The NFL should be required to pay for their medical coverage after they leave the game.

No. They should not. The NFL has done what they can to make the sport safer. However, it's a short-term, high risk "job". these guys get paid oodles of money and know what the chances are for injuries.

I am VERY sorry that Seau is dead. I'm sorry that he's dead at his own hand. He was a great player and did a lot of humanitarian work as well.

You and I are on the same page. He chose this field. Knew the possible risks and did it anyway.

Yes. Here's why. The NFL openly encourages head-on hits, rather than safer form-tackling. My husband is a rugby player, and has been for 30+ years. As you might know, rugby players wear no padding and no helmets, and the sport is similar to football. Yet you almost never hear of rugby players having head injuries. How could that possibly be, when they tackle MORE than football players do? They have proper form - it is a penalty in rugby to tackle head-first. The players are required to wrap their arms around the person they're tackling, which puts their heads to the side of the body they're tackling. This prevents head injuries. On the rare occasion a rugby player does have a concussion, it is usually from taking a knee to the head once they're on the ground (in other words, accidental contact).

Being that the NFL knows this (it's hardly any secret - after soccer, rugby is the #2 most popular sport in the world based on attendance), YES, they should be liable for continuing to put their players in harm's way when a simple rule change could prevent 95% of head injuries. There is no reason whatsoever for continuing to allow head-on hits with no attempt to form tackle.

I think that if the supplied equipment is faulty, the training encourages them to take unneeded risks, etc...then yes, they should be sued for not protecting their investments.

If they allow the players to play incorrectly where they will get injured and they don't do everything within their power to make them stop then they are at fault for allowing someone to take that risk and the subsequeint damage to that person.

So they need to have rules, make sure those rules are followed to the letter. If they are not then they need to fine, restrict from playing, etc....any player who does not.

As for normal wear and tear on the body of a football player, it's bound to be a lot even if they have all the safety gear in the world on.

Going forward-yes. Junior's case-no. We know much much more about just how serious concussions are now , how they are caused and how to treat them. Any team that plays a person now who has a concussion should be sued for it.