Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravdigr
Would you have written the article the way Prisco chose to?
Would you have posted the post you posted if some of those guys were your hero?
These guys weren't stupid. No, nobody forced them to play pro football. But, pro football urged/prodded/goaded these guys to play injured, to ignore injuries, and when these guys were used up, pro football tossed them into the gutter like refuse.
|
I don't know what Prisco's like, prick or otherwise. I've watched and enjoyed pro football (and high school and college football) for many years, and no, I wouldn't have written the article like Prisco did. I wouldn't have written it that way because I believe, as Gravdigr does, that the NFL in this case, has *used* these players, and that's not right.
In the everlasting struggle between Labor and Capital, the individual who contributes his labor is at a permanent disadvantage, and this disadvantage has been exploited by the NFL. When the NFL has decided that they're no longer getting their money's worth from a player, they end the relationship and carry on with minimal interruption. As an entity, they have such enormous momentum that losing one body, one brain, is an easily recoverable loss. For the individual, the loss of one body, one brain obviously represents a much bigger problem. What is not fair, is the risk and rewards are not proportional, as they would be in a fairer arrangment.
Yes, the players play voluntarily, and the NFL employs voluntarily. Both sides sign mutually agreeable compensation packages. But what has been lacking until now, the very point of Prisco's article, is fair compensation for the risk taken by the player, not the NFL, for long term loss. The compensation should be similarly long term, but it hasn't been, more like use'em up, toss'em out. That's wrong.
I can't say with confidence who knew what and when they knew it about the damage concussions wreak, but this very settlement, and the especially telling detail that the NFL is not compelled to admit any wrong (see, that's where the corporation has a long-term vulnerability like the individual has to live permanently with their only body), this settlement indicates that both sides know *NOW* that work they players do carries risks that last long after their playing days are done, and that the rewards *SHOULD* be in proportion to that risk. This settlement is just catching up to the losses incurred by those players, while they're still living. What would be fairer is to have contracts that have two tiers, one for playing time and another for retirement time. The players give something of value during both periods, and deserve fair compensation for that value that the NFL has enjoyed. They *DO* deserve this settlement. And current players deserve to be paid for their play today and to be indemnified against the loss of what is valuable to them, even if that loss is only identified in the future if that loss was incurred during the time when both parties were benefiting from the playing time.