MClem06 Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Everyone has their own stance on this lawsuit. I'm sure this discussion will be back and forth with the NFL and the players until the point of us all watching flag football on Monday night football BUT... Why hasn't there been a "play at your own risk" clause in the contract of every player??? I can't believe this hasn't been addressed prior to this! Now the players are suing the NFL because they can't dream at night or are depressed along with a list of other related side effects of concussions. The arguement is that the NFL didn't do enough to protect the players at that time in football but you know you are going to go in there, get paid a ridiculous amount of money for a short 5-10 year stint and take your bruises with the game when you sign up. Last time i checked it's never been a tag football league. I did a poll above to see where people's opinions stand on this subject so it should be interesting to see! Recent Article on concussions: My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 It seems as though that were implied. But it would allow the NFL to cover their ass i would assume. Any lawyers have a say on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 The NFL will likely just pay a settlement to older players in the form of a increase in benefits going to retired players for the next 20 or so years. The NFL pays a nice chunk of change into the retirement benefits but on a per player basis its not a whole lot. I suspect that the NFL will triple its benefits package as a sort of settlement to these players. Its highly implied that you know going into the game that its a dangerous game. The only leg that the players have to stand on is that the NFL didn't know to what extent that danger was in regards to the severity of concussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) "Play at your own risk" sounds like a good idea for the NFL. But from what I read, including the OPs link, the main point of contention is that the NFL is alleged to have withheld information from the players regarding concussions and the long term effects. Even a "play at your own risk" clause would not protect the NFL if that allegation is proven correct. Edited June 5, 2012 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Although I don't find the analysis particularly sharp, this law journal article provides an overview of some of the legal theories that might come into play in concussion-related NFL litigation (including implied assumption of risk): http://erepository.law.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=student_scholarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhws%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Ddell-usuk%26channel%3Dus-psp%26ibd%3D0081004%26q%3D%2522Seton%2BHall%2BJ.%2Bof%2BSports%2B%2526%2BEnt.%2BL.%2522%26Submit%3DGoogle%2BSearch#search=%22Seton%20Hall%20J.%20Sports%20%26%20Ent.%20L.%22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts