Addressing Structural Issues in NFL Player Contracts and The

Collective Bargaining Process

Joshua B. Weintraub

I. INTRODUCTION.

Roughly 113 million people watched the 2023 Superbowl.

American football has always been both

popular and inherently violent. Until recently, fans, commentators, and league officials have overlooked

the dangerous nature of the sport—and the potential physical and mental health risks players face—for

the sake of entertainment and profit. However, in the last couple decades, medical professionals have

drawn attention to both the short and long-term health risks that NFL players face. While steady progress

has been made to improve player safety and to provide both current and former players with more

substantial health benefits, a number of substantial issues remain unaddressed.

NFL player contracts, benefits, and rights, along with the rights of coaches, staff and club owners are

covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereby “CBA”), the most recent of which went into

effect in 2020 and will be enforced until the next one is negotiated in 2030.

Since the next CBA will not

be negotiated until 2030, there is ample time to work towards building upon the provisions of the

governing version. This paper makes suggestions to that effect. If the American people wish for

professional football to continue to be played as it has been since its inception, these suggestions should

be taken seriously.

STATISTA , TV viewership of the Super Bowl in the United States from 1990 to

2023,https://www.statista.com/statistics/216526/super-bowl-us-tv-

viewership/#:~:text=How%20many%20people%20watch%20the,Super%20Bowl%20XLIX%20in%202015 (last

accessed Apr. 9, 2023). https://perma.cc/K22H-XZ52

See generally NFL 2020 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/NFLPA/CBA2020/NFL-NFLPA_CBA_March_5_2020.pdf

(last accessed Apr. 9, 2023). https://perma.cc/AJ4D-6AB9

Throughout this note, I attempt to identify several prevalent and problematic features of the NFL that

can be ameliorated by amending certain provisions in the next CBA. Such amendments should tilt the

balance of power in favor of the players so they can demand sufficient rights and benefits more readily.

This paper is not necessarily designed to suggest exactly how these improvements can be made, but

rather, it will point out current deficits, and explain why improvements should be undertaken.

In Part I, I will briefly explain what the CBA and the players association (hereby “NFLPA”) are and

how they have taken steps to ensure greater rights for players. In Part II, I will use specific examples to

elucidate contemporary issues revolving around NFL player health. I will also establish how the structure

and guarantees of the current CBA do not adequately protect players and will discuss what can be

changed in the Next CBA to strengthen these rights. Finally, I will illustrate potential consequences for

not addressing these issues in the next CBA. Part III will consider and confront counter arguments and

other flaws in my reasoning and the “alarmist nature” of this essay.

Finally, I will provide concluding

remarks in Part IV.

II. A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT & THE NAT I O N A L

FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS’ ASSOCIATION AS MECHANISMS FOR ADVANCING PLAYER

RIGHTS.

The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) has recognized the National Football League

Players Association as the “exclusive representative of current players for purposes of collective

bargaining in respect to pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.”

The

NFLPA is thought of as a players’ union designed to safeguard and promote player health and safety, and

rights.

The NFLPA obtains its power from the Board of Representatives which are elected by members of

the NFLPA.

Players on each of the 32 NFL teams elect a player representative to serve on the Board of

Player Representatives of the NFLPA.

Some of the primary duties of the NFLPA are the preservation of

Christopher R. Deubert et. al., Protecting And Promoting The Health Of NFL Players: Legal And Ethical Analysis

And Recommendations, 7 HARV. J. OF SPORTS AND ENT. LAW 1, 38 (2016).

Kelly Fitzgerald, Use of The NFLPA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, 39 HOFSTRA LAB. & EMP. L.J. at 477.

Id.

the relationship between individual players and NFL teams,

to represent the interests of the players

during CBA negotiation processes, to ensure all the terms of the CBA are adhered to, and to negotiate

retirement and insurance benefits for players and former players.

The relationship between players and the teams is governed by the CBA, and the CBA is entered

into per the terms of the NLRA.

The CBA can be described as “the governing document” between the

owners of NFL clubs and the players through the NFLPA union.

The CBA is essentially the Constitution

of the NFL and it is “the foundation for all operations and rules of the NFL.”

As such, the current CBA,

which was drafted and ratified in 2020 and which will be renegotiated in 2030,

is binding on all affected

parties and its terms must be adhered to. The CBA supersedes all other contracts or agreements that the

players or affected individuals may be a party to.

The contemporary governing CBA has made substantial progress towards safeguarding the rights

of players and their families. However, there are still numerous aspects and practices commonplace in the

League that are problematic. Given the fact that the next CBA will not be renegotiated until 2030, there is

ample time to work towards addressing these shortcomings.

III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NFL THAT REMAIN PROBLEMATIC AND SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY

THE NEXT CBA.

A. Current players seem to be facing more health risks than ever.

It is presumably common knowledge that injuries routinely occur in the realm of professional

football and that concussions have become a recurrent obstacle that professional football players must

Id.

How the NFLPA Works, https://nflpa.com/about (last visited Apr. 7, 2023). https://perma.cc/J39E-ZQXB

Fitzgerald, Supra N. 12.

OVER THE CAP, The Collective Bargaining Agreement, https://overthecap.com/collective-bargaining-agreement

(last accessed Apr. 9, 2023). https://perma.cc/Y3XY-75X2

Id.

Article II, 2020 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT,

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/NFLPA/CBA2020/NFL-NFLPA_CBA_March_5_2020.pdf

(last accessed Apr. 9, 2023). https://perma.cc/LE4W-8FFR.

cope with.

One thing to keep in mind is that the violent nature of the game may be viewed as routine

practice, but the fact remains that the systematic contact between players every time the whistle blows is

often beyond what the average person would be able to tolerate. One commentator explains that being hit

in the NFL would feel like running into a glass mirror at full speed.

To be able to get back up like

nothing happened and run the next play over and over again game after game, year after year, is both

commendable and ludicrous. It is difficult to imagine the damage players’ sustain to their bones, organs,

and minds,

and as will be discussed below, it is disconcerting that players’ who undergo such damage,

are not afforded proper long-term contract and retirement benefit guarantees.

Most of this contact between players may just be “part of the game,” but over the last couple of

years there have been a number of alarming and unprecedented on-field incidents involving player

injuries. For instance, in September of 2022 Miami Dolphins Quarterback. Tua Tagavalioa suffered a

concussion but returned to play a week later where he suffered an even more alarming hit that resulted in

frightening on-field moments and his subsequent hospitalization.

Fans and commentators quickly

criticized the handling of the response to Tua’s concussion prior to his on-field seizure, and some

took aim at the NFL’s concussion protocol in general.

Many people are arguing that Tua should not

have been allowed to return to play whether he wanted to or not, but the fact that he did return points to

problems in player contracts which appear designed to influence players to return to play unless they are

physically unable to.

The situation surrounding Damar Hamlin is perhaps even more alarming than Tua’s. Early in

2023, Buffalo Bill’s Safety, Damar Hamlin, suffered a cardiac arrest on the field after being hit during a

Kevin Seifert, NFL says regular-season concussions increased 18% in 2022, ESPN, (Feb, 3, 2023).

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35582897/nfl-says-regular-season-concussions-increased-18-2022

Sally Jenkins, The breathtaking violence of an ordinary NFL hit, THE WASH. POST (Jan. 12, 2023).

https://perma.cc/D8N3-HAMM.

Id.

Jonathan Howard, NFL Fans Concerned After Tua Tagovailoa’s Extremely Scary Injury on Thursday Night

Football, OUTSIDER (Sep. 29, 2022).

Id.; See also Ken Belson, Dolphin’s Tua Tagovailoa Hospitalized After Second Head Hit in Two Games, N.Y.

TIMES, (Sep. 29, 2022).

game against the Cincinnati Bengals.

Following this incident, questions arose regarding the extent to

which playing in the NFL takes a toll on the mental health of players given the trauma involved in his

teammates witnessing this happen, and commentators pointed out how Damar’s injury should serve as a

wakeup call for the league and fans alike moving forward.

Players may accept the risks of injury for the sake of money or fame

but the question remains,

why are players required or allowed to return to the game so soon after suffering an injury?

As will be

explained below, these incidents demonstrate a larger issue: that player contracts may be designed to

encourage players to return to the field after an injury or risk facing contractual or monetary

consequences. Sports officials have begun to take note of this issue and have started to advocate for

players to have the right to determine when they can return to play following an injury without monetary

consequences.

Damar and Tua’s injuries are just two specific and recent examples, there are many more

and given the recent increase in alarming on field injuries, the next CBA should focus on eliminating

harmful provisions in player contracts and other league practices.

B. The 2020 CBA fails to provide Players with adequate rights, compensation, and health

benefits, and the players/players’ union do not seem poised to fight sufficiently hard

enough to secure these satisfactory outcomes.

NFL owners seem to be creating a public health crisis by churning out harmed players and denying or

downplaying the degrees of harm players face. They do so by refusing or challenging the payment of

benefits or pension funds or by making it difficult for players to obtain benefits and designing contracts

that afford them less money. This cycle leaves players in a lose-lose situation because then they have less

money in their pocket to pay for health care or to leave for their families.

Robert Lipsyte, Is It Time To Cancel Football?, THE NAT I O N (Feb. 10, 2023).

Andrew Beaton & Louise Radnofsky, Damar Hamlin’s Collapse and the Mental Health Concerns Facing the

NFL, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (Jan., 4, 2023).

Lipsyte, Supra N. 20.

More on player attitudes and issues with contracts in the section below

Beaton, Supra N. 28.

In this section, I identify a number of provisions in the 2020 CBA that players are undervalued in

light of the risks they face. I will start by exploring problematic provisions in the CBA and common

practices amongst individual teams and will then discuss why the players’ union does not seem to be

fighting hard enough to secure adequate rights for both current and former players.

1. The CBA and the Structure of Player Contracts Illustrate The Inappropriate Attitudes

Discussed Above Through Provisions That Do Not Confer Sufficient Guarantees.

As a preliminary matter, all of the parties discussed above have taken adequate preliminary steps

towards providing players with the rights and benefits they deserve. However, given that these measures

have not reduced injury rate in the NFL,

certain provisions and practices need to be scrutinized more

closely.

Prior to exploring specific issues with the 2020 CBA, a brief comment regarding player salaries is

necessary. According to a breakdown of NFL contracts, about 90% of the time players are paid less than

what their agreement with a team is worth.

While this statistic may not be concerning on its own, it is

amplified by the fact that owners are unwilling to guarantee the full value provided in a contract because

of the high-risk nature of the game.

Again, this may make sense on its own, but the situation is further

complicated by the fact that players often face pay cuts as a result of missing play time due to injury.

Drawing from the above discussion about Damar Hamlin, it has been reported that his initial contract was

valued at over $3,600,000, out of that he was owed $825,000, but because of a clause in his contract

stating he was only to be paid $455,000 while on the reserve/injured list, he ultimately will be paid a mere

12% of the value of his contract

as a thank you from the Bills owner for almost dying on the field. To

make matters worse, Hamlin, and many other players who get injured in their first season, have contracts

that are not set up to provide long term health benefits.

One would hope with clauses like these, that the

Fitzgerald, Supra N.4 at 474.

Tom Dart, Injury pay cuts and limited leverage: five brutal truths about NFL contracts, THE GUARDIAN (Jan. 17,

2023).

Id.

Lipsyte, Supra N.27.

CBA and players association would work to make up for this glaring injustice, but unfortunately that does

not seem to be the case.

Turning to the 2020 CBA, one of the most glaring deficits is the explicit anti-strike (but not its

anti-lockout provision).

While some may view these provisions as mutually beneficial, others, including

myself, believe that strikes

may be the primary mechanism through which players can voice their

concerns about inadequate guarantees regarding their health and safety or long-term benefits. It is

apparent that owners are more likely to benefit from this provision than players. In practice, the provision

serves as a way of asserting that, “as long as you do not strike, we will not lock you out of the stadium,”

and while many players may be hesitant to commit to missing a part or whole season as a result of

striking,

players should have the right to strike reserved while still being protected from lockouts.

Additionally, the 2020 CBA retained a vesting clause. Prior to the 2020 CBA, the vesting clause

stated that players needed four accredited seasons (meaning three or more games played for four seasons)

in order to be eligible for retirement benefits and a pension.

The 2020 CBA reduced the number of

accredited seasons from four to three, and while not insignificant (700 players who were not previously

eligible now are)

this modification does little to help someone who plays every game for two seasons

only to be hurt. In the aforementioned scenario, that player remains ineligible for benefits under the

current CBA. In order to appreciate how the vesting clause diminishes player value, one only needs to

contrast this scheme with that of Major League Baseball where players who are on an active roster for one

day, and who need not even play in a single game, are still entitled to the benefits promised.

3637

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, Supra N.11 (2020).

Mason Storm Byrd, Concussions and Contracts: Can Concern Over Long-Term Player Health Pave The Way to

Greater Guarantees in NFL Contracts?, 59 ARIZ. L. REV. 511, 538—39 (2017).

Id.

Deubert Supra N.11 at 135.

Id.

Fitzgerald Supra N. 4 at 482—83.

Baseball may carry less risk, but I personally was injured playing baseball, as was a friend of mine, and my

younger brother so the risks are prevalent.

One last troubling aspect of the 2020 CBA is the treatment of former players. Under the first

version of the 2020 CBA, former players were facing benefit cuts that were slated to go into effect in

2021.

After widespread criticism, these cuts were pushed back and are now set to go into effect in

2024.

The fact that these cuts were not only asked for in the first place, let alone included in the final

CBA is concerning. If owners are unwilling to set up further benefits for former players one solution

could be to create a benefit fund that may not be directly financed by owners themselves.

The information above indicates that owners may not value their players as much as they should.

It seems apparent that these owners have created a trend where they have players participate in a

dangerous game while simultaneously sugarcoating or ignoring the risks, then using the hazardous nature

of the game as a justification for not paying players the full amount of money promised in a contract.

Moreover, assuming a player actually makes it through enough seasons to qualify for benefits/pension

plan, they remain reluctant to provide adequate benefits to these retired players. The issues identified

above can be partially attributed to weak and inadequate representation on the part of the players

association.

2. The NFLPA, Through Its’ Approval of The 2020 CBA and Acquiescence of Other

Troubling Practices, Has Signaled its Willingness to Make Concessions That

Substantially Limit The Rights and Benefits Afforded to Players.

As the organization primarily tasked with representing and bargaining on behalf of current and former

players, it is unfortunate that the NFLPA (which is partially comprised of former players) has allowed

both detrimental provisions to remain in the CBA and in player contracts. One possible reason for the

NFLPA’s apparent inability to advocate effectively on behalf of current and former players could be due

to the fact that the collective bargaining table has always been tilted to favor owners.

The player

Ken Belson, Disabled Former N.F.L. Players Get a Reprieve on Benefit Cuts, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 15, 2020).

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/15/sports/football/nfl-disability-benefits.html?login=email&auth=login-email

https://perma.cc/YFS7-VGEL

Id.

Mason Storm Byrd, Concussions and Contracts: Can Concern Over Long-Term Player Health Pave The Way to

Greater Guarantees in NFL Contracts?, 59 ARIZ. L. REV. 511, 537 (2017).

representatives to the NFLPA should take note of this and work towards balancing this power dynamic

out so detrimental provisions are less prevalent.

For instance, meeting the owners demands to include the anti-striking provision is a step in the wrong

direction. The NFLPA may feel obligated to meet the demands of owners’ since doing so guarantees

players some benefits. However, there is little discussion as to why the status quo must remain this way,

what the practical effects of refusing to make concessions are, or what a more aggressive attempt to tilt

the balance of power to favor players what would look like. As I attempt to demonstrate in the following

sections, the NFLPA would be well suited to try to assert itself and become something more than a “lesser

union”

sometime between now and the drafting of the next CBA in 2030. If such efforts are not taken,

then players may never secure the representation, benefits, and rights they deserve.

C. What the NFPLA Should Fight For in The Next CBA to Address Some of These Deficits

and Why.

In this section, I argue that NFL players—perhaps through meetings with their NFLPA

representatives—should work towards pushing for greater guarantees in the next CBA.

1. Remove Anti-strike Provisions

In America, there is a long history of employees successfully using strikes to gain leverage over

employers in order to obtain better rights, benefits, and working conditions. These actions are used in

order to shift the employer-employee balance of power so that employees are afforded certain rights that

they deem necessary, but which employers were previously unwilling to provide.

The governing Draft of the CBA has an explicit anti-strike and anti-lockout provision.

The anti-

strike component prohibits players from engaging in any work stoppage for the duration of contemporary

CBA and prohibits them from “interfering with the operations of the NFL or with other clubs.”

The

Anti-Lockout provision prohibits club personnel or owners from locking players out of their facility.

Id.

Article III, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, Supra N.43 (2020).

Id.

the past lockouts have been in response to players’ unwillingness to negotiate, initiating lawsuits against

the NFL,

or expressing other forms of discontent with the status quo.

The problem with the inclusion of this provision is that the balance of power between the NFLPA and

the NFL (club owners) is substantially tilted to favor the owners. As such, it seems practical to assume

that players are more negatively affected by this provision than the owners and consequently, the owner

guarantee not to engage in lockouts seems superficial. Players are probably more likely to go on strike

than owners are to lock these players out (thereby impacting their revenue and profit). Given that players

have a ways to go in securing adequate rights and benefits, and due to the successful use of striking or

using other collective action measures to obtain broader rights in other sectors, the next CBA should

remove this anti-strike provision or at least incorporate an exception that allows for players to strike in

certain circumstances. For instance, perhaps allowing players to go on strike to protest certain detrimental

actions that owners undertake in such as pushing cutting benefits owed to former players. When players

have attempted to go on strike in the past, the NFLPA failed to present itself as a cohesive unit, and if this

provision is going to be amended, players must be committed to holding their ground and the NFLPA

must assert itself and effectively representative the players interests.

Ultimately, some believe that the

extreme action of going on strike will indicate to owners that players take certain issues seriously, and if

players are prohibited from expressing themselves in this manner, progress towards advancing player

rights may be stalled.

2. Restructure Contracts Clauses That Influence Player Decision to Play Injured and

Modify The Vesting Clause Which Limits When Players May Receive Benefits Upon

Retirement.

Damar Hamlin’s injury and payout for the 2022-2023

season described above illustrates structural

problems with player contracts which may contribute to more widespread injuries among current and

former players. The negotiation process between the NFLPA and the NFL owners is meant to be a give

Byrd Supra N. 54 at 528—29.

Id. at 538.

Supra n. 44—45.

and take process. Yet, it is difficult to see what owners are giving in return for players’ forfeiting rights to

protest and contract clauses that allow these owners to hold back money promised in their contract if they

get injured. To add insult to injury, the owners have taken measures to reduce benefits that former players

receive.

Taken together, these three clauses and actions demonstrate not only a substantial imbalance of

power, but also potentially the creation and maintenance of what could eventually amount to a public

health crisis.

During negotiations over the next CBA, NFL players (through their NFLPA representatives) should

work towards implementing structural changes to contract clauses because, taken together with the anti-

strike provision, it appears as though players have very little incentive to play smart, and as a result of

being encouraged to play injured, they have more health complications. Despite these circumstances,

players must fight hard to secure post-retirement benefits—since they must satisfy the vesting

requirement—and upon retirement, their benefits appear to be at constant risk of facing cutbacks. This is

especially troubling in cases where players get hurt before meet the vesting requirement or in instances

where they have their salaries cut for a of couple seasons as a result of clauses in their contract that reduce

their payout while they are on the injured list. Taken together, the incentives to play injured, the pay-cuts

for being unable to play because of injuries sustained, and the constant threat of losing retirement

benefits, all point to widespread structural flaws in both league practices and the CBA negotiating

process, and the relevant stakeholders should assert themselves to ameliorate these conditions before the

next CBA negotiations take place so that when that process begins, these issues are front and center.

D. What Could Happen if The NFLPA Fails to Adopt These or Similar Suggestions?

This situation that players face appears dire and there are a number of potential consequences that

may result if the interested parties and stakeholders do take more aggressive steps to secure adequate

rights for current, former, and future generations of player.

Supra n. 50—55.

1. Subsequent Generations of Players Could be at Risk.

Some commentators

believe that players’ who decide to play injured rather than smart are setting a

bad example for younger generations of football players such as those playing in interscholastic leagues.

This makes sense, as often youth athletes look up to professional athletes as role models and sometimes

aspire to be like them. Therefore, NFL players, whether they are cognizant of this fact or not, have the

ability to shape the future of the way the game is played.

On the one hand, if they continue to play injured without expressing discontent about salary clauses,

they are signaling to these younger generations—who may or may not become professional players—that

it is better to give into the pressure and return to the game and tough it out even if they do not feel 100%

so they can get paid. On the other hand, if current players express frustration with the status quo, and push

for greater guarantees and rights in the next CBA, then they would be working towards securing better

benefits not only for themselves, but for future generations of players. Signaling discontent with the status

quo would not be difficult, it would merely require players to stop returning to the game when they do not

feel 100%. While they may not be making millions, they would still be top 1% of all earners. With proper

money management, their earnings would still be substantial.

By taking such actions, current players would be making progress towards ensuring that the nature of

professional football is not drastically changed—for instance, changed in the sense that it becomes two

hand touch.

Thus, current players would be wise to signal to younger players that money and fame are

not more important than health and safety. Failure to do so would feed the ongoing cycle of professional

teams churning out damaged underpaid players will continue. Once this cycle gets to the point where

youth athletes are following by example and disregarding their health for money or fame, it is not hard to

foresee this issue turning from a cycle of abuse into a more widespread public health crisis. If this were to

See generally Theresa S. Kim, Tackling Head Injuries In Youth And Interscholastic Football Wi t h NFL Contract

Reform, 24 SPORTS L. J. 71 (2017).

See NFL announces ‘The Pro Bowl Games’ to replace tackle with flag football, skills competitions, NFL.COM,

(Sept. 26, 2022 at (9:11 A.M,( h$ps://www.nﬂ.com/news/nﬂ-announces-the-pro-bowl-games-to-replace-tackle-

game-with-ﬂag-football-skill https://perma.cc/L5LP-S5V2

happen, it is likely that a third party may need to intervene and take drastic measures, that most people

would not be happy about. This third party could be a government entity such as OSHA

or a new entity

created to serve as a neutral third-party mediator for professional sports bargaining and negotiations.

IV. ADDRESSING COUNTERPOINTS

There are a number of valid reasons why the suggestions in this paper are impractical. To begin,

many would suggest that NFL players are well-represented and well-informed adults, who have made a

career out of playing football and are thus cognizant and accepting of the risks involved with playing in

the NFL. Furthermore, these players (through their NFLPA representatives) have made conscious

decisions regarding what they want to bargain for and what they are willing to sacrifice in order to have

their requests met. As such, if certain requests were not formalized in the current governing version of the

CBA, this indicates that not enough—if any—players felt that such a request was worth sacrificing

something else for.

The assumption of the risk argument is compelling, and it is probably true up to a certain point.

Players do assume certain risks, such as the risk that they will get injured and have to miss games,

however it is difficult to believe that they assume the risk of death. While these instances where players

face death are anomalous now, there is no way to foretell how anomalous these incidents will be in the

next decade. The parties to the next CBA would be well-suited to formalize specific measures or practices

that can be implemented to prevent players from getting hit into cardiac arrest or seizures more

frequently.

Regarding the give-and-take aspect of the collective bargaining process, it was stated above that

the balance of power has always favored club owners. While it may not be practical to force owners to

give more and take less, this power imbalance raises a number of concerns. For instance, how often are

owners pre-emptively pushing certain requests through the NFLPA as backroom deals? Are players

getting the full run-down of what each aspect of the give-and-take will mean in practice, are they fully

See generally Adam M. Finkel et. al, The NFL as a Workplace: The Prospect of Applying Occupational Health

and Safety Law to Protect NFL Workers, 60 ARIZ. L. REV. 291 (2018).

informed of what they are agreeing to give away? What happens if a large minority of players are not

content with certain aspects of this process? How much do fame and money drive player decisions and

how easy is it to cater to this mindset as an easy way for owners to get out of having to make more

difficult concessions? All of these considerations require further analysis, and perhaps they would best be

addressed through a neutral third-party participant in the negotiation process who has little to no stake in

the outcome of that process or the league itself.

Next, NFL owners may be ultra-wealthy, but that wealth is finite. As such, it makes sense that

they would take steps to secure their current assets while maximizing future profits. With this being said,

it is logical for them to be wary of guaranteeing full amounts of money or adequate and thorough benefits

to former players. One way to address this concern would be to shift the financial burden away from

owners or have owners take NFL teams public or have the team (partially) owned by the city in which it

is located, such as the Green Bay Packers. If all 32 teams followed suit, the financial situation would

change, and the clubs may be more willing and able to confer substantial and adequate benefits to former

players. Change in the financial structure of the club ownership could also address the structural problems

with money guarantees in contracts, because the risk associated with the league (at least financially and in

theory) would be shared.

Finally, one could argue that this paper is alarmist because the NFL has come a long way over the

last decade and is continuing to take steps in the proper direction towards safeguarding player health and

providing former players with adequate benefits. However, the nature of the game and risks players face

have all evolved as well. In order to adequately keep up with changing times, more safeguards should be

implemented so that professional football can continue to be played as it has been without undergoing

massive restructuring or facing unwanted outside interference by third parties.

V. CONCLUSION

This article has identified several prevalent and problematic practices and attitudes held by NFL

club owners, officials, fans, and players themselves. For many decades, these aspects of professional

football have largely gone unaddressed. However, in recent years there has been a massive effort that has

shifted the focus away from profits and more towards safeguarding player health, providing former

players with adequate benefits, and creating an adequate environment for future NFL players. These

measures are steps in the right direction, but as the game appears to get more violent, and with recent

incidents demonstrating that there are risks that were not previously recognized, it is critical that players,

player representatives, and other interested parties continue to push for greater safeguards.

Greater safeguards may come in the form of changes in the contractual structure, the amendment

or removal of certain provisions from the next CBA, changes in how clubs are owned, or through third

party intervention. Whatever their form, these safeguards are necessary to ensure that professional

football can continue to serve as an immensely popular form of entertainment without undergoing

massive alterations to the manner in which it is currently played. Former players, who gave blood, sweat,

and years of their lives to these clubs should be better cared for if they suffer from chronic ailments, and

current players and the NFLPA (with or without the help of fans) need to take a more proactive approach

in how they are treated so to level the playing field between themselves and owners. This playing field

needs to be leveled not only for themselves, but for the sake of future generations of players. This would

mean an altruistic and widespread shift in attitudes away from seeking fame and fortune, with an

emphasis towards safeguarding each generation of players and the future of the game itself.