Dissident National Football League retiree Dave Pear’s blog has more primary-source email exchanges among principals about the confused status of increased pensions for pre-1993 players as a result of the so-called Legacy Fund, which was negotiated into the recent collective bargaining agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association. Some of these equivocal words emanate from Sam McCullum, the replacement for the late Dave Duerson on the joint labor-management disability claims review board.
See “More unanswered questions on pre-93 issues,” http://davepear.com/blog/2011/08/more-unanswered-questions-pre-93-issues/.
The general public and football fans don’t have to muddle through every detail of the pension dispute. What they do need to understand is that, although U.S. District Court Judge Susan Nelson has dismissed as moot the Brady v. NFL antitrust suit which helped drive the recent final season-saving negotiations, retiree issues remain an afterthought with a large, long tail. I mean, does anyone think active players would have agreed to go back to the salt mines last month in the absence of fixed understandings about minimum salaries, workplace rules, and other conditions central to their interests?
(The question is rhetorical, but I confess that the answer to even that one could be a sad “yes.” The new pro football labor peace has simply kicked the can down the road on one of the owners’ fondest wishes, the 18-game regular season. And don’t be surprised if that juicy item gets slipped in over the next few years of the “10-year contract”: a 12.5 percent increase in orthopedic and neurological wear and tear, offset only by the promise of enhanced “concussion awareness.”)
Below are links to recent related posts at this blog.