Is the players’ union not living up to its obligations to ex-players? Are there lots of former players living in chronic pain, dying too soon of treatable illnesses, or struggling to put food on the table? Or is this much ado about nothing?
It is a big problem.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/28/eveningnews/main2738666.shtml
John Mackey is one of those who never avoided a collision. he paid a horrible price and is the poster boy for the retirees.
Given the millions (billions?) sloshing around the NFL, the “88 Plan” sounds like peanuts.
The union has no obligations to ex-players. The union represents its membership. All of the membership are current players. All of the ex-players entered freely into contracts and knew what their retirement packages would be. Whatever the current players give to the former players is charity, not obligation.
Legally, you are orrect, Puddleglum. But since I am not a Contractarian, I will argue that ethically the current players do have an obligation to those men without whose work, sacrifice, and now suffering their own wealth would not be possible. However, on the flip side of the coin I think retired players who are castigating teh union for not taking better care of them than their contracts demand are behaving ungraciously and perhaps even hypocritically, unless they themselves willingly gave up part of their earnings while playing the game in order to care for those early pioneers who founded the league.
They are not entitled to the help they ask, but they have earned respect and consideration from the current players. I think it is a fine thing for that consideration to take the form of monetary and medical assistance to help deal with the physical toll that the game demands.