PDA

View Full Version : NFL Pension disgrace



ChickenMan
February 2nd, 2007, 09:50 AM
In a league were the owners are literally sitting on a pot of gold and the current players average over $600,000 per year... the treatment of the 'players who made the game'... the pre 1977 guys is a true disgrace. You would think that since the owners are swimming in cash and most of the current players are in a position to be very financially secure when they retire... that they might be willing to share some of that bonanza with the ex-players who really need it. But I guess not...

It was the NFL's greatest generation, a battered and bloodied assortment of football pioneers from blue-collar cities, Midwest farmhouses, bayou swamplands and every other corner of America.

The mantra these players forged: Play hard. Make no excuses. Tape it up and get back out there.Their football souls were like coarse-grit sandpaper. They were proud and tough. And they always played hurt.

Today, many former NFL players fighting for better pension benefits and representation on the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle Retirement and Disability Plan board are swallowing their pride. They are because they hurt in an assortment of ways.They feel cheated and victimized by an NFL pension plan that pales in comparison to similar plans in the NBA and Major League Baseball for players of their generation.

Former Oilers quarterback Dan Pastorini, 57, who had a sterling 13-year NFL career, earns just $1,202.32 a month in pension benefits.Having been afforded no health insurance by the NFL in retirement, Pastorini must meet an annual $5,000 deductible because of pre-existing conditions that include back, neck and knee problems.

NFL Hall of Fame safety Paul Krause, who played 16 NFL seasons (1964-1979) for the Redskins and Minnesota Vikings, gets $300 a month in pension. Hall of Famer Leroy Kelly, a 10-year star running back for the Cleveland Browns (1964-1973) gets $800 a month.

Hall of Famer Joe DeLamielleure, who played 185 consecutive games during his 13 NFL seasons with the Buffalo Bills and Cleveland Browns, receives $800 a month. None has received NFL health insurance benefits.

But when the NFLPA upped pension benefits for pre-1977 players after a recent CBA agreement, Upshaw hailed the increase as unprecedented. Players were unimpressed with those benefits, many going from $100 a month to $200 a month for vested players.

"Yeah, he's got some window dressing he can put out there, but when you look at it, it's pathetic," said former Colts and Chargers (1972-1983) defensive back Bruce Laird. "Everybody is happy for what the union has done for the active players. They've done some wonderful things. If I played in 1995 and saw Gene Upshaw, I'd kiss his (backside).

In the past, Upshaw, who earns $3 million a year as NFLPA chief and recently received a five-year extension to his contract, has said he does care about former players. But he also has called those calling for better benefits, "misinformed" and "ungrateful."



http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/lopez/4243617.html

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/16604071.htm

BigApp
February 2nd, 2007, 05:04 PM
Dan Pastorini is NOT a good example to use in this story. His deductible is so high probably because of his Drag Racing than anything else.

YoUDeeMan
February 2nd, 2007, 09:39 PM
Dan Pastorini is NOT a good example to use in this story. His deductible is so high probably because of his Drag Racing than anything else.

ChickenMan,

I agree with a lot of your posts, but I'm not sure what the fuss is about regarding this topic. Is anyone advocating that CEO's in the olden days should now have their retirement benefits changed to match CEO's of the present?

Those players played under contracts that were OK at the time (and they wanted to play the game)...no one could have seen that TV would bring in the big revenues.

If the NFL suffers in the future, would the present players give back any of their benefits or would they demand that the NFL stick to their contracts?

How many unions (pilots, teachers, auto workers, etc.) are willing to give up their earned benefits and take a pay cut? None - they fight tooth and nail until/unless threatened with a total loss. So why should they be entitled to anything more than they bargained for when things get better? :twocents:

MR. CHICKEN
February 2nd, 2007, 10:54 PM
SOMEDAY....WE'LL ALL RETIRE........AN' WILL.....WHAT WE'LL GET....AT DAT TIME......CARRY US....INTA DUH FUTURE?............DIS IS WHAT DUH 401K..IS ALL 'BOUT.......TA PICK UP DUH SLACK.......EVERAH HEAR...'BOUT DUH GRASSHOPPERAH AN' DUH SQUIRELL???????????

citdog
February 3rd, 2007, 12:50 AM
No, but with you I have a feeling that it somehow leads to beaver

citdog
February 3rd, 2007, 12:52 AM
EVERAH HEAR...'BOUT DUH GRASSHOPPERAH AN' DUH SQUIRELL???????????

No but with you I have a feeling that it leads to beaver

ChickenMan
February 3rd, 2007, 09:08 AM
ChickenMan,

How many unions (pilots, teachers, auto workers, etc.) are willing to give up their earned benefits and take a pay cut? None - they fight tooth and nail until/unless threatened with a total loss. So why should they be entitled to anything more than they bargained for when things get better? :twocents:


None of those unions have had or ever will have things get 'better' in a dramatic manner similar to that of the current NFL players. The benifits of the players ('60/'70's guys) who really made the game the huge money maker that it is today are barely a blip on the radar screen when compared to salaries and pension benifits of the current players. No one wouldn't expect the '60/'70's players to have comparable benifits to today's NFL guys ... but when many of those old players have pensions that are under $1000 a month... I find that disgraceful.

MR. CHICKEN
February 3rd, 2007, 10:02 AM
No but with you I have a feeling that it leads to beaver

xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx:nod:xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx xlolx

BisonBacker
February 3rd, 2007, 10:38 AM
I would have to agree with Chickenman. I normally don't sympathize with anyone coming back to the table after the fact and crying foul but in this case its a fair question.