Welcome back to The Sports Ace, where holding all four Grand Slam tennis titles at once is a regular occurrence.
So much has been made lately of the concussion issue in the NFL. What I find most fascinating about it is how the NFLPA is treating the issue. On one hand, they’re working hard to secure benefits and compassion for injured players, especially retired players who didn’t make the millions that today’s athletes do…this played a major role in the labor disagreement that threatened last season. But on the other hand, they’re now defending the very people who have emerged as a serious threat to their members’ safety.
I’m referring specifically to BountyGate, of course. The NFLPA, very early on, had a very difficult decision: support the handful of players punished by the NFL and help defend their rights, or endorse Goodell’s rulings and condemn the guilty parties’ actions in a move to underscore their pro-health position for the rest of the league’s current and former players. This was a decision they must have agonized over, but in the end they chose to support the handful. The NFLPA is vigorously defending Jonathan Vilma and others, trying to get their suspensions shortened and the like. I’m here to tell you I think they made the wrong call.
If there’s one thing the NFL and its fans have been adamant about over the past 6-12 months, it is preserving the health of players – current and former. No one wants to see cases like Junior Seau’s, or others like it. No one wants to see players carted off a field due to injury. And, especially, no one wants to see actions on a football field that would be criminal off the field. The evidence against the BountyGate players and coaches, at least the stuff that’s been released to the public, is jaw-dropping…and rock solid. Yet the NFLPA still defends the handful, and undercuts its pro-health stance by doing so. Put another way: by supporting the 1% on this issue, the NFLPA failed to support the 99%. The result is that the NFLPA has brought into question where it stands on player injuries, and what side it will come down on in the future.
If I were a card-carrying member of the NFLPA (like Chris Kluwe, who’s ranted about this on Twitter @ChrisWarcraft), I’d be seriously concerned about whether or not the union I belong to really has my best interests in mind. From the fan’s perspective, or the NFL’s, I’m seriously concerned that the NFLPA might not be committed to ensuring that the game continues to grow and prosper for decades to come. Either of these matters is enough to generate a firestorm of debate and controversy for the NFLPA, and I think it’s only a matter of time before more people inside and outside of the league ask these kinds of hard questions. The result could change the NFLPA as we know it today.
It’s simple, really: pick a side, and stick with it. The NFLPA has acted to straddle both sides of the line on the broader topic of player injury, and I think it could blow up in their face before this issue runs its course…if it ever does.
That’s all for now. I’m out like Francisco Liriano.