OT - Congressional report says NFL waged improper campaign to influence government study
This is definitely not a good look for the NFL:
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/15667689/congressional-report-finds-nfl-improperly-intervened-brain-research-cost-taxpayers-16-million
Enormous font point: also not a good look.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
adds an extra level of egregiousness to the NFL's actions.
NFL stadiums have costed taxpayers way, way more.
as a blanket statement, true, what are the impacts of these nfl stadiums for those tax payers? {{politics}}
I've read numerous articles about how those stadiums don't generate nearly enough revenue to make up for what the taxpayers put down for them. Cities and taxpayers often pay up because they don't wanna lose the team, not because it actually makes good budget sense.
There are very few things that economists agree on. This is one of them. But you probably should know that giving hundreds of millions to billionaires is probably not a good thing without any studies.
So true, in fact I don't even consider it politics... citations of articles I found by quickly searching a few prominent sources with their generally accepted left/right affiliations
Brookings (left): http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/1997/06/summer-taxes-noll
The Atlantic (left): http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-build-it-the…
Cato (right): http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/governmentfunded-stadiums-n…
Reason (right): http://reason.com/archives/2015/12/01/economists-agree-publicly-finance…
Heritage Foundation (right): http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2002/07/taxpayers-prop-up-s…
And of course... john Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs
"If you don't give X million dollars, we're moving your beloved team out of town"
When NFL teams have that leverage over fanbases, they basically have no choice but to cave. Makes me think it should be illegal because it'll never stop otherwise
They're privately owned and teams pay taxes. Hard to tell them they can't negotiate for tax deals like any company.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
They're not like other companies. They've gotten anti-trust exemptions. If they leave, their leagues make it difficult to replace them. That doesn't happen in other industries and they're using it to their advantage.
um, it shouldn't be up to those fanbases how the taxes of a million+ residents are spent. Sports has gone way beyond a harmless hobby at that point
Mike Valenti is that you? ;)
also not a good look
When the NFL understands the Ideal Gas Law and related concepts, it may be time for them to interfere with CTE research. We're not there yet.
agreed
Selective knowledge, yo.
The font hurts my eyes.
Those filthy fucking rats. No wonder people are trying to ban kickoffs in little league (I don't agree with that by the way). How can they get away with this kind of shit? No wonder Roger Goodell gets spit on.
the NFL concluded, and rightly so, if you read Stern's past views, that his mind is already made up, and any research results from him would likely be bad PR for the league, and possibly (if you buy their argument) biased results. Now, maybe Styern is 100% right in all his past opinions, who knows. But it's pretty common for both sides in any industry research to call into question the impartial nature of research given who funds it or who runs it.
That's why the proposals for selecting the research teams went through the NIH's double blind peer review evaluation process. That the NFL didn't like the result of the review speaks to their attempt to engineer a favorable study, not the predicting ideas of BU's researcher
that's not related to this research. This is a problem with all CTE research. Researchers have to play nice with the NFL and the players association. The same is true for NFL and CFB team doctors and trainers for that matter.
This whole issue is ef'd from a transparency POV. People aren't getting the truth. Who knows what is true anymore? Instead people are told it's getting better. That is true. But how bad is it? The NFL and the NFLPA have no interest in finding that out.
Good god, reading even the summary is pretty disgusting. But then again, it's the same thing any billionaire empire does to keep themselves at the top. Certainly won't help the continual lawsuits that will come.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I am utterly shocked and aghast at this completely inconceivable development. Since when would an enormous body with vast financial resources and influence seek to employ those resources and influence in such a manner so as to preserve and expand upon said vast financial resources and influence?
Are you talking about the NFL or Congress? Weird how your comment seems to apply to both.
is just a factual document, rather than an opinion.
I didn't bother reading the article to begin with. My default expectation is that, unless someone explicitly indicates otherwise, they are going to act to promote their own self interests. Corporations, who are in the business of being profitable don't need that presumption since that is pretty much their purpose for existing. (even the non-profit ones).
As for congressional reports, like everything, it depends on the context--after an investigation, just to bring someone in for a high-profile tongue lashing, etc.
Seems like the NFL should still have to pay. They promised $16M for a study, in reliance on that promise the NIH set up the study, and then the NFL backed out when they didn't like the researcher NIH picked. In law school I think they call that "promissory estoppel."
Brought to you by the guys that say Brady is a cheater. But don't blame Goodell, he was trying to put a bunch of scientists, laid off by the Tobacco Institute, back to work.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
This is about as likely as Ole Miss paying players. Many players, repeatedly, with the full knowledge of administration. Then trying to deny it and cover up. So, REALLY likely.
Why is there a congressional report about breaching a contract? Either the NFL failed to live up to the terms and should be sued or not. Right? Did the NFL break the contract or just break their PR promises outside the contract?
Also, is it lost on anyone that members of Congress are critical of someone else for exerting undue influence (and acting behind-the-scenes) to affect a government agency?
This story could have been written many ways:
1. NFL seeks to assert influence by failing to fund study if their guy was not chosen to head it up.
2. NFL refuses to fund study where lead researcher was chosen mainly because he was critical of the NFL.
3. Congress tries to explain why taxpayers have to pay for government study, which NFL had previously agreed to pay.
4. NIH contract poorly drafted, so Congress resorts to a report to shame the NFL.
5. Four left-leaning politicians, who receive heavy funding from attorneys/law firms, unhappy with NFL's attempt to stop research done by plaintiff litigation-friendly researcher.
6. NFL only concerned about future litigation and profits, not the safety of players implies report from champions of the little guy.
Etc...
To be clear, I think the NFL wanted to influence the study. I also think the four members of Congress have an agenda (maybe good, maybe not).
Anyway, a "congressional report" on this? Why is this a government issue?
A Non Profit that shouldn't be one, breaking a promise, be it even verbal/press release and not contractually obligating.
Take away their non-profit status, if they found it unprofitable to fund a study, they didn't want an actual study, they wanted one in the same realm of cigarettes are good for your health.
Maybe. Also, I don't think they should be a non-profit. Regardless, the distinction isn't too important for me. Lots of non-profit entities like hospitals and universities makes tons of money and pay big salaries, they just don't have shareholders. It is kinda of like a private company. Plus, a lot of companies that are for-profit work around showing any profit on books in order to avoid corporate tax on profits. So, I agree with you but don't really know if their non-profit status affects much.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
The NFL voluntarily gave up their non profit status last year.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Thanks.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Like you said, though. The distinction doesn't mean much. For a $10B company, a few million doesn't mean a whole lot. There's a Forbes article on it. It was strategic because they were likely to lose it involuntarily before too long. This way the get the PR for it. That said, obviously it didn't get noticed much considering many think they are still non profit.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Come on. Everyone knows the NFL is under fire for concussions. So if the NFL declares that it takes the issue seriously and wants to fund a study, it's fair to report the story in a way that calls the NFL's sincerity into question when the NFL reneges on that promise. Only an NFL apologist or PR flack would argue this is just a run-of-the-mill breach of contract situation.
Maybe I am old and jaded, but I don't think the NFL nor Congress have any "sncerity" to question. Both are self-ineterested.
Is it sincere to have someone who is biased to the NFL conduct the study?
Is it sincere to have a known critic of the NFL conduct the study?
Then why criticize how the reporter framed the article?
I'm obviously not talking about sincerity in the abstract here, but rather the sincerity of a specific position the NFL asserted--i.e., that they take concussions seriously and want them adequately studied. Just because there may have been reasons to doubt that from the get-go doesn't mean it isn't newsorthy when proof emerges showing the NFL is being dishonest.
Because the author seems to think the government is sincere and the NFL is not. The reporter ignores that the government does the very thing it accuses the NFL of doing. Every. Single. Day. That is somehow lost. Also, the reporter seems to ignore that what is written in the contract is what binds AND the reporter ignores any self-interest these government officials may have in bringing claims. Not to mention the reporter failing t mention whether such a report itself was needed or a waste of money. In short, the report portrayed these four congressmen as sincere. One side.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Okay. Just because "the government" does shady things and because politicians are generally untrustworthy does not mean that the NIH is not genuinely interested in an honest, scientifically rigorous study of CTE or that the congressmen involved don't sincerely want to see that happening. By contrast, the article has exposed a clear and specific instance of the NFL saying one thing and doing the opposite. If the reporter had evidence that the specific congressmen or NIH officials involved here were dping something unethical, then I would expect him to include it. But there is no particular reason to believe such evidence exists. By your view, we could never believe anything anyone says because every person is corrupt and duplicitous.
... it's a government issue, because government can serve a purpose of informing its citizens about the risks associated with certain activities. Just like the government has funded studies on smoking, diet, exercise, climate change, etc... There is a role for an independent (I get it, they aren't really independent) authority to evaluate the unintended consequences of industry. God knows the people making bank aren't going to do it.
This isn't a story about the need for government research.
It is about shaming the NFL and wasting money on a report to shame them -- when the contract with the NFL could have just been stronger.
If the government wants to fund such a study, then great. But, it doesnt want to spend that money here and its agenda is to get the NFL to fund it.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
You asked, why is this a government issue. I'm suggesting research that helps inform citizens about the risks of football is something I want my government funding. It may have impact on the activities in which I allow my children to participate.
I asked why there is a government report about the NFL backing out. I didn't ask why the government is pursuing this type of research. If the NFL like pulls out funding, then fund it yourself or sue them. Don't waste money a lengthy report trying to shame them into paying...
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I don't see the need to conduct studies about risky activity as one of the roles of the federal government the copy of the Constitution I have.
of any of these issues is assuming that government, which is made up of people, is any less self-interested or biased in it's approach than any other group of people. People that work in government are not one bit more moral or ethical than any other group of people, nor one bit less.
This is too black and white. I get it, everyone has biases. But to say the nfl is equally impartial on this issue is just asinine.
I simply point out what I think is a truism, that all people are motivated by self-interest, and that no collection of humans (in a society like ours) has a monopoly on virtue. It's a fallacy to assume that a politician is less self-interested than a business person--in fact, one could argue they are more so.
wait I forgot... God bless America.
Everyone has an agenda, even you.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad