Blab Sports
NFLPA Opposes California Bill That Would Restrict Players Workers Compensation Rights
The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) has issued a formal statement opposing California Senate Bill 795, a proposed change to the state’s workers’ compensation system that would limit professional athletes’ access to benefits. The bill, sponsored by Senator Laura Richardson, has been publicly backed by the three California‑based NFL franchises – the Los Angeles Rams, the Los Angeles Chargers and the San Francisco 49ers – and by several other major sports leagues, but the union says the legislation would undermine the protections that players currently enjoy.
SB 795 would alter the way players can file claims for injuries that develop over the course of a career. According to the NFLPA, the bill would “greatly change how NFL players access benefits for career‑related injuries, particularly cumulative trauma claims.” It would narrow the ability to file claims tied to long‑term wear and tear, one of the primary avenues for players seeking coverage. The legislation would also impose tighter eligibility rules by redefining what constitutes a California‑based team and limiting the circumstances under which a player can bring a claim in the state. The union argues that the changes shift liability away from clubs and increase the likelihood that players bear a greater share of injury‑related medical costs. In addition, the bill would apply retroactively to active and pending claims that have not yet been finalized, creating risk for players who have already filed or are in the process of filing.
The NFLPA sent an email to players and certified agents outlining the potential impacts of the legislation. The message explained that the bill would “greatly change how NFL players access benefits for career‑related injuries, particularly cumulative trauma claims.” It also highlighted that the bill would “narrow the ability to file claims tied to long‑term, career‑related wear and tear – one of the primary avenues for players seeking coverage.” The union further noted that the bill would “apply retroactively to active and pending claims that have not yet been finalized, introducing risk for clients who have already filed or are in process.”
This is the third time a legislative effort has sought to modify California’s workers’ compensation laws in a way the NFLPA believes disadvantages professional athletes. The union has previously voiced concerns over similar proposals, and the current bill is seen as a continuation of that trend. The NFL’s workers’ compensation insurance costs are currently included in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The NFLPA suggests that supporting the changes could be an attempt by the league to circumvent the CBA’s provisions. The union has called for a clear commitment in the next CBA that the NFL will not support any efforts to restrict players’ rights under workers’ compensation laws in states where the league operates.
While the bill has the backing of several major sports leagues, the National Basketball Association and its California teams – the Los Angeles Lakers, the Los Angeles Clippers and the Golden State Warriors – were not identified by Senator Richardson as supporters. The NFLPA’s opposition reflects a broader concern that the legislation would erode the safety net that has historically protected athletes in California.
At present, the bill remains in the legislative process. The NFLPA has not issued a public statement beyond the email to its members, and the NFL and its California franchises have not released official comments. Players and agents who have filed claims under the current system are monitoring the situation closely. The union’s stance indicates that any future negotiations will likely address the issue of workers’ compensation protections for players in California.
In summary, the NFLPA is firmly against SB 795, citing its potential to limit players’ ability to obtain benefits for career‑related injuries and to shift liability away from teams. The bill’s supporters include the California NFL franchises and several other major sports leagues, but the union’s position underscores the importance of maintaining robust workers’ compensation protections for professional athletes. The outcome of the legislation will have implications for players’ medical coverage, the NFL’s insurance obligations, and the terms of the next collective bargaining agreement.
SB 795 would alter the way players can file claims for injuries that develop over the course of a career. According to the NFLPA, the bill would “greatly change how NFL players access benefits for career‑related injuries, particularly cumulative trauma claims.” It would narrow the ability to file claims tied to long‑term wear and tear, one of the primary avenues for players seeking coverage. The legislation would also impose tighter eligibility rules by redefining what constitutes a California‑based team and limiting the circumstances under which a player can bring a claim in the state. The union argues that the changes shift liability away from clubs and increase the likelihood that players bear a greater share of injury‑related medical costs. In addition, the bill would apply retroactively to active and pending claims that have not yet been finalized, creating risk for players who have already filed or are in the process of filing.
The NFLPA sent an email to players and certified agents outlining the potential impacts of the legislation. The message explained that the bill would “greatly change how NFL players access benefits for career‑related injuries, particularly cumulative trauma claims.” It also highlighted that the bill would “narrow the ability to file claims tied to long‑term, career‑related wear and tear – one of the primary avenues for players seeking coverage.” The union further noted that the bill would “apply retroactively to active and pending claims that have not yet been finalized, introducing risk for clients who have already filed or are in process.”
This is the third time a legislative effort has sought to modify California’s workers’ compensation laws in a way the NFLPA believes disadvantages professional athletes. The union has previously voiced concerns over similar proposals, and the current bill is seen as a continuation of that trend. The NFL’s workers’ compensation insurance costs are currently included in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The NFLPA suggests that supporting the changes could be an attempt by the league to circumvent the CBA’s provisions. The union has called for a clear commitment in the next CBA that the NFL will not support any efforts to restrict players’ rights under workers’ compensation laws in states where the league operates.
While the bill has the backing of several major sports leagues, the National Basketball Association and its California teams – the Los Angeles Lakers, the Los Angeles Clippers and the Golden State Warriors – were not identified by Senator Richardson as supporters. The NFLPA’s opposition reflects a broader concern that the legislation would erode the safety net that has historically protected athletes in California.
At present, the bill remains in the legislative process. The NFLPA has not issued a public statement beyond the email to its members, and the NFL and its California franchises have not released official comments. Players and agents who have filed claims under the current system are monitoring the situation closely. The union’s stance indicates that any future negotiations will likely address the issue of workers’ compensation protections for players in California.
In summary, the NFLPA is firmly against SB 795, citing its potential to limit players’ ability to obtain benefits for career‑related injuries and to shift liability away from teams. The bill’s supporters include the California NFL franchises and several other major sports leagues, but the union’s position underscores the importance of maintaining robust workers’ compensation protections for professional athletes. The outcome of the legislation will have implications for players’ medical coverage, the NFL’s insurance obligations, and the terms of the next collective bargaining agreement.
