Skip to content

Union cites increase in injuries in 2010

Helmet-to-Helmet Hits Football

The NFLPA recently requested that the various teams produce the official, federally-mandated paperwork regarding the number of workplace injuries suffered by pro football players.

Based on the numbers to which the union already has access, the NFLPA has created a report titled “Dangers of the Game.”

The study claims that players incurred 3.7 injuries per team per week, and that 63 percent of the players in the league suffered at least one injury.

Of those injuries, 37.7 percent of the injuries required a player to miss a game, with 12.6 percent of the injuries causing them to be placed on injured reserve.

The study finds that the number of players landing on injured reserve — more than 350 — greatly outpaced 2009, when 250 players finished the year on IR.

Also, nearly six percent of the players suffered concussions in 2010, up from four percent in 2009.

As it relates to non-concussions, the true number of injuries actually may be higher.  Since the data is based on the league’s official injury reports, it’s likely if not definite that one or more teams concealed one or more injuries, especially since the “probable” designation contemplates a level of injury sufficiently slight to leave the player virtually certain to be available for normal duty.

The issue of concealing injuries could make that request for the teams’ OSHA 300 logs very interesting, especially if players opt to defy their coaches and tell anyone who’ll listen that they were injured when, according to the official report, they weren’t.

As to concussions, it’s difficult to compare 2010 to 2009, since the league didn’t take concussions as seriously as the league now does until Congress made it clear to the league in late October 2009 that failure to take concussions seriously would result in serious repercussions for the league.

Permalink 22 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
22 Responses to “Union cites increase in injuries in 2010”
  1. heyooooh says: Jan 28, 2011 1:53 PM

    Wait, I thought the players didn’t care about injuries. A bunch of them tweeted on Sunday that it would require being carried out on a stretcher for them to leave the game. Funny how all that “tough guy” talk goes out the window when they start talking about money.

  2. skoobyfl says: Jan 28, 2011 1:56 PM

    18 regular season games should help lower that figure quite a bit, LOL.

  3. hobartbaker says: Jan 28, 2011 2:03 PM

    Luckily the players are well compensated. Even more luckily, none were shot in the line of duty, trapped on the fourth floor of a burning building, fell from scaffolding high above the city, or contracted black lung disease. So the news wasn’t all bad.

  4. Keep it Real says: Jan 28, 2011 2:03 PM

    They keep saying these guys are overpaid? I don’t see. 3.5 years and it’s over with the only thing to show for after it’s over are lifelong injuries.

  5. mightymightylafootball says: Jan 28, 2011 2:05 PM

    “…63 percent of the players in the league suffered at least one injury…”

    …and got paid more money in a single year than most of us will ever see. And got to play a game for a living. And got to be treated like celebrities, and treated like royalty in their home cities. And got on TV regularly. And and and…

    …wouldn’t have traded it for anything else in the world.

  6. ballotpull says: Jan 28, 2011 2:07 PM

    college football has a great chance to increase their fans right now. Professional football is becoming more and more a business ( i know it is) but any sort of competiveness is being slowly squeezed out. If the ncaa can just implement a playoff system, they would become the premier sport.

  7. bbrophy1 says: Jan 28, 2011 2:08 PM

    number of players placed on injured reserve is a meaningless stat. If a guy gets hurt in Week 15 he is likely go on injured reserve to open up a roster spot. It’s a strategic part of the game that may tell more about when the injuries were happening versus the severity of the injury

  8. chapnastier says: Jan 28, 2011 2:09 PM

    “As to concussions, it’s difficult to compare 2010 to 2009, since the league didn’t take concussions as seriously as the league now does until Congress made it clear to the league in late October 2009 that failure to take concussions seriously would result in serious repercussions for the league.”

    Yeah thank GOD for Congress. I mean who would have thought that it would be possible to receive head injuries in a sport that requires physical contact every second. I don’t know what the heck we would do without Congress getting involved.

  9. mvp43 says: Jan 28, 2011 2:26 PM

    The union wants it both ways……..

    They cite increased injuries during negotiations and at the same time they appeal to the NFL when when a player is fined for an illegal hit. What a joke!

  10. hobartbaker says: Jan 28, 2011 2:27 PM

    After Belichick completes his federally mandated paperwork he flushes.

  11. mantastic54 says: Jan 28, 2011 2:28 PM

    These guys need to stop being sissies and worrying about injuries, or does that only apply when Jay Cutler gets hurt?

  12. awdlmd says: Jan 28, 2011 2:28 PM

    More players went on IR this year because there was no salary cap hit for putting a player on IR and replacing them on the active roster.

  13. jstrizzle says: Jan 28, 2011 2:30 PM

    Why not instead of talking about injuries, lets talk about the amount of money in care spent on those injuries against the amount the player or players make.

    They won’t do that, though, since that would have a negative spin on it.

    That is the best thing about facts. You can spin them any way you want if you are smart enough.

  14. Keep it Real says: Jan 28, 2011 2:32 PM

    The average players carere is over after 3.5 years the average amount Salary is 700k that’s 2 million minus taxes 40% and agents 3% is less than 1 million less living expenses. I doubt if they have 200k to 400k to show. And that’s for the rest of their life with those life long injuries and no insurance.

  15. mvp43 says: Jan 28, 2011 2:34 PM

    Ok union, if injuries are such a big deal……lets double the roster size, so the players aren’t worked so hard and are less susceptible to injury……..BUT, the payroll will stay the same.

  16. dccowboy says: Jan 28, 2011 2:45 PM

    Were there more injuries or more reported injuries? Big difference, especially with regard to concussions.

  17. princeton73 says: Jan 28, 2011 3:20 PM

    I think they should keep it at a 16 game season, except Jay Cutler is required to play 18 games

  18. texasphinsfan says: Jan 28, 2011 3:48 PM

    The owners are trying to do a fair deal.

    The problem is the players’ union has a skewed impression of what is fair since they’ve had it so good recently. Going back to what is “fair” would require some concessions from the NFLPA, and I don’t see *that* happening.

    The owners conceded back in 2006, but I haven’t seen the players concede on anything.

  19. clayswife says: Jan 28, 2011 3:57 PM

    Dear league,

    No kidding.

    Love, the GB IR sqad

    PS: can we be in the picture????

  20. FinFan68 says: Jan 28, 2011 5:23 PM

    Keep it Real says:
    Jan 28, 2011 2:03 PM
    They keep saying these guys are overpaid? I don’t see. 3.5 years and it’s over with the only thing to show for after it’s over are lifelong injuries.
    ===================
    OK, lots of fans like quoting the 3.5 years thing because the union loves to use it to solidify their position. Think about all the pros you have truly enjoyed watching…how many of those guys had a career of 3.5 years or less? Not many. There have been guys that had their careers cut short due to injury but it is not nearly as many as the union would like you to believe. The part they are not telling you is that the guys that get cut in camp are included in that number and drastically effect the average. A rookie who gets cut in preseason accounts for a fraction of a year and that guy is weighted the same as a 10 year all-pro. The rosters are around 80 when they start and get whittled down to 53 at the start of the season. The bottom line is that the union manipulates the numbers and then implies that the 3.5 year average is due to injuries (which equals moral high ground for higher compensation) when in reality that number is impacted much more by the number of “players” that just are not good enough to stay on NFL teams.

  21. Caldon says: Jan 28, 2011 5:55 PM

    1 year of increases, of which a portion is just increased awareness (IE they happened in prior years just were not reported, and thus not a true increase) means nothing. It could be a simple statistical anomaly.

    Show me a trend of year over year increasing injuries for a number of years and we can talk, otherwise this is just meaningless.

    What I really want to see is what happened to injuries back when the scheduled was increased to the current count of games. How much did the injuries increase in the years following that. Now THAT would be some real information that would help clarify this discussion, yet I don’t see ANYONE reporting on that (hint pft).

  22. CKL says: Jan 29, 2011 4:11 PM

    I do believe the players of a certain tenure (5 yrs + maybe?)should have lifelong reduced rates through the NFL or supplemented by the NFL health insurance since their injuries may preclude their being able to obtain their own private health insurance at anything but egregiously high (even for private health insurance) rates due to preexisting conditions…conditions that were obtained solely via their employment as NFL players.

    But seriously…even if their career as a player is 16 years..nothing stops them from…. you know…getting another job when they retire as players. Most of them could even start their own business if they save their money right and invest…even the “poor” guys who get only 1/4 a million a year. Let alone the fact that a lot of them can get job opportunities based on their NFL playing days & fame. I mean how many people get to live off 5-10 years worth of salary until they drop dead? It’s dumb for them to expect that or to think that most regular working people have sympathy for that idea. Get a freaking job..they OSTENSIBLY have college educations and most of them got it free. Also the NFL provides tuition reimbursement for them to finish their degrees. NO EXCUSES for not having a second career. Very few NFL players are so disabled they literally cannot work when they retire from playing.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!