NFL pressures ESPN to end "Frontline" partnership on Documentary

[lollygagger8]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1747922-nfl-reportedly-pressured-espn-to-end-frontline-partnership-on-documentary

 

I realize it's BR, but I can't help but think this smells like Riddell paid Goodell to try and do something about the ESPN head injury documentary coming up. Hopefully I'm wrong, but my gut tells me otherwise. 

[Hans Moleman]

Think about all the random topics and corporations that have had critical documentaries made about them to reveal their dirty little secrets.

 

Then ask yourself why nobody has made such a critical documentary about the NFL or high level football in general, despite there being ample material about the wildly popular multi-billion dollar league with which to make a great documentary and do great business with it.

 

It's no coincidence- just the byproduct of one of the greatest PR machines of all time. Few, if any, companies have done as good a job of "hiding the roaches" as the NFL has. 

 

They're probably pulling the same strong hand they did when they wanted the ESPN original show "Playmakers" canceled- threatening to pull NFL games from the network entirely, as both ESPN and ABC are owned by Disney. They have a vested interest in making sure anything it associates with the sport and the related imagery stay positive.

[Thewholefnshow28]

And people still wonder why people do not take the NFL serious when it comes to concussions and player safety.  I am sure the NFL flexed its muscles and pressured ESPN to pull out.

[PrincetonTiger]

I saw this on my BR app. but didn't get to read it yet

[southwest1]

Think about all the random topics and corporations that have had critical documentaries made about them to reveal their dirty little secrets.

 

Then ask yourself why nobody has made such a critical documentary about the NFL or high level football in general, despite there being ample material about the wildly popular multi-billion dollar league with which to make a great documentary and do great business with it.

 

It's no coincidence- just the byproduct of one of the greatest PR machines of all time. Few, if any, companies have done as good a job of "hiding the roaches" as the NFL has. 

 

They're probably pulling the same strong hand they did when they wanted the ESPN original show "Playmakers" canceled- threatening to pull NFL games from the network entirely, as both ESPN and ABC are owned by Disney. They have a vested interest in making sure anything it associates with the sport and the related imagery stay positive.

Exactly Hans, if the league & the owners were truly serious about the concussion debate in the NFL, they would let this documentary proceed with no attempts to derail or de-commission it. If Roger Goodell truly cares about solving the concussion epidemic, the 1st step is honestly looking at the problem & not shying away from unflattering comments about brain trauma & how it is often mishandled both in detection & lasting treatment measures.

 

Also, how is the NFL addressing knee & leg issues as more defensive players are unsure about where they can legally hit a guy on the field of play? And why are defensive players so heavily fined for clean hits in games? Their job is to stop offensive WRs, RBs, & TEs from getting a 1st down or obtaining 6 points with a touchdown. Offensive players rarely if ever get fined for questionable hits on the field and the bulk of penalties for the most part always goes against the defensive. Remember how all the NFL RBs cried to the media & their mommas about how lowering the crown of their helmet & charging their opponent was so unfair? What a double standard of zebra protection. It's ridiculous if you ask me personally. 

 

Real change always takes place when the powers that be [Owners & league officials] finally take their blinders off & see the problem completely warts & all...

[Hans Moleman]

Exactly Hans, if the league & the owners were truly serious about the concussion debate in the NFL, they would let this documentary proceed with no attempts to derail or de-commission it. If Roger Goodell truly cares about solving the concussion epidemic, the 1st step is honestly looking at the problem & not shying away from unflattering comments about brain trauma & how it is often mishandled both in detection & lasting treatment measures.

 

Also, how is the NFL addressing knee & leg issues as more defensive players are unsure about where they can legally hit a guy on the field of play? And why are defensive players so heavily fined for clean hits in games? Their job is to stop offensive WRs, RBs, & TEs from getting a 1st down or obtaining 6 points with a touchdown. Offensive players rarely if ever get fined for questionable hits on the field and the bulk of penalties for the most part always goes against the defensive. Remember how all the NFL RBs cried to the media & their mommas about how lowering the crown of their helmet & charging their opponent was so unfair? What a double standard of zebra protection. It's ridiculous if you ask me personally. 

 

Real change always takes place when the powers that be [Owners & league officials] finally take their blinders off & see the problem completely warts & all...

 

Excellent points, and the bolded part leads me to my main point about the NFL and it's current issues....

 

The only reason the league is in the position it's in legally is because they wanted the best of both worlds. Internally, they've known for years about the concussions and decades about widespread PED and painkiller abuse, among other issues. Externally, however, they've pulled a complete 180 by denying every issue, funding research to combat unfavorable findings, fining players for hits they profit off of by putting on highlight shows/videos, and burying unflattering information.

 

The reason they do this is because they want to keep the violence that draws so many older fans to the game, while sanitizing the consequences of it to the point where they can sell the game to families and as being safe for children. In order to fulfill their marketing objective, they had to publicly deny it's dangers. 

 

And that, my friend, is why the retired players even have a case against the league in the first place. Had the NFL been publicly open about it's own findings and honest about the risks of the sport, the players would have no legal leg to stand on. Instead, they publicly denied everything. The flip side is that, had the league done that, they damage their ability to market to families. Parental awareness and increased insurance costs would reduce youth participation, decrease the talent pool, and hurt the league's popularity.

 

The NFL played both sides of the fence, and did it masterfully. So masterfully that many fans still don't want to hold the league responsible for anything- the lying to players or deceptively marketing to kids. And that's the most disturbing thing about the whole lawsuit; that many people love the product enough that they're O.K. with the doubletalk, even when the consequence is severe human injury and death. 

[oldunclemark]

And people still wonder why people do not take the NFL serious when it comes to concussions and player safety.  I am sure the NFL flexed its muscles and pressured ESPN to pull out.

 

 

How come the NFL is to blame about player safety and not the NFLPA?

[Thewholefnshow28]

How come the NFL is to blame about player safety and not the NFLPA?

 

Well considering the NFL has pulled a cigarette company on things that shed light on the concussion issue that is probably my guess why they carry most of the blame.

[OffensivelyPC]

Well considering the NFL has pulled a cigarette company on things that shed light on the concussion issue that is probably my guess why they carry most of the blame.

I always hated the analogy to the cigarette industry primarily because addiction to cigarettes and the risk of cancer do not translate very well.  Yes, the body of information was concealed by both the smoking industry and the NFL.  But there was ample evidence out before the NFL concealed the evidence that repeated brain trauma could cause long term brain damage dating back to the 60's.  What the NFL did was simply mislead anyone by "making discoveries" that went against the great body of information already out.  That's how this is different from the smoking industry.  It has been known and borderline common knowledge that repeated hits to the head can cause long term brain damage.  However, the causation between cigarettes and cancer, while suggested in the 50's, did not gain any credence until the science improved, independent studies were done and it came to light in the late 80s/early 90s, and the lawsuit explosion against the tobacco industry that peaked in the mid 90s.

[Thewholefnshow28]

I always hated the analogy to the cigarette industry primarily because addiction to cigarettes and the risk of cancer do not translate very well.  Yes, the body of information was concealed by both the smoking industry and the NFL.  But there was ample evidence out before the NFL concealed the evidence that repeated brain trauma could cause long term brain damage dating back to the 60's.  What the NFL did was simply mislead anyone by "making discoveries" that went against the great body of information already out.  That's how this is different from the smoking industry.  It has been known and borderline common knowledge that repeated hits to the head can cause long term brain damage.  However, the causation between cigarettes and cancer, while suggested in the 50's, did not gain any credence until the science improved, independent studies were done and it came to light in the late 80s/early 90s, and the lawsuit explosion against the tobacco industry that peaked in the mid 90s.

 

It was not really a comparison, but more of the NFL taking a play out of the cigarettes companies playbook.  What the NFL has done is far from the level of the cigarettes companies that is for sure.

 

There is definitely been research out there, but when you have one of the biggest entities that has significant power through money and influence fighting to show different results and their own view point that is why they get compared to the cigarette company.

[southwest1]

Excellent points, and the bolded part leads me to my main point about the NFL and it's current issues....

 

The only reason the league is in the position it's in legally is because they wanted the best of both worlds. Internally, they've known for years about the concussions and decades about widespread PED and painkiller abuse, among other issues. Externally, however, they've pulled a complete 180 by denying every issue, funding research to combat unfavorable findings, fining players for hits they profit off of by putting on highlight shows/videos, and burying unflattering information.

 

The reason they do this is because they want to keep the violence that draws so many older fans to the game, while sanitizing the consequences of it to the point where they can sell the game to families and as being safe for children. In order to fulfill their marketing objective, they had to publicly deny it's dangers. 

 

And that, my friend, is why the retired players even have a case against the league in the first place. Had the NFL been publicly open about it's own findings and honest about the risks of the sport, the players would have no legal leg to stand on. Instead, they publicly denied everything. The flip side is that, had the league done that, they damage their ability to market to families. Parental awareness and increased insurance costs would reduce youth participation, decrease the talent pool, and hurt the league's popularity.

 

The NFL played both sides of the fence, and did it masterfully. So masterfully that many fans still don't want to hold the league responsible for anything- the lying to players or deceptively marketing to kids. And that's the most disturbing thing about the whole lawsuit; that many people love the product enough that they're O.K. with the doubletalk, even when the consequence is severe human injury and death. 

Another superb post Hans! I agree 100% with every word you so accurately & eloquently stated. Yup, if the NFL had not tried to shield parents from the brutal reality of this game, the magnitude of the lawsuits would not be so widespread & everyone knows the risks involved & what they are signing up for.

 

The NFL is not a game of hopscotch here. A person is only 1 collision away from a concussion, a leg or knee injury, & in extreme cases paralysis. I'm not an advocate for scaring parents, but I don't see much point in lying to them either. Playing the fence & being cute with innuendo & trivial jargon gets everybody involved burned eventually. 

[southwest1]

I always hated the analogy to the cigarette industry primarily because addiction to cigarettes and the risk of cancer do not translate very well.  Yes, the body of information was concealed by both the smoking industry and the NFL.  But there was ample evidence out before the NFL concealed the evidence that repeated brain trauma could cause long term brain damage dating back to the 60's.  What the NFL did was simply mislead anyone by "making discoveries" that went against the great body of information already out.  That's how this is different from the smoking industry.  It has been known and borderline common knowledge that repeated hits to the head can cause long term brain damage.  However, the causation between cigarettes and cancer, while suggested in the 50's, did not gain any credence until the science improved, independent studies were done and it came to light in the late 80s/early 90s, and the lawsuit explosion against the tobacco industry that peaked in the mid 90s.

Cigarette companies intentionally mislead the public on the addictive nature of nicotine & the NFL has intentionally mislead the public not on injuries inherent in professional football, but the scope & severity of those injuries for a prolonged period of time spanning decades & the only reason the league gives a darn about it now is lofty settlement payments to players while their lawyers are working vigorously to combine all future lawsuits & cap the total amount of punitive damages to former athletes. It's damage control vs addressing the real problem & the tobacco industry did the exact same thing. Cap the payout number in exchange for funding anti-smoking campaigns for children in order to get the federal government off their backs for good. 

 

It's right on point analogy wise in my mind. OffenselyPC. Nice avatar picture BTW! 

[OffensivelyPC]

It was not really a comparison, but more of the NFL taking a play out of the cigarettes companies playbook.  What the NFL has done is far from the level of the cigarettes companies that is for sure.

 

There is definitely been research out there, but when you have one of the biggest entities that has significant power through money and influence fighting to show different results and their own view point that is why they get compared to the cigarette company.

And that's fair. I'm not saying the NFL should be exonerated.  What they did was, quite frankly, despicable and it is difficult to take their response as genuine when they have a very acute interest in the final outcome, but capable of skewing the research. 

[OffensivelyPC]

Cigarette companies intentionally mislead the public on the addictive nature of nicotine & the NFL has intentionally mislead the public not on injuries inherent in professional football, but the scope & severity of those injuries for a prolonged period of time spanning decades & the only reason the league gives a darn about it now is lofty settlement payments to players while their lawyers are working vigorously to combine all future lawsuits & cap the total amount of punitive damages to former athletes. It's damage control vs addressing the real problem & the tobacco industry did the exact same thing. Cap the payout number in exchange for funding anti-smoking campaigns for children in order to get the federal government off their backs for good. 

 

It's right on point analogy wise in my mind. OffenselyPC. Nice avatar picture BTW! 

Agreed.  Take the least amount of damage and having to sacrifice as little as possible.  To the NFL, they'd rather put a bandage on it, not a cure.  And strictly speaking, that's a solid business decision.  But even well intentioned business decisions (to which I make no argument as to what the NFL's intent is) made today can have unintended long term results, some for the worse.

 

Oh, and thanks about the Avatar.  In Grigson we trust!