Skip to main content

Montreal Canadiens left wing Max Pacioretty is treated as he lies on the ice after being hit by Boston Bruins defenseman Zdeno Chara in a 2011 game.

SHAUN BEST/REUTERS

A lawyer specializing in class-action lawsuits believes the already-long odds of former NHL players attempting legal action against the league over the matter of concussions have become a little longer with the announcement of an imminent settlement between the NFL and more than 4,500 former players.

"One of the advantages for the NFL is this avoids them having to release all the documents that would show what they knew and when they knew it," said Caroline Zayid, a Toronto-based lawyer with McCarthy Tétrault. "That would probably be something that they wouldn't want to do.

"If all the documents had been produced, it might have made it easier to follow the trail and figure out when certain information became widely known and when medical evidence came to light. It might have provided a bit of a road map. The NHL is a different league, but you probably would have looked for parallels and it might have helped a little bit."

Story continues below advertisement

Like the NFL, the NHL had had its feet held to the fire in recent years over the manner in which it deals with the incidence and severity of head injuries, both their prevention and monitoring. The Boston University Centre for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy has found evidence of CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) in the brains of several former players. CTE is a degenerative disease caused by repeated brain injuries.

Several high-profile players, including Sidney Crosby of the Pittsburgh Penguins, have missed large amounts of playing time with concussions and the league has rewritten rules and changed their interpretation in response.

Frank Brown, a spokesman for the NHL, said the league would not comment on the settlement.

The NFL, which generates an estimated $9-billion in annual revenue, will not be compelled to share internal documents that would indicate how much the league knew about concussions and when it knew. That is one reason why Paul Echlin, a Burlington, Ont.,-based sports-medicine specialist and an expert in the field of concussion research, said the NFL settlement serves the economic interests of each side without having much of an influence on the bigger picture.

The proposed settlement came as a surprise given the complicated nature of the lawsuit and the emotional pitch of the public debate surrounding the matter, and removes a potentially damaging narrative for the league, which is a week away from the start of its regular season. Although future concussion-related lawsuits are not precluded, the NFL will not be compelled to share internal documents that might reveal the scope of its knowledge about the dangers of concussion-related injuries.

According to the settlement, $675-million would compensate former players and families of deceased players. Individual awards would be capped at: $5-million for men with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease or other cognitive impairment; $4-million for former players whose chronic traumatic encephalopathy was discovered after their deaths; and $3-million for players with dementia.

"It solves the problem for the individuals that are caring for these individuals, because of the cost of care," Dr. Echlin said. "But it doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't solve the games we play and the real evaluation of players. It doesn't solve the issue of repetitive contact to the head.

Story continues below advertisement

"From a business point of view, this open, public information about concussions has not been beneficial to professional leagues selling a product that involves violence and brain injury. Less talk would be beneficial for leagues interested in selling a product as opposed to wanting to maybe get out on the cutting edge of the issue.

"But it's not a setback for our work. The work goes on. The horse is already out of the barn."

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter