San Francisco 49ers players are at odds with ownership over a new workers’ compensation bill called California SB795, meant to “revise and recast” the circumstances under which a professional athlete can access the California workers’ compensation system.
The proposed changes to eligibility criteria for workers’ compensation claims of occupational disease and cumulative injury would apply only to professional athletes, narrowing the scope of liability for pro teams in the state. All players on the 49ers’ offseason 90-man roster collectively signed off on a joint statement with the NFL Players Association, obtained by the Chronicle, that took issue with the selectivity of SB795.
“Football takes a real toll on our bodies, and workers’ compensation was built for high-risk jobs like ours,” the statement read. “We oppose California SB 795 because it singles out professional athletes and tells us we deserve fewer protections than every other worker in the state. If you put in the work and put your body on the line on the job, you should have access to the workers comp system like any other employee.”
What originated as a horse racing bill was amended to state that the employer of an athlete is exempt from liability for claims that involve occupational disease or cumulative injury if the athlete “performs less than 20% of their duty days in California” within the last year (or 365 consecutive days) of their career, placing the onus on the player’s most recent team. Existing law considers the exemption only if the player “performs less than 20% of their duty days” within their last year (or 365 consecutive days) on the team in question, not within the last year of their career.
“Cumulative” injury is defined “as repetitive mentally or physically traumatic activities extending over a period of time, the combined effect of which causes any disability or need for medical treatment” under California Labor Code §3208.1.
As an exception, the employer can still be held liable if an athlete “worked for 2 or more seasons for a California-based team” OR “worked 20% or more of their duty days in California” in their career and “worked for fewer than seven seasons for any team other than a California-based team” in their career.
SB795 builds on AB1309, a bill passed in 2013 that barred out-of-state athletes unless they spent at least 20% of their career with a California pro team or fewer than seven seasons in a different state.
The bill also seeks to change the definition of what constitutes a team being based in California, that regardless of where an employer’s “principal place of business” is located, a team must play a majority of its home games at a designated venue in California. This new definition would affect, for example, players of a minor-league baseball team that plays in a different state than the major-league club.
Governmental Advocates Inc. — the lobbying firm of Senator Laura Richardson (D-Inglewood), the author of SB795 — shared a fact sheet with the NFLPA that listed supporters of the bill, including all three NFL teams in California, the 49ers, the Los Angeles Rams and the Los Angeles Chargers.
A source close to the situation said there has been no outreach from 49ers ownership to the players explaining this apparent support. The fact sheet also writes that claims “with minimal connection to California” over the years have “created significant and ongoing financial burdens on professional sports teams in California and across the country.”
The NFLPA countered this point in a public statement last week that noted the cost of workers’ compensation is already accounted and paid for by the players in their share of league revenue, as outlined in Article 12 of the collective bargaining agreement, and suggested “California’s professional sports teams are seeking to evade that system for financial gain.” In other words, NFL players get 48.5% of the revenue. A portion of that applies to the salary cap; the rest applies to the cost of player benefits, including but not limited to workers’ compensation.
As of Jan. 27, the California State Senate passed the bill by a unanimous floor vote of 40-0. The bill needs at least a simple majority from the California State Assembly’s insurance committee, or nine votes (of 17) in favor of the bill, and the California State Assembly, or 41 votes (of 80), to be passed. California’s governor would then have the option to sign the bill into law, allow the bill to become law without a signature, or veto the bill. A veto could subsequently be overruled by a two-thirds vote in both houses.
Active and pending workers’ compensation claims of occupational disease or cumulative injury issued prior to May 11 would be subject to SB795, if it takes effect, in addition to any such claims subsequent to that date.