Dryer Plaintiffs Oppose Proposed NFL Films Settlement

Apr 10, 2013

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the official press release issued on behalf of the original plaintiffs regarding the Dryer vs NFL Films Settlement “Offer” sanctioned by the court on Monday. For the record, as you will read in this public announcement,  NONE of these original plaintiffs were offered – nor will they accept – individual payments from this lawsuit. Nor are the original  attorneys, Bob Stein and Tom Ward! For these participants, it’s an all-for-one-and-one-for-all fight on behalf of ALL retired players and their rights. We’ll be discussing your rights and ALL your options and more at our upcoming 2013 IFV Conference in Las Vegas May 3 – 5. Book your flight and hotel reservations NOW before our special discount rates go away next week - then click HERE to lock in your registration for FREE admission to the most important Conference for retired players in years!
MINNEAPOLIS, MNApril 9, 2013 — Despite objections made by six individual plaintiffs, on April 5 the Court in the Dryer v. NFL publicity rights case granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. Now, all members of the class will have the opportunity to express their opinion on the proposed settlement for the Court to consider before it gives the settlement final approval.
First, to clear up any mis-impressions, the six individual plaintiffs who oppose this settlement — Fred Dryer, Elvin Bethea, Jim Marshall, Dan Pastorini, Joe Senser and Ed White — did not request direct payments for themselves. Instead, they opposed the settlement because it is unfair to the entire class and all class members — there is no assurance that even the neediest players will get one cent. The Dryer Plaintiffs will continue to oppose the settlement because they strongly believe it is unfair to the class of all retired players for many reasons, including:

  • Each class member gives up ALL claims for the NFL’s unauthorized past and unlimited future use of his identity to promote the NFL.
  • There is no guarantee that any class member whose publicity rights will be lost will ever receive payment or benefit through the settlement. Instead, the settlement money goes to existing charities, not players. The proposed settlement does not even identify those charities.
  • There is no procedure for any class member to submit a claim to receive direct benefits through the settlement and there is no assurance that class members will be able to submit requests to the charities receiving settlement funds.
  • The settlement does not adequately fund the Licensing Agency or guarantee that it will be capable of generating any revenue. The Licensing Agency merely duplicates existing commercial licensing companies and has no access to NFL game footage.

The settlement is still not final because the Court must go through a final approval stage which happens over the next several months. Every class member will have to decide among three options: (1) participate in the settlement; (2) object to the settlement; or (3) exclude himself from the class. A class member who wants to object to the settlement or to exclude himself from the settlement must do so in writing. The deadline for a class member to object or to exclude himself from the settlement is August 30, 2013. The Court will hold a hearing to consider arguments about final approval, including objections to the proposed settlement, on September 19, 2013, in St. Paul, Minnesota.

4 Responses so far | Have Your Say!

  1. John Hogan
    April 11th, 2013 at 8:50 am #

    John Hogan

    Few, if any of us, would be able to name all of the benefits, programs, organizations, individuals and charities which retired players can take advantage of. Many of them have been real lifesavers for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of retired players and their families. However, almost all of these programs provide one-time assistance. It sounds like the proposed settlement in the Dryer case will add some more money to the pot for these same types of programs. While these may do fabulous work and fulfill a great need, nothing can take the place of a retired player having ongoing, monthly access to health benefits, a livable pension and a disability system they can depend upon.

    With all due respects to the Court, I don’t think the Judge understands this.

    John Hogan
    Disability Attorney
    Retired Player Advocate

  2. Cody C. Jones
    April 11th, 2013 at 9:28 am #


    Have to agree with the Plaintiffs – this a joke.

    How can the court be so blind?

    Cody Jones
    Los Angeles Rams
    1974 – 1982

  3. Tom Beer
    April 11th, 2013 at 10:05 am #

    Tom Beer

    I’m convinced the NFL has a high-priced NYC public relations firm on their payroll with the following instructions: “We’ll continue to screw the retired players while you make us look good to our fans and to the media in doing so”!

    Requiesce in peace.

    Tom Beer
    Denver Broncos, New England Patriots
    1967 – 1973

  4. Lionel James
    April 16th, 2013 at 12:47 am #

    Lionel James

    I object to the settlement and the reasons are stated clearly by the lawyers. What was the reason for our lawsuit? Surely it’s not to aid other charities; charity starts at home. Where does each individual’s home lie? Where you reside. Or is it in every Tom, Dick and Harry’s residence?

    Lionel James
    San Diego Chargers
    1984 – 1988