NFL Super Bind

It’s Super Bowl time which, for some of us, means  that the new 5500 for the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan is out and we get a better idea of how much Tom Brady really has in common with a Cleveland Iron Worker.

  • Active Participants: 2,220
  • Retirees: 4,177
  • Separated: 6,171
  • Total Participants: 12,568
  • Assets as of 3/31/16: $1,895,470,476
  • Contributions for year: $266,026,481
  • Payouts for year: $146,014,607
  • Assets as of 4/1/15 (AV): $1,828,000,915
  • Liabilities at 7.25%: $2,519,745,792
  • Official funded percentage: $72.5%
  • Assets as of 4/1/15 (MV): $1,807,975,368
  • Liabilities as of 4/1/15 (RPA 3.40% rates): $5,114,692,602
  • RPA funded percentage: 35.35%

Now putting six years of available asset history into a spreadsheet:

nfl16

At 35.35% the plan is indeed woefully funded and would be in a distress situation had not the NFL been able to double their contributions starting in 2014.  This distinguishes the NFL situation from that of the vast majority of other multiemployer plans and ALL public pension plans who cannot afford to double their contributions so they must seek other solutions.

In the case of those other multiemployer plans it’s getting a law passed that allows benefit cuts.

For public pension plans – still waiting.

10 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by NY on February 2, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    The NFL’s also taking serious heat re: retired players and long-term health problems, so it makes sense for them to have started to kick in enough to this fund to keep this major PR problem from getting worse

    Reply

  2. Posted by Anonymous on February 2, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    Hey DD I thought this was a State pension blog…..Love them Military P&B paid for by the taxpayers and the Fed printing press.

    Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on February 4, 2017 at 8:28 am

        Nice info but it sounds optional not mandatory? Such an option is already available in NJ and elsewhere I’m sure.

        Reply

        • Posted by NY on February 4, 2017 at 9:21 am

          @Anonymous: at some point in the not-too-distant future, we’ll find out if NJSC thinks paying PERS/etc. promises is optional or mandatory…

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 4, 2017 at 1:21 pm

            Very true but based on recent previous rulings we already know the answer. I’d assume (hope) they won’t discriminate their ruling based on pension but solely on the $ i.e. Judicial first to go unless State skews their employer contributions and State Police not far behind PERS- State. So yes we’ll see and hopefully it’s justice for all and not injustice for some.

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 4, 2017 at 2:19 pm

            @NY we’d already be at there for Fed pensions if not for the printing press SCOTUS honor!

        • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on February 4, 2017 at 9:55 am

          I think it becomes mandatory in 2018, and current members can opt in if they choose.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 4, 2017 at 1:23 pm

            Oh ok thanks for the clarification. It’s a hard sell for any State or Local government to sustain/maintain what the Feds can’t or won’t. But Trump be so proud military what’s the chances he pulls the plug on this?

  3. Posted by Anonymous on February 3, 2017 at 7:09 am

    Change for the sake of change or change for the Good(ell)?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: