MINNEAPOLIS, MN April 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 misimpressions, 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 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.



About Jeff Nixon

Jeff was a first team consensus All-American from the University of Richmond in 1978. He is 7th in NCAA history with 23 career interceptions. Played for the Buffalo Bills 1979-1984. Led the team with 6 interceptions in Rookie Year. Holds Bills record for 4 takeaways in a single game - 3 interceptions and a fumble recovery. Tied Bills record with four consecutive games with an interception. After 5 knee surgeries Jeff retired from pro football in 1985. He worked for 13 years (1988-2000) as the Youth Bureau Director for Buffalo and Erie County. He has worked for the past 11 years as the Youth Employment Director for Buffalo. Plays guitar and was voted best R&B guitar player by Buffalo Nightlife Magazine in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Posted on April 10, 2013, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. settlement certainly vague, gives up any and all future and past rights, doesn’t provide any guarantees to the person giving up his rights….what’s good about it? Sure won’t help the average former player whose image has been used for the past 50 years or so. Seems that only the lawyers will be sure to benefit from this “settlement”. Funds to go to the unknown and presently unadministered charities seems like a license for some to make money off the deal with the bulk of the players to sit and “eat cake”. chris burford texans/Chiefs 60-67

  2. Jeff,

    For those of us who want to object to the settlement and exclude themselves from the class if the settlement is approved, Who do we write and what’s the address. Must it done before a decision is made by the Court on the settlement of can we wait until it is made.


  3. Sue and john Brodie

    Chris is so right. It is pathetic

  4. Rip Hawkins Mn. Vikings 1961/65

    It appears that this settlement is merely to get the lawsuit out of the courts. maybe by both sets of attorneys. If the money is to be given it must have a named place to go and who will benefit. Define the class by years and numbers of people and pay the class in what is fair. Who it would be easy? Rip Hawkins

  5. I totally object the settlement.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: