According to the NFLPA’s website, 72 NFL players have tested positive for COVID-19 as of July 10. If all teams were currently maintaining a full roster of 90 players, that would represent about 2.5% of the league’s workforce. But not every club has a full roster, so the percentage is actually slightly higher.
It’s a given that a significant number of players will test positive, but it does underscore the need for the union and the league to quickly come to terms on establishing certain safety protocols that have not yet been agreed to, like the frequency of tests. And as testing is not yet mandatory, it stands to reason that the current number of positive cases is not necessarily indicative of the prevalence of the virus.
As Tony Pauline of Pro Football Network writes, the NFLPA and player agents had a conference call yesterday to discuss preparations and procedures, but another important conversation will take place tomorrow. Daniel Kaplan of The Athletic reports that team owners will have a virtual meeting on Friday, and one high-level source believes the question of whether training camp really can start on time will be raised. Indeed, per Mark Maske of the Washington Post, the union is wondering whether camps in areas that have been hit hardest by the virus should open — the NFLPA’s website includes a map showing the number of cases in cities that are home to NFL clubs — and players are also expressing more and more concern as the scheduled start of camp draws near.
In addition to the training camp issue, owners will presumably talk about player pay and protocols. The league is hoping the union will offer some sort of relief due to decreased revenues, but the owners’ proposal of holding 35% of player’s salaries in escrow was a non-starter. The two sides also remain divided on the issue of preseason games. The league wants to play two exhibition contests, but the union is holding firm on its stance that the preseason should be canceled entirely.
The 2.5% positive infection rate stat is interesting in this article, but I would prefer to see percentage infection of those actually tested, not projected 90 man roster. Did the league not provide total number tested?
It also doesn’t say if these are active infections or a positive antibody test. Id be shocked if we were looking at 2.5-3% all coming into camp with active infections at the same time…
It’s probably current, considering antibody tests are really faulty and no one knows how long an antibody even lasts at the moment.
ESPN elaborated on it a bit more. It’s 72 total players have tested positive to date. So this figure includes guys like Von Miller from April.
And none had any issues..
I believe Von Miller elaborated on his experience. You should read what he said.
Are the players named? Or is it private.
Considering there are laws protecting the sharing of health info the only way they’d be shared is at the consent of the player I’d imagine
Wonder what the percentage of players that come up positive for STD’s. Probably slightly higher than 3%
Love this
If a player tests positive on Monday and tests again on Tuesday and is positive does that count as 2 positive tests or 1?
A few hours after you asked you question, mrjjbond responded to someone else on this thread that “ESPN elaborated on it a bit more. It’s 72 total players have tested positive to date.”
So, assuming that’s correct, no, they’re not counting multiple positives for the same player. On the other hand, it would be interesting to know if any of those 72 players had false positives.
I enjoy watching football a lot. However, as of June 12, non-Hispanic black persons have an age-adjusted hospitalization rate approximately 5 times that of non-Hispanic white persons. Even if they are young and in significanly better shape than an average person, that is still a lot of risk considering 70% of NFL players are black.
Also found this slightly dated article about The NFL’s racial divide very interesting. link to theundefeated.com Not sure if 99.7% of CBs is still accurate, or 80% of defenses, but if COVID is a greater risk for black players, then I could see a scenario where scoring goes up across the league due to absences from more of the typical superstar defenders.
Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing!
I’ve maintained elsewhere that the first child of a player who tests positive will cause a major reevaluation of the situation, and the second, or heaven forbid the death of a player’s child, will bring the NFL, and likely all professional sports, to a screeching halt.
Your above comment regarding the children of players is the part that many people are not considering-the transmission risk of players (who will certainly get it) to families or even to service workers employed around their closed facilities (secondary to the families, of course, on their list of concerns).
We can certainly understand that most people who contract COVID won’t die from it, but we should also understand that the concern over the spread of the disease is really what the issue is in terms of selling the season to the players. The player is not just concerned for himself or his spouse, but also for his children and possibly older people who are around him. Whatever risk COVID does or doesn’t pose, people are almost entirely much more cautious about something that could in any way affect their children. Any player who has been lucky enough to make millions should very easily have backup financial stability should he choose to opt out, and the league should realize that.
Covid-19 tends to hospitalise the obese and those in poor health. The high hospitalisation rate among blacks reflects their overall health, condition and diet. Covid-19 is unlikely to affect most players but could wreak havoc with the offensive linemen and some of the defensive tackles though.