The NFL Just ​Ca

​ n’t Seem to Stay Away from the CTE Scandals 

by Kayla Quigley May 2016 

By now, most people probably know about the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee, 
or the MTBI, that was formed by the NFL with suspicious intents after a series of news 
stories broke about former professional football players’ concussion related retirements and 
injuries. This committee bec​Am
​ e heavily involved in the discussion about Chronic 
Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), which is a brain condition believed to be related to 
repeated head trauma, such as that experienced by many professional football players. 
Following the league’s disbanding of the committee in 2009 after many challenges to the 
authenticity of the information it published, the NFL decided to redirect its efforts and 
donate $30 million to the National Institutes of Health for brai​N​research. However, 
recent evidence has come to light that suggests a need to question the NFL​’s​motives in its 
philanthropic endeavors. 
 
In September of 2012, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released a statement that said the NFL 
had made a con​Tr​ibution of $30 million to go towards the cause of “serious medical conditions 
prominent in athletes.” Within the agreements, it was made clear that the NIH would control all 
scientific matters, including the grant selection process, that were made possible using the money that 
had been donated. Also in September, the NFL and the NIH came to an agreement as to what exactly 
t​H​
e funds would be used for. Among the list of possible uses are the following: “Chronic traumatic 
encephalopathy: accurate diagnosis and risk factors,” “Concussion: assessing brain injury and risk of 
disability,” and “Understanding the potential relationship between traumatic brain injury and lat​E​​life 
neurodegenerative disorders, especially Alzheimer’s disease.”  
 
While the NFL was given a small amount of say in what happened with the money (the NFL, along 
with one other organization, was given approval over the research planned formed by the NIH), the 
NFL’s role in the grant process was more th​A​ n clear: “DONOR [NFL] acknowledges and agrees that 
NIH will have responsibility for and control over the scientific and administrative aspects of the 
Research Plans it manages under the Program, including but not limited to holding workshops, 
developing and posting calls for applications, reviewing applications, determining grantees, awarding 
grants, overseeing the grants, including the scientific and financial progress of the grantees, monitoring 
data sharing p​La​ns, and publication of research results related to the Program.” 
 
Shortly after everything was approved, the NFL released a statement about their donation, referring to 
it as “unrestricted.” Years later, in July of 2014 after the NFL and the NIH had successfully 
collaborated on four research plans, a fifth one was approved. Following the approval, in September of 
2014, the grant selection process started. After months of reviewing applications, the NIH was 
prepared to award the grant to a team led by Dr. Stern that was a part of Boston University. Before the 
grant ​Aw
​ ardal was finalized, however, Dr. Pellman, the NFL’s Medical Director and chief 
communicator with the NIH, sent an email expressing concern with the NIH’s selection for the grant. 
He said many people within the NFL had doubts as to whether or not the team at B ​ had the ability 
​ U
to be “unbiased and collaborative.” 
 
On June 29, 2015 a conference call was held where representatives of the NFL voiced their concerns 
about the money being given to Dr. Stern and the team at BU. They questioned the reliability and 
trustwo​R​thiness of the NIH’s peer review and commented on the possible problems that could arise 
from giving the grant money to only one organization, as in the past four research plans the money had 
been divided up between multiple organizations.  
 
Dr. Koroshetz, employee of the NIH, proposed the idea that the grant be divided up between two 
organizations, as had been done in ​On ​e of the previous research plans. He suggested that as a 
compromise, both the t​ wo​ highest ranking applications be awarded grant money. Interestingly enough, 
one of the NFL representatives, Dr. Ellenbogen, however, had also been an applicant for the grant in 
question and had been co-investigator on the study that yielded the second ranked application. 
 
Upon hearing this proposal, the NIH expressed that it was unli​Ke​ly they would have the ability to 
award two individual grants without extra funding from the NFL, which was never offered. So, in 
September of 2015, a Council meeting declared that only the study at Boston University would be 
funded. After much communication, the NFL decided to contribute $1 million in additional 
donation, but that was eventually rejected by the NIH after they decided to use their own money to 
fund the Boston University Study. 
 
All in all, the recent Congressional study done on this issue found that th​E​NFL tried to improperly 
influence the grant selection process and that NFL’s claims that the Boston University study did not 
match its requirements was unfounded. In addition, it was concluded that “The NFL did not carry 
out its commitment to respect the science and prioritize health and safety.” and “NIH leadership 
maintained the integrity of the science and the gra​N​
t review process.”