Family of former Steeler Mike Webster get nothing from $1 billion brain-damage settlement |

Family of former Steeler Mike Webster get nothing from $1 billion brain-damage settlement

Jacob Tierney
Former Pittsburgh Steelers player Mike Webster.

When the 2002 autopsy of former Pittsburgh Steeler Mike Webster revealed he had died of the brain disease Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, it was the first step in uncovering the widespread brain damage suffered by many NFL players.

After a long legal fight, the NFL agreed last year to pay a combined $1 billion to thousands of retired players who suffer from brain damage and their families, but Webster’s family hasn’t seen any of it, the New York Times reports .

Garrett Webster, Mike’s 33-year-old son, still lives in Pittsburgh, and told the Times he delivers pizzas to make ends meet.

While some players are eligible for up to $5 million, the NFL settlement prevented the families of those who died before 2006 from receiving compensation.

There is a provision that allows families of those who died before the cutoff to file a claim anyway, which the Websters have done.

“Iron Mike” Webster was a hall-of-fame center who played from 1974 to 1990, and won four Super Bowls with the Steelers.

His family is barely able to pay its bills. His ex-wife, Pam Webster, can’t afford a home, so she bounces across the country staying with friends and family, including Garrett, according to the Times.

The NFL has paid out about $150 million of the $1 billion settlement so far, the Times reported.

“It’s insane that we haven’t been paid because every suit uses my dad in their case,” Garrett Webster told the New York Times. “If Mike Webster doesn’t happen, this case doesn’t happen.”

Jacob Tierney is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-836-6646, [email protected] or via Twitter @Soolseem.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.