Originally posted here by nihil
// off topic a bit

I am surprised, given that over here, major contactual assets woul have clauses preventing them from hang-gliding, riding motorcycles and the like
Actually, most NFL contracts have clauses that prevent "risk-taking" - but no specific identification of what actually constitutes risk-taking. There was pretty heavy coverage on the news tonight, including an interview asking Mr. Roethlisberger specifically about wearing a football helmet but not a motorcycle helmet - his answer what that "it's the law in football" that you have to wear a helmet. They also said that according to his specific contract, he could lose his signing bonus for this accident, but won't. Which is the problem with major league sports in the US (and probably the whole world, but I won't speak for that). If you've got a clause in your contract that says you're going to lose something if you break the rule, and then you break the rule and don't lose it - what the hell is the point? What kind of example is that?

In all honesty, the accident was low speed, he hit his head on a windshield and then a sidewalk, and has a knee injury, broken jaw, broken nose, and missing teeth. A full helmet would have more than likely prevented all of his facial injuries.