More than 100 former NFL players have asked a federal court to reject a proposed class-action settlement concerning the use of race-based cognitive scoring in disability claims.

Michael Vick, Ricky Williams and Willis McGahee are among the former players who filed objections in the US District Court for the District of Maryland on Tuesday, arguing that the settlement could require them to relinquish claims in separate litigation over the administration of the NFL’s disability plan without allowing them to opt out. The proposed agreement follows a lawsuit filed in September 2023 accusing the plan of using ‘race-norming’ when assessing applications from non-white players. The practice applied different cognitive baselines according to race, making it potentially more difficult for Black players to demonstrate the decline required to qualify for certain benefits.

The NFL agreed to end race-based cognitive scoring in June 2021 following similar criticism of the separate concussion settlement programme. The players now challenging the latest agreement contend that its practical benefit is therefore limited, while the accompanying legal release could prevent them from pursuing more valuable claims elsewhere.

“This settlement requires hundreds of former players to give up every legal claim they have regarding their disability benefits in exchange for essentially nothing, with no ability to opt out,” attorney Sam Katz told the Washington Post.

Katz represents players involved in a broader action filed in February 2023. That case, Alford v NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan, alleges that former players were systematically denied benefits through misleading information, inconsistent decisions and the use of medical examiners who were not genuinely independent. The plaintiffs have accused the plan of failing to consider complete medical records, applying unduly narrow interpretations of whether conditions arose from football and compensating physicians who repeatedly produced opinions adverse to applicants.

Several of those allegations survived an attempt to dismiss the case in March 2024. A request to certify a class spanning decades of former players was denied without prejudice in January, however, after the court found that the proposed group involved too many different medical conditions, benefit applications and versions of the plan to satisfy the necessary commonality and typicality requirements. The present dispute is therefore not simply an argument between the NFL and its former players, but also concerns the interaction between two cases and whether resolving the narrower race-norming action would restrict claims being pursued through the broader disability litigation.

Vaughn Booker, who played defensive end for Cincinnati and New Orleans during an eight-year NFL career, was particularly critical of the notice and opt-out provisions.

“It’s like the defendants and counsel think non-white players are stupid,” Booker wrote in his objection. “They are trying to trap us by barely giving us any notice and then telling us we cannot even opt out of the settlement.”

McGahee is also one of the named plaintiffs in the wider case. The former Buffalo, Baltimore, Denver and Cleveland running back has previously described the physical and psychological effects of an NFL career that required more than a dozen operations, and the rejection of his disability claim.

The disability plan is jointly administered by representatives of the NFL and NFL Players Association, who both declined to comment on the objections, while attorneys who negotiated the race-norming settlement on behalf of the original plaintiffs had not publicly responded. No finding has been made that the proposed settlement improperly removes the objecting players’ rights. Their filings require the court to consider whether the agreement is fair to the affected class and whether its release extends beyond the claims it was designed to resolve.

The next hearing is scheduled for 20th October. Until then, the settlement remains subject to court approval.