Following Venus Williams' comment on health insurance, here's what to know about athlete coverage
'I had to come back for the insurance,' the five-time Wimbledon champion said after Tuesday's match, her first in 16 months. 'They informed me this year that I'm on COBRA, so it's like, I got to get my benefits on.'
The 45-year-old Williams, who has won seven major singles titles in her career, became the second-oldest woman to win a tour-level singles match in professional tennis with Tuesday's victory. After losing on Thursday, she acknowledged that her comment on health insurance was a 'fun and funny moment.'
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, more commonly referred to as COBRA, allows Americans to stay on their employer's insurance plan for a limited amount of time after leaving their job. It comes with high costs.
Williams' comment led to questions about health insurance in the sports world.
For most active professional athletes, partially or fully subsidized health insurance is provided by their league or governing body and guaranteed in their collective bargaining agreement. A CBA is an agreement reached between a league and its players that guarantees certain levels of player compensation and benefits, and can be renegotiated every few years.
So when athletes are playing, they're usually covered. But Williams, coming back to the sport after a 16-month hiatus, brought to light how long that insurance lasts — or doesn't last — for athletes when they're not playing.
Women's Tennis
In the WTA, the governing body of the women's tour, players are eligible to enroll in the health insurance plan if they are ranked in the top 500 in singles or top 175 in doubles and have played a minimum of three WTA 250 level or above tournaments that year. If players are in the top 150 in singles or top 50 in doubles, the WTA will pay a portion of the premiums.
If a player is no longer eligible under those requirements, they can enroll in COBRA for up to 18 months, which is likely the situation that Williams was referencing. That is also the WTA's only option for retiring players.
'Nobody wants to be on COBRA, right?' Williams said after her second-round loss on Thursday night. 'That remains an issue in my life … Obviously (the interview was) a fun and funny moment, but it's an issue that people are dealing with, so it is serious.'
Men's Tennis
The ATP provides health insurance to men's tennis players who rank in the top 250 in singles or top 50 in doubles. All other players with a ranking point are given the opportunity to purchase health insurance through the ATP's provider.
For retired players, the only option is COBRA for up to three years.
Golf
As an individual sport without a CBA, golf tours vary. They do have a group insurance plan that is available to active members of the PGA Tour, the PGA Tour Champions (the tour for golfers over 50) and the Korn Ferry Tour (the feeder circuit for the PGA). For players who meet certain 'performance criteria,' including how many tournaments they played and how often they won, the PGA will partially subsidize the plan.
In retirement, players are responsible for their own insurance. Some players join the PGA Tour Champions after the PGA Tour and play into their mid-60s, during which they maintain coverage. Top players can receive a subsidy from the PGA in retirement.
The LPGA Tour, the women's professional golf tour, started offering its players fully funded health insurance for the first time this year. Before this year, players were given a $4,000 stipend.
NBA
NBA players have access to one of the most inclusive insurance plans in retirement. If they played at least three years in the league, retired NBA players are eligible for fully-funded health insurance in retirement, and if they played at least 10 years, they will have healthcare covered for their entire family.
WNBA
WNBA players are fighting for retirement healthcare as part of their new CBA, which they are currently negotiating with the league. Those negotiations have been heated, and the most recent meeting between the two sides last weekend did not result in an agreement.
One unique facet of the W's healthcare is that athletes who have spent more than eight years in the league can be reimbursed up to $20,000 a year for costs related to adoption, surrogacy, egg freezing or additional fertility treatments.
NFL
The NFL has less long-term coverage for retirees than most other team sport leagues — athletes who played in the league for at least three years can remain on the NFL health insurance plan, but only for five years into retirement.
NHL
NHL players who have played more than 160 games with the league, which is about two seasons, are eligible to buy NHL health insurance for their retirement. The retirement insurance plan is eligible for partial subsidization from the league.
MLB
Baseball players who spent at least four years in the league have the option to pay premiums to stay on the MLB's healthcare plan indefinitely.
Minor League Baseball has its own separate CBA, which also guarantees health insurance for active players. In the minors, however, players who get cut or leave the league lose coverage at the end of that month.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
37 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Serious liver disease is up among heavy drinkers, even without more drinking
Serious liver disease is becoming more common among Americans who drink heavily, according to a new study from Keck Medicine of USC. It's not that more people are partying with alcohol. And it's not that the drinkers are having more drinks. It's that more of the people who drink regularly are becoming sick. Over the last two decades, the share of heavy drinkers who have advanced liver scarring jumped from 1.8% to 4.3%. For women, more than 1.5 drinks per night, on average, is considered heavy drinking. For men, it's 2 drinks. 'The fact that the risk not only increased but that it more than doubled — almost tripled — is really astonishing,' said Dr. Brian P. Lee, a liver transplant specialist at Keck Medicine of USC and lead author on the study. It was published in the journal Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology on Wednesday. Lee said he thinks patients might dramatically change their thinking and behavior if they had this information. The increase in illness was seen especially in women, older people and those with conditions like obesity or diabetes. Three USC researchers analyzed national health data from more than 44,000 adults surveyed between 1999 and 2020 in a well-known national heath study known as NHANES. Of those, 2,474 were heavy drinkers according to the definition of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism — 20 grams of alcohol per day for women and 30 grams for men, roughly the equivalent of 1.5 and 2 drinks. They found a more than twofold increase over the two decades in significant liver fibrosis, a condition where healthy liver tissue is replaced by stiff, fibrous tissue — like a sponge hardening into leather. If left unchecked, this can eventually lead to liver failure or cancer. By comparison, non-heavy drinkers saw a much smaller increase, from 0.8% to 1.4% over the same period. This rise in liver damage is especially troubling because many people don't realize anything is wrong until the disease is advanced. 'Liver disease is silent,' Lee said. 'Most people won't, even if they have [advanced liver scarring], have any symptoms at all.' Drinking patterns did not change much over the study period. But the health profiles of heavy drinkers did. Rates of metabolic syndrome — a cluster of conditions including obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure — increased from 26% of people, to nearly 38%. Demographics shifted too: heavy drinkers became more likely to be women, people over the age of 45, and those living in poverty. 'We're showing with this study that the picture of the American drinker is changing dramatically,' Lee said. 'You have more women who are drinking heavily, more ethnic minorities who are drinking heavily, and these are groups that are known to have a higher sensitivity to alcohol in causing liver damage.' Other factors may also be at play, said Dr. Sammy Saab, medical director of the Pfleger Liver Institute at UCLA, who was not involved in the study. People could be consuming different types of drinks, or at different times. 'Have we moved away from beer, wine, to hard cocktails? Have we moved away from drinking with food, where the food absorbs some of the alcohol you consume, versus drinking without food where alcohol is better absorbed?' Saab asked. Then there are cultural changes, he said. 'In the old days, if you drank, you'd still have to drive home, but now we've got Uber, we have Lyft,' he said, which may remove some deterrents to heavy drinking. The current definition of heavy drinking in the U.S. may actually be too lenient, Lee said, especially compared to evolving global standards. Canada, for example, now advises no more than two drinks per week to minimize health risks. 'In the U.S. right now, we consider heavy drinking to be eight drinks or more per week for women and 15 or more for men — but that's quite high,' he said. 'We've shown in prior studies that you can develop liver disease at lower quantities than the U.S. threshold.' The study's findings highlight the need to rethink long-held assumptions about alcohol-related liver disease, and Lee hopes it can be used to develop more effective screening methods for early detection. The paper raises a lot of good questions, Saab said, serving as a call to action for researchers and clinicians to better understand this increase in alcohol-associated liver disease — and how to stop it.
Newsweek
38 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Texas Removes 1.8 Million People From Health Care Plan
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Almost 1.8 million Americans have been disenrolled from Medicaid health coverage in Texas in the last two years, according to data by KFF, a nonprofit health policy research and news organization. These Americans have lost their health insurance as part of the unwinding process happening nationwide after Medicaid coverage was expanded following the COVID pandemic. A spokesperson for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) told Newsweek it is "committed to ensuring that those qualified for benefits receive them," and worked closely with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) "throughout the public health emergency and the Medicaid unwind process." "Federal guidance required HHSC to redetermine eligibility for 6 million Medicaid clients over the course of 12 months," they added. "Redetermining eligibility within federal requirements was a massive undertaking. Throughout the unwind, HHSC met with our federal partners on a regular basis to ensure that we followed federal guidance, and we will continue to collaborate with CMS to provide eligible Texans with benefits." Why It Matters The unwinding process has resulted in significant drops in Medicaid enrollment across the U.S. in recent years. While some of those disenrolled from Medicaid may still have had access to other forms of health insurance through their employment, those left without insurance could be in a vulnerable position. Higher rates of uninsured populations in states have been associated with negative impacts on health outcomes and medical costs. File photo: doctors treat a child in a hospital. File photo: doctors treat a child in a hospital. Gerald Herbert/AP What To Know During the pandemic, some states expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) while some Americans may have being encouraged to enroll for health coverage given the spread of the virus, causing nationwide enrollment levels to increase. Federal rules then meant states had to keep most Medicaid enrollees on the program even if their eligibility status changed, a requirement which expired in March 2023, allowing states to resume removing individuals from the program. Medicaid enrollment has since steadily declined, driven by both eligibility losses and procedural disenrollments. In Texas, there were 5,922,450 covered by Medicaid in March 2023, but by March 2025, that number was 4,164,694, KFF data shows. This marks a change of almost 1.8 million, a rate of decline faster than in Florida, California and New York. The number of people with Medicaid coverage is now just lower than February 2020 levels, a difference of 1 percent. Reasons for Texas' steeper drop in Medicaid enrollment could be because of the fact it, combined with Florida, New York and California, made up a significant proportion of Medicaid enrollment before the unwinding, Timothy McBride, a professor of public health at Washington University in St. Louis, told Newsweek. All four states together accounted for 36 percent of Medicaid enrollment and subsequently accounted for 31 percent of the drop in the unwinding period between 2020 and 2025, he added. This is in part because the states have large populations, but also because they have some of lowest percentages of health insurance coverage by employers or private plans, McBride said. This is due to "higher poverty rates, especially in Florida and Texas, fewer good jobs that offer health insurance, and a higher percentage of nonwhite persons, especially in Florida, Texas, and California," he said. "If they do not have private coverage they seek Medicaid," he added. For those that were able to gain health insurance through private coverage once being rolled off Medicaid, there is little concern. However, those that may remain uninsured as a result of the unwinding process "I am worried about," McBride said. "The negative outcomes could be delays in seeking needed medical care leading to worse outcomes, lack of prevention, which is especially problematic if they have chronic conditions, bad mental health and financial outcomes, and higher medical debt since they have to pay for more out of pocket," he added. What People Are Saying Timothy D. McBride, professor of public health at Washington University in St. Louis, told Newsweek: "Part of the drop is people who maintained Medicaid coverage on paper because they got it at some point during the pandemic but remained there through the PHE. Yet some may have moved along and obtained other coverage, so really were not needing the Medicaid anyway. The group we are concerned about is those who have become uninsured or who lost the coverage for procedural reasons. It appears from some work that maybe 30 percent or so of those who lost coverage may be uninsured. And a lot of people—around that number lost coverage for procedural reasons, many of them children." Laura Dague, a professor of health policy at Texas A&M University, told Newsweek: "How impactful the decreases in enrollment will be in terms of individual health depend on how aware people were of their ongoing coverage and how often they used it, and there is not much empirical evidence on this topic at the moment. A much bigger issue for Texas in my opinion will be the upcoming projected decreases in Marketplace enrollment due to decreasing subsidies; Texas has had major growth in that market in the last few years as subsidies increased." What Happens Next As the unwinding continues, more reductions in enrollment are expected in the state, and across the country. With millions already having lost health coverage, concerns remain about access to care for low-income individuals and families.
Time Magazine
38 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Medicaid Cuts Put People with Disabilities at Risk
Today marks the 35th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This landmark legislation, which enshrined in federal statute civil rights for people living with disabilities, has transformed countless lives. It opened the world up to an entire population who, until that point, were more often than not excluded and isolated from society. It codified a legal pathway for equality and inclusion by dismantling longstanding barriers that prevented people with disabilities from having the opportunity to pursue employment, live independently, access transportation and public spaces, and so much more. The ADA affirmed the fundamental right of every American to participate fully in society, and is foundational to ensuring that those with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) have equal opportunities to thrive and live with autonomy. Yet, as we celebrate the ADA's enduring legacy this year, the future for people with disabilities looks less certain. The ADA's vision is not self-sustaining. Its promise is fulfilled through an ecosystem of vital support services, many of which rely on Medicaid funding. For millions of Americans living with disabilities, Medicaid is a lifeline that provides access to essential home- and community-based services (HCBS). These services include the most basic activities of daily living like bathing, dressing, eating, and more, as well as the residential programs, employment supports, and assistive technologies that allow people with I/DD to live with dignity in their own homes and communities. These services are at the heart of the ADA and crucial to making inclusion a reality. Following the passage of President Donald Trump's tax bill, which will cut aproximately $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next several years, these support systems are in jeopardy. This attack on Medicaid threatens to unravel decades of progress toward equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities, as access to these services will undoubtedly become more limited. Read More: The Big Budget Bill Could Make Your ER a Mess Cuts to Medicaid could mean fewer available care services, longer waiting lists for critical support, and potentially the loss of the very assistance that allows those with I/DD to live independent and fulfilling lives. Imagine losing the career coach who helps you get ready for work and makes it possible to maintain steady employment, or the direct support professional (DSP) who helps you bathe and brush your teeth, or the transportation service that connects you to your community. These cuts translate into a forced retreat from independence, pushing individuals back into isolation and dependency, often in hospitals or costly, state-run institutions, directly contradicting the ADA's core tenets. The ripple effect extends to the dedicated community providers who are the backbone of the HCBS ecosystem. These organizations operate on thin margins, relying heavily, or solely, on Medicaid to fund their services. Cuts of this size may fall heavily on providers, who are already in crisis because of long-term underinvestment in community-based services, leaving them struggling to offer their DSPs competitive wages and benefits due to stagnant and insufficient reimbursement rates. Ultimately, these cuts could lead to reduced capacity, staff layoffs, and even the closure of programs. The national shortage of DSPs is also expected to worsen. To pay wages, providers rely on Medicaid reimbursements from their states; if states are rendered unable to increase reimbursement rates, providers will lose the DSPs they employ to better-paying opportunities in other hourly wage industries such as fast food and retail. This monumental blow to Medicaid funding will make it even harder to find and retain the individuals who provide day-to-day care. Troublingly, these DSPs, whose work is both physically and emotionally demanding, often rely on Medicaid themselves due to insufficient wages. When providers are forced to scale back programs or shutter entirely, the entire HCBS infrastructure weakens, leaving countless individuals without the support they need. The strain is then placed on the families of people with I/DD, potentially forcing some to leave their own jobs to provide care for their loved ones. For the many individuals with I/DD who don't have family or existing networks of support, access to care may be lost completely. Read More: The GOP Budget Takes From the Poor and Gives to the Rich The true scale of the impact remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that it will be nothing short of devastating. A nearly $1 trillion cut to Medicaid is not just a budgetary change. It will harm people with disabilities and the progress we have made since the passage of the ADA. Decades of advocacy, innovation, and hard-won victories for equality and inclusion are at risk of being rolled back. As we honor the ADA this year, we must recommit to its vision by unequivocally protecting the very funding that makes true community living and inclusion a reality for all. We cannot allow the fundamental rights and opportunities of people with disabilities to be undermined. Solutions must be found, advocates must fight back, and state leaders need to find ways to preserve funding for these vital services. Access to care is not a luxury, it is a necessity that is integral to upholding the rights of those with disabilities.
