By admin 
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
Read our AI Policy.
- 49ers players released statements opposing SB 795 via the NFLPA.
- SB 795 would limit athletes’ workers’ comp claims for cumulative injuries and diseases.
- The bill exempts athletes who worked under 20% of California duty days last year.
San Francisco 49ers players last week expressed their opposition to a California bill that would narrow professional athletes’ abilities to file workers’ compensation claims on cumulative injuries and occupational diseases.
Read more World Cup hydration breaks can’t escape the grasp of American capitalism | Opinion
Senate Bill 795, which passed the state Senate in January before it was gutted and amended in the Assembly, has faced opposition from NFL players in the state since it was amended May 18 to focus on professional athletes instead of horse racing, while advocates say the bill is only closing up loopholes made by previous legislation.
Both the 49ers and Los Angeles Chargers players released statements through the NFL Players Association opposing the bill, while ownership of the three California teams — those two plus the Los Angeles Rams — are reportedly in support, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The NHL and MLS players’ associations also opposed the bill, while the NBA and MLB associations didn’t respond to requests for comment and hadn’t made public statements on the bill as of Thursday.
“We oppose California SB 795 because it singles out professional athletes and tells us we deserve fewer protections than every other worker in the state,” the players wrote in the statement, posted on X by the Player’s Association. “If you put in the work and put your body on the line on the job, you should have access to the workers’ comp system like any other employee.”
What would the bill do?
SB 795 would amend the state’s Labor Code by specifically exempting professional athletes from workers’ compensation claims for occupational diseases or cumulative injuries if they did not work in California or were temporary employees in the state. The bill does not change state policy regarding injuries that took place at a specific moment in California.
The bill’s new language defines temporary employment for a professional athlete as someone who works less than 20% of their duty days in California over the last calendar year. Assembly Bill 1309, the current law on the matter, said athletes only need to have worked 20% of their duty days in California over their last year of employment.
A duty day is defined as a “day in which any services are performed by a professional athlete under the direction and control of their employer pursuant to a player contract,” according to the bill’s current language.
However, SB 795 would continue to allow the athlete’s California-based employer to be held liable for occupational disease or cumulative injuries if two conditions are met. To qualify under the bill’s current language, professional athletes must have worked two or more seasons for a California-based team or spent more than 20% of their duty days over their entire career in California and have spent less than seven seasons playing for a team outside the state.
The California Labor Code defines cumulative injury as “repetitive mentally or physically traumatic activities extending over a period of time, the combined effect of which causes any disability or need for medical treatment.”
This is especially relevant for sports like football and hockey, where repeated contact injuries across a career could lead to injuries for which athletes may seek workers’ compensation benefits.
Any active workers’ compensation claims made prior to May 11 of this year would be subject to SB 795’s new rules if it is passed, which has also drawn criticism from the NFLPA and the nonprofit California Applicants Attorneys Association.
Read more Kansas City Chiefs add former 49ers, Saints tight end to offseason roster
What do advocates say?
A fact sheet supporting the bill said AB 1309 created multiple loopholes in California’s workers’ compensation policy, specifically relating to cumulative injuries for professional athletes.
“SB795 builds upon AB1309, by cleaning up several unintended consequences that have arisen during implementation, while protecting professional player/worker compensation access and award of benefits they have earned and deserve,” said the bill’s lead author state Sen. Laura Richardson, a Democrat who represents parts of Los Angeles County, in a statement.
According to the fact sheet, minor league affiliates of California-based professional teams that are located in other states are able to file workers’ compensation claims in California under current law.
To combat this effect, which advocates called a “loophole” in previous laws, SB795, in part, more strictly defines what a California professional sports team is. The bill defines a California team as one that plays a majority of its home games at a venue in the state, regardless of an employer’s principal place of business.
Advocates for the bill also said that some players that played for franchises in multiple states would file complaints for cumulative injuries in multiple states, which the fact sheet called “double-dipping.”
How close is it to passing?
Richardson introduced the bill in 2025, which then would have adjusted restrictions on horse race wagering in California on races outside the state. As a horse racing bill, SB 795 passed 14-1 in the state Senate’s Committee on Natural Resources and Water before unanimously passing on the Senate floor.
SB 795 was rewritten by Richardson to focus on professional athletes while the bill was in the Assembly’s Committee on Insurance, with the updated text being released May 18. Four Democrats joined the bill as co-authors during the rewrite — one from the Senate and three from the Assembly.
A hearing in the Assembly committee scheduled for Wednesday was postponed. Its next hearing has not been announced.
The bill will need to pass the Assembly’s Committee on Insurance, then the Assembly floor before getting sent back to the Senate for a concurring vote. The bill could also be sent to Senate committees for reconsideration given the substantial nature of the bill rewrites.
If the changed language is approved by both chambers, Gov. Gavin Newsom will have the power to veto the bill or sign it into law. If vetoed, the chambers would need to pass the bill again with 2/3 support to override a Newsom veto.
Read more Is one death enough to fix a dangerous Sacramento County road?