Tuesday, February 28, 2006

NFL Labor Talks Break Down Without Deal

By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; 5:09 PM

Talks between the NFL and its players' union on an extension of the sport's collective bargaining agreement broke down today without a settlement that would keep the league's salary-cap system in place beyond next season.

A participant in the talks said that Players Association chief Gene Upshaw left a negotiating meeting this afternoon in New York with plans to return to Washington. No further bargaining sessions were scheduled. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue has set a deadline of 4 p.m. Wednesday for a deal to be completed. The free-agent market is scheduled to open Friday.

Executives from NFL teams and agents were abuzz in recent days with speculation that a settlement between the league and the union was imminent or was tentatively in place. But Upshaw said Monday as he traveled to New York that there was no deal and he didn't know if the parties could complete one before Wednesday's deadline. Upshaw said that the union and the league still had not agreed on what percentage of an expanded revenue pool the players would receive as compensation.

Tagliabue also has been unable to get the owners to agree to a plan to increase the degree to which the teams share locally generated revenues. Upshaw said Monday that the labor and revenue-sharing deals would have to come simultaneously. The owners are scheduled to meet Monday and Tuesday in Dallas.

The players have an executive board meeting scheduled for next week in Hawaii. Upshaw has said that if there's no labor extension, he will recommend to the players then that they put in motion the process of decertifying the union as a tactic to prevent a lockout by the owners in 2008 and possibly lead to a courtroom confrontation between the two sides.

The current labor deal keeps the salary-cap system in place through next season, then expires after a 2007 season that would be played without a salary cap. Upshaw has said he doesn't intend to postpone Friday's opening of the free agent market and it would become increasingly difficult to complete a labor deal once the market opens, given that the players at that point would be on the verge of reaching a season without a salary cap. Upshaw also has said that if the league plays a season without a salary cap, he doesn't envision a cap ever returning.

Teams had been hopeful that a labor extension would be completed this week to ease the salary-cap crunches that many clubs are facing. Without an extension, many teams would have to release players Thursday to get under a salary cap projected to be about $96 million per club next season. With a labor extension, the cap probably would be about $10 million per team higher.

© 2006 Washingtonpost

Friday, February 24, 2006

Upshaw planning to leave town without deal

NFL.com wire reports

INDIANAPOLIS (Feb. 24, 2006) -- The NFL players union is instructing agents to negotiate contracts as if no new labor deal will be in place during free agency.

Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, finished talks in Indianapolis Feb. 24 without an extension to the collective bargaining agreement and sounded pessimistic that a contract can be reached before the March 3 start of the league calendar. If that is the case, he said, it could take a while.

"Once we get to the league year, I don't see us getting a deal done any time soon," Upshaw said in the meeting. "We're taking the position we're not going to get this resolved, so you should go ahead and do contracts based on that."

Upshaw was in Indianapolis for the annual NFL Scouting Combine and had met with owners over the past couple of days. He cut short a negotiating session Feb. 22, saying the meeting had descended into a repetition of points by members on both sides of the table.

That fueled Upshaw's skepticism, which had not subsided by Feb. 24, the first day of workouts for prospective rookies.

Upshaw even took the unusual step of inviting the media to listen to his remarks at a large meeting of agents. He spoke for about 10 to 15 minutes two days after meeting with a smaller group of agents.

If a new deal is not reached between the NFLPA and league officials before March 3, teams would have to contend with a much different landscape with contracts. That's because even though the collective bargaining agreement doesn't expire until after the 2007 season, next year would be uncapped.

If that happens, new deals could be prorated only over four years rather than seven and salaries could only increase by 30 percent per season. Players also face the loss of benefits, if there is no accord.

Upshaw has insisted the biggest obstacle to a deal is discord among the owners, not NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue. Owners have not been able to reach consensus on a new revenue sharing plan, something that the union contends must be resolved before any new collective bargaining agreement could be signed.

Upshaw also has said he would decertify the union and suggested if the deal runs out, he did not believe players would agree to a salary cap in the future once there is an uncapped season.

The uncertainty has forced team officials to devise contingency plans for offseason moves. Even as workouts were beginning, many team officials were projecting two different scenarios: doing new contracts with a new labor agreement or proceeding without one.

Restricted free agents must receive tenders by March 2. Free agency is scheduled to open March 3.

"Let's get this thing settled so we can make concrete plans about how we're going to move forward," New York Giants coach Tom Coughlin said. "It's not a comfortable feeling for any club. We need this to be settled and we need to move forward as a league. We need to be able to utilize all the abilities that we have in our planning."

Upshaw all but ruled out any immediate possibility of having a deal before March 3.

"Unless something is going on ... that I've not seen in the last day or two, we're just not there yet," he said. "I'm not putting a lot of faith in that we're going to reach agreement in the next couple of days."

Thursday, February 23, 2006

No Progress on NFL Labor Negotiations

By Mark Maske

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; E02

INDIANAPOLIS, Feb. 22 -- A 3 1/2 -hour bargaining session here on Wednesday between NFL Players Association officials and a reshuffled group representing the league's team owners failed to jump-start the sport's stalled labor negotiations.

"There's been no progress," union chief Gene Upshaw said as he left the downtown Indianapolis hotel at which the meeting was held. "We told them our points. They understand our points. They think we're asking too much, and we think they're not offering enough. We're just not there, and I'm not sure we're going to get there. . . . The positions are still the same."

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and St. Louis Rams President John Shaw joined the league's negotiating team, but the new dynamic failed to produce any breakthroughs. The meeting ended, Upshaw said, when it became clear that neither side was budging from its bargaining position.

"When you get to the point where you repeat yourself four or five times, you end it," Upshaw said. "The clock is ticking, and they all realize that."

Upshaw has set the end of this week as his deadline for completing a deal that would keep the sport's salary-cap system in place beyond next season. The collective bargaining agreement runs through the 2007 season, but that season would be played without a salary cap.

Upshaw is scheduled to address a group of about 500 agents here on Friday. He spoke to a smaller group of agents earlier Wednesday and told them he would leave open the possibility of a last-minute settlement with the owners as late as March 2, the day before league's free agent market is scheduled to open. Upshaw told the agents he would not postpone the start of free agency.

He is scheduled to meet with the players' executive board on March 9 and has said that if there's no labor deal by then, he would recommend to the players that they put in motion the process to decertify the union as a tactic to prevent a lockout by the owners and perhaps set up a courtroom challenge by the players.

NFL Notes: The Indianapolis Colts agreed to a six-year contract extension with wide receiver Reggie Wayne, who had been eligible for unrestricted free agency. The deal is worth slightly less than $40 million, including about $14 million in bonuses. . . .

The Buffalo Bills placed their franchise-player tag on cornerback Nate Clements, essentially taking him off the unrestricted free agent market. He would have a salary of $5.893 million next season if he remains the Bills' franchise player. Clements became the second player league-wide to get the franchise-player designation. The New York Jets placed their franchise-player tag on defensive end John Abraham on Tuesday. The deadline for teams to designate franchise and transition players is Thursday. . . .

The Jets began to make their salary cap cutbacks by releasing seven players, including cornerback Ty Law and quarterback Jay Fiedler. The team, which was about $26 million over the projected salary cap, also restructured the contract of tailback Curtis Martin.

Tackle Jason Fabini, fullback Jerald Sowell, linebacker Barry Gardner, defensive tackle Lance Legree and wide receiver Harry Williams Jr. also were released. The Jets might end up releasing quarterback Chad Pennington if they're unable to agree to a reworked contract with him.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Time to work out draft hopefuls, labor differences

Cleveland Plain-Dealer
Thursday, February 23, 2006

Tony Grossi
Plain Dealer Reporter

Indianapolis -- It's a busy week for everybody affiliated with an NFL team.

Scouts and coaches begin today examining the first wave of 330 college players eligible for the April 29-30 NFL draft. Offensive linemen, running backs and kickers are up first.

General managers on hand are finalizing preparations for the scheduled start of free agency in another week.

Today is the deadline for teams to protect themselves from losing key unsigned players with the franchise or transition labels. For the eighth year in a row, the Browns don't have a good enough qualifying player to bother with either designation.

It is also the first day teams can put players under contract on waivers. The Browns will do that with linebacker Kenard Lang and at least one other player whom they declined to identify because he had not yet been informed.

Above and beyond the typical tasks, however, are a series of meetings taking place to iron out labor differences that threaten the league's order of business.

The NFL collective bargaining agreement, which has propelled the league to record revenues and 13 years of labor peace, is set to expire after the 2007 season. If an extension is not reached soon -- some are saying by next Friday -- everything from free agency to the draft will be changed.

"This is something we've never faced before," Baltimore General Manager Ozzie Newsome said Wednesday.

Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL players union, has set this week as his deadline in proceeding with the hope of extending the CBA. If the new league year begins on March 3 with no agreement in sight, the rules of free agency this year would change, and the 2007 season would have no salary cap.

After that, Upshaw has promised, the union would decertify and the future of the NFL would be determined in antitrust court.

It is commonly believed that the major holdup to a CBA extension lies not with the union as much as with the owners. They cannot agree to a revenue-sharing plan that divides equally the nearly $6 billion of revenue the 32 teams generate each year.

The immediacy of the problem is that, starting March 3, without an extension, new rules kick in that hurt teams' ability to get under the salary cap. New contracts could be pro-rated only for four years, rather than seven, which would limit a team's flexibility. Also, a player's base salary could increase by only 30 percent per year, and that would restrict free agency, too.

Some are predicting an ice age would hit free agency. Fewer teams would have the room to pursue higher-priced players.

"This uncertainty is playing a role in everything," Browns coach Romeo Crennel said on Wednesday. "Not only in what we may offer new players, but what we do to try to keep our own [potential free agents]."

There was talk of postponing free agency for two weeks if enough progress suggested a settlement in sight. But Upshaw insisted Wednesday, "There will be no delay in free agency, no delay in anything."

Upshaw met with a group of 16 player agents in the afternoon and then headed into another meeting with Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and St. Louis Rams President John Shaw -- members of the owners' executive council committee. More meetings are scheduled through Friday.

Upshaw said if there is no extension of the CBA, the 2006 salary cap would be between $93 million and $95 million. If there is an extension, it would be between $102 million and $104 million. The cap in 2005 was $85.5 million.

The conservative cap would leave the Browns with about $25 million of space to make a splash in free agency. They are one of the few teams that would not be seriously harmed by the restrictions imposed on free agency if the system tightens.

"I don't think it would affect our free agency much at all because we've got room to do some things," Savage said. "It probably would keep us as one of the teams out there that can be more active than others. In one way it would help us, but for the good of the league and for all involved, and for us down the line, we need an agreement."

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: tgrossi@plaind.com, 216-999-4670

© 2006 The Plain Dealer

© 2006 cleveland.com All Rights Reserved.

Players unwilling to push 2006 free agency back

USA Today
February 23, 2006

Players don't want the March 3 free agency deadline pushed back to April 1 to buy more time for have and have-not owners who've been unable to settle on a way to share the ever-deepening pool of local revenue.

Players association executive director Gene Upshaw said during Super Bowl week that any new collective bargaining agreement must be based on more than 60% of total gross revenue going toward player salaries or else the union is prepared to enter an uncapped year with a possible repeat of a 1987 strike.

Two weeks later, pessimism reigns.

"There's been no progress," says Vincent, president of the NFL Players Association. "If the owners are not making any progress, why postpone the date of free agency? To buy them more time so they're still not going to share and will leave 24 other owners out in the cold? No.

"(There will be) $24 billion from television revenue coming in this season. Now come on. That's not enough food for everyone to share? There's enough for everyone to go back for seconds and thirds."

The players have amassed a $200 million war chest in the event of a strike.

"As owners, their franchises continue to increase in value," Vincent says. "The players union is trying to be proactive now so we don't get back to 1987. With the sport doing this well, why (strike)?"

Exactly. A strike would be the equivalent of shoving the golden goose into the microwave.

"It's inconceivable that they won't get a new deal done," Baltimore Ravens coach Brian Billick says. "If it takes a few more days (before free agency starts), then that's fine."

Greed may prove to be NFL's downfall

As owners fight among themselves, union prepares to decertify

COMMENTARY

By Ron Borges

NBCSports.com contributor

Updated: 12:09 a.m. ET Feb. 23, 2006

You can never underestimate the corrosive power of unadulterated greed.

That is the NFL's problem today, as its wealthy labor union negotiates with its wealthy owners to extend a labor contract that has made both of them wealthier. Considering what the NFL's labor agreement has achieved since it first went into effect in 1992, one might think "What's to negotiate?'' But that's the problem. You're thinking. They're greedy. The latter is often the counter weight to the former.

It has come to the world's attention this week that upwards of nine of the league's wealthiest owners have threatened to sue their partners if they are forced to accept a majority vote that would force them to share equally or at least in no small part the locally generated revenues teams have been allowed to hoard in recent years. As those numbers have swelled, the rich have gotten richer and the richer still have gotten richer still.

Where this has left the players, who are the guys generating all this revenue in the first place, is simply rich which, naturally, isn't good enough for them.

Union chief Gene Upshaw didn't get rich playing even though he was so adept a blocker he went to the Hall of Fame. But he did get rich once he became the head of the NFL Players Association. Now he's insisting, quite logically, that the 32 rich owners share their total gross revenues with their slightly less rich players, and not just the "designated gross revenues'' as in the past. It's a term that never did make any sense to people whose mothers raised them to think sharing meant sharing what you've got, not just some of what you've got.

In recent days, Upshaw has said repeatedly there can be no effective negotiation of an extension of the present work agreement, which has allowed the league to prosper peacefully for more than a decade, until the owners decide among themselves how they're going to cut up those local revenues.

New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft responded to that by saying Upshaw should worry about his union members and getting them a contract extension, and let the owners work out their internal problems between themselves.

The only problem with such thinking is that until those owners stop threatening to sue each other over the idea of sharing their incredible wealth equally the way they always used, Upshaw feels he can't make a deal. The union, you see, knows local revenues in places like New England, Washington, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Denver, Chicago, Houston and Dallas have skyrocketed, yet little of that money is thrown into the pot from which the salary cap emerges. Hence, his wealthy players aren't getting wealthier as fast as the owners are, and neither he nor they are happy about it nor willing to let that gap continue to grow.

The wealthiest owners, meanwhile, say they have different debt structures than long-time owners such as Lamar Hunt in Kansas City or the Mara family in New York, and aren't a publicly held trust like the Green Bay Packers. They argue that they're generating much more local revenue than some of their partners because they work harder at it than, say, Bill Bidwell, who owns the Arizona Cardinals, or Mike Brown, the long-time head of the penurious Cincinnati Bengals. Why should they share with guys who aren't willing to work as hard as they are at maximizing their business, they ask?

What that leaves is the union setting an end-of-the-week deadline for completing an extension of the present collective bargaining agreement, or simply allowing the deal to go to its ultimately disastrous 2007 conclusion.

That would also be the end of sanity in the NFL because it would make that season uncapped, and end the golden goose that has made every owner fabulously more wealthy than they were when they bought these teams because each has functioned with guaranteed labor costs ever since the cap was instituted.

Those fixed labor costs have allowed the value of their franchises to skyrocket, but if the cap ends, so would that increase because everyone knows the NFL would soon become like Major League Baseball. MLB is a marketing disaster in most of its cities because before the first game is played most of the have-not teams have been eliminated from World Series contention. The absence of that kind of situation has been the great magic of the NFL. Because of the cap, anyone (well, perhaps not Bidwell) can create a team that can win the Super Bowl. But if the cap disappears, the NFL will become the athletic and economic version of a third world economy in short order, and both Upshaw and the owners know it.

Should not that simple fact, and the downside that would follow, convince them all to work together? Well, it used to. However, the local revenue numbers have skyrocketed in some cities so dramatically that it has caused the normal levels of greed that made all these owners what they are today to mutate into the kind of greed than can lead eight or nine of them to threaten to sue their partners if they're forced to share, even if the vote is democratically taken.

This recently led Pittsburgh Steelers' owner Dan Rooney to ask, "Sue over what? They can vote no.''

True, but they can't win, and rich guys like Dan Snyder, who owns the Washington Redskins and makes fabulously huge profits, are used to winning. Or at least to getting their way.

In a nutshell, the problem, it seems, is basically that while NFL owners love capitalism, they also love monopolies. They love the free-market system but only as long as they don't have to play along with too many of the rules of the free-market system. In point of fact, as Upshaw said recently, "Everything they do is illegal,'' meaning monopolistic things like the draft (illegal), transition and franchising players (illegal), one-way contracts (illegal), well, you get the drift. What allows them to get away with such things, which fly in the face of both the constitution and federal labor law, is that they've been agreed to by a union representing the players' best interests. But that can change in a minute if the players' greed isn't soon satisfied.

Upshaw is threatening to ask the players to vote to dissolve the NFLPA on or around March 9 when the Governing Board meets in Hawaii (how come these guys never meet in Buffalo?). He would do this to avoid the owners trying to impose a lockout on the players — the theory being you can't lock out union members who don't have a union.

He would also do this so that quite quickly antitrust laws would again apply to the league and even the greediest of owners knows the NFL's winning percentage in federal court on matters of antitrust is similar to the Cardinals' winning percentage in playoff games.

As you can see, the stakes are rising quickly on both sides, and so is the rhetoric. When Upshaw gave his annual state of union address during Super Bowl week, he showed up for the first time in years with Jeffrey Kessler, one of the nation's top antitrust lawyers, at his side. Kessler lingered for some time after Upshaw finished speaking to answer questions about the league's antitrust violations and the NFLPA's legal options if the present agreement isn't extended.

Over on management's side, you heard for the first time in years the word "lockout'' as well as talk of obscenely rich guys suing only ridiculously rich guys over the one side's refusal to share local revenues with the other side the way their mothers and the NFL's founders taught them.

Is this all a recipe for disaster? Kraft insists not, saying this is what happens at such times, with all sides jockeying to get as much as they can before the "11th hour and 59th minute arrives'' and a deal is struck.

It is then and only then, he says, that common sense prevails. Not long after he said that, it was learned he was among the eight or nine owners threatening to sue his partners if forced to share local revenues equally.

So much for the 11th hour and 59th minute.

Kraft is a very smart guy, but he's also one of the guys who doesn't want to share with partners he feels are not working as hard or as intelligently as he is to maximize their investment. He's a very good businessman who understands brinkmanship and suicide and is smart enough to avoid them both on most occasions.

But then again, the guys who own hockey teams and baseball teams were supposed to be smart guys too, and look what they've done. Could the same thing happen in pro football? You wouldn't think so, but don't underestimate the most destructive force on earth — blind greed.

Ron Borges writes regularly for NBCSports.com and covers the NFL for the Boston Globe.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11510061/page/3/

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Quibbling over millions could cost billions

If owners can't achieve labor accord, value of teams will be impacted

COMMENTARY

By Jason Cole
NBCSports.com contributor

The level playing field that has fans in every NFL city believing their team can win the Super Bowl is in jeopardy of cratering.

On back-to-back days in Detroit before the Super Bowl, NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw both gave bleak pictures of the negotiations over an extension of the collective bargaining agreement.

Upshaw tossed the best volley when he related a comment from Denver owner Pat Bowlen about how if the parties can’t get the CBA extended, everybody should be shot. Upshaw put the responsibility on the owners, saying that if it doesn’t get done, “Maybe they should shoot themselves.”

Upshaw is right, but even he doesn’t know by how much. What NFL owners are toying with is not simply about turning their sport into the financial/competitive fiasco that is baseball, but many of them are toying with hundreds of millions in personal wealth that goes with the baseball model.

In short, if football doesn’t keep the salary cap alive and the level playing field together, the disparity between the value of top teams (at least financially) such as Washington and Dallas and lower-end teams like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh could be like the difference in value between the New York Yankees and Florida Marlins.

The NFL is in the middle of a financial boon. The Minnesota Vikings were bought for $600 million before this season by Zygi Wilf. Word is that the Saints will one day go to Los Angeles for at least $1 billion when the league can finally coerce Tom Benson into selling.

A major part of that is the control the NFL has over labor cost, the ability to keep star players from changing teams quickly and the overall balance of the league.

“What’s really important is that every team on the NFL has the ability to compete on the field every year,” New England owner Bob Kraft said. “The reason that (so many people are interested in the Super Bowl) is that every fan base in every city feels it can have a contending team. I think that’s the most important thing we have to do with this labor agreement.”

If the NFL does get to an uncapped season in 2007, which is supposed to happen if an extension isn’t worked out by March 3, Washington owner Dan Snyder and Dallas’ Jerry Jones will eventually pilfer the best players from the lower-end teams.

Worse yet, some penurious owners, such as Bill Bidwill of Arizona, might be happy to collect the profits from not having to spend at least a minimum amount of money each year, as is currently required.

The long-term down effect is that franchise values will be impacted. The NFL can talk all it wants about how there’s always somebody who will want to own a team, but the specter of a team going from worth $600 million to $400 million over the next three or four years is going to be ugly.

Kraft tried to downplay that element, but he didn’t deny it.

“It doesn’t matter to me, I’m not selling. That’s a paper gain (or loss),” Kraft said when asked about franchise values being impacted. OK, but how will Kraft’s brethren feel about that? Over the past 10 years, eight teams have changed hands. Over the past 20, there have been 20 new owners in the league and franchise value helped drive the league.

Or as NFLPA president Troy Vincent said: “Those owners like to see where their teams are listed in Forbes (magazine) on those charts every year … If those guys see their teams go from $1 billion to $700 million in value.”

Vincent paused slightly for effect.

“That’s a lot of yachts,” Vincent said.

Again, the problem in this process is not about the players against the owners. While the difference between what the players want (61 percent) and what the owners are offering (58 percent) is significant over time (about $1.2 billion over a six-year period according to Vincent), that can be bridged.

It should be noted that on the Saturday after the gloom-and-doom statements by Tagliabue and Upshaw, those two were seen riding an elevator together with Kraft, all parties seemingly quite content.

The real issue remains among the owners and they are the ones who are toying with the biggest losses. If suddenly the 10 lowest-earning teams in the NFL lose $200 million or so in value and eventually the league’s TV contract is impacted down the line, the losses for the owners could be several billion over the same period of time.

In short, it’s time for there to be some cooperation among the guys who write the checks.

Jason Cole is a frequent contributor to NBCSports.com and covers the NFL for the Miami Herald.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11315691/

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Warning Time

From early Super Bowl XLI odds to free agency, the draft and -- oh yeah -- labor issues, there is no rest for the league.

Mark Craig

If triple toeloops and the anticipation of men playing catch in Florida just aren't cutting it, do not be alarmed. The NFL and its maniacal following never truly rests.

Sportsbook.com, which calls itself the world's largest online sportsbook and casino, posted odds to win Super Bowl XLI on Monday, less than 24 hours after the Steelers beat the Seahawks 21-10 in Super Bowl XL.

The Colts opened as a 4-to-1 favorite. The Steelers were second at 8-to-1. The Vikings? They were 30-to-1, while the Packers were 100-to-1, which is pretty bad considering the Cardinals and Lions were 75-to-1.

Super Bowl, homeboy? Randy and the Raiders are 50-to-1, which is pretty good without a head coach.

"There could still be some huge factors that could shift the odds in coming months," said Alex Czajkowski, the marketing director for sportsbook.com.

Gee, ya think?

Technically, the new NFL season doesn't begin until March. But the machine rolls on, making and/or creating news with each chug forward. The scouting combine takes place in Indianapolis in two weeks. Free agency and the trading period begins March 3. And the draft is April 29-30.

And, oh yeah, the Pro Bowl -- a game nobody wants to play in and everybody forgets to watch -- is today. Check your local listings for game time because, well, I just don't care.

Many stars such as Donovan McNabb and Carson Palmer are busy rehabbing physical injuries. Others such as Terrell Owens are rehabbing negative perceptions. And then there's Daunte Culpepper, who needs a whole bunch of both before fall.

Hmm. Is there anything else going on? Let's see ...

Oh, that's right. The backdrop to everything is the threat that in 13 months, the goose that keeps laying all of these golden eggs will be slaughtered by millionaire players and billionaire owners.

By all accounts, negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) are going nowhere.

The NFL Players' association not only wants a higher percentage of the league's revenue, it wants the total football revenues (TFR) expanded to include the local bonanzas that currently are exempt.

The owners, meanwhile, are torn amongst themselves in addition to being at odds with the players. The really rich owners (see: Snyder, D.; Jones, J.) not only want to keep the local money from the players, but also from their fellow owners. The old-guard owners (read: less rich) such as Lamar Hunt believe it's time to expand revenue sharing to include the local money.

Sadly, Wellington Mara isn't alive to offer wisdom to the greediest of owners. It was the late Mara, after all, who pushed for revenue sharing decades ago when he could have sat in New York with his Giants and gobbled up the biggest pieces of the pie. Had he gone the latter route, the golden goose would have been cooked long ago.

The current CBA doesn't expire until March 2008, but the real deadline is March 2007. If no deal is reached by then, there will be no salary cap in 2007.

Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones and other owners of their ilk in an uncapped year would be disastrous. They would destroy the competitive balance that is vital to the NFL's popularity. Without it, every other game becomes Gophers vs. Southwest Texas State, including all those empty seats.

"We do have serious economic issues we have to address and resolve," Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said in Detroit two days before the Super Bowl. "We need more outreach on both sides. I'm not optimistic, but that's what it is sometimes in negotiations."

Tagliabue also said, "A lot of things in life get resolved in the 11th hour, 59th minute." But the closer the NFLPA gets to an uncapped year, the less likely it will be to accept terms of a new CBA.

Already, free agent contracts this offseason are expected to be affected. It only makes sense. After all, who wants to be locked up longterm when there's a possibility the dollars will really start flying like mad in March of 2007?

"If we are having a difficult time reaching an agreement now, I don't want to imagine what it could be like in 2006 and 2007," Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFLPA, said at a news conference in Detroit. "If they don't like our proposal now, they really won't like it then."

The NFLPA will meet March 9 to consider whether decertifying the union is the best strategy. Decertification would prevent the owners from locking out the players, per antitrust laws.

Fifteen days after that, the owners meet in Orlando. Like we said, in the NFL, there is no resting.

Mark Craig • mcraig@startribune.com

Friday, February 10, 2006

NFL Labor Unrest Pits Rich Vs. Semi-Rich

New York Sun
The Business of Sport

By EVAN WEINER
February 9, 2006

Now that the Super Bowl is done, the NFL's real battle can take center stage.

The league's collective bargaining agreement still has two years to run, but Gene Upshaw, the Executive Director of the NFL Players Association, is already threatening to decertify his union if league owners and NFL players fail to come up with a new agreement (CBA) by March 9. Why? If there is no union, labor laws would not apply, meaning NFL owners could not impose a new set of rules on the players, could not institute a lock out, and, most important, could not prevent games from being played.

The current contract expires after the 2007 season, but it calls for an uncapped year in 2007. Without a new CBA, negotiations on individual contracts in the free-agent period that begins March 3 will be much more difficult for teams and players.

"The price of poker will go up," Upshaw told the Associated Press at the union's Super Bowl news conference. "We can not stay in the place where we are now."

Upshaw's remarks, however, should be taken with a grain of salt. He very much wants to extend the present CBA and take about 64% of the NFL's defined gross revenue for players' salaries. In the old world order of the NFL, he and NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue would have wrapped up an extension by now. But both are caught in a changing NFL universe. There are five owners who don't want to agree to an increased sharing of local revenues with the other 27 teams, and Tagliabue, who has delayed his retirement in part to get the labor problems settled, has to be concerned that he won't be successful.

Upshaw and Tagliabue carved out the current CBA in 1993 under pressure from U.S. District Court Judge David Doty, who was presiding over the free agency litigation in the Marvin Powell vs. NFL IV trial. The agreement ended decades of court battles between the two sides - and therein lies the problem.

Many of today's NFL owners came into the game after the 1993 agreement was signed and have no real understanding of the 1974 strike, the various suits the players filed against the owners in subsequent years, the 1982 strike, or the disastrous 1987 strike.

The union decertified - which involves disbanding and going to antitrust court to ask for a set of rules under which the NFL would operate - to end the 1987 strike and played without a contract until 1992, when the court ruled in its favor - leading to the current deal. That deal included free agency for the first time, as well as the salary cap, which took effect in 1993.

But since 1993, Tagliabue's "inner circle," which included then-Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell, Pittsburgh's Dan Rooney, San Francisco's Carmen Policy, and the Giants' Wellington Mara has dissolved. There has been an enormous turnover in owners since Judge Doty forced the owners and the union to come up with an agreement.

The odds are pretty good that New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, along with his partners - Washington's Daniel Snyder, Philadelphia's Jeffrey Lurie, and Houston's Robert Mc Nair - really don't know much about the decades of litigation. Those four owners, all of whom joined the NFL after 1993, have decided to go against the NFL's "LeagueThink" policy because they don't want to share every local revenue stream with their fellow owners. Joining them is Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who was in the league in 1993,but has always felt his duty is to sell the Cowboys' logo first and the NFL's logo second.

Money, of course, is the primary reason that Kraft, Snyder, Lurie, and Mc Nair remain unwilling to share with the other kids at the playground. Kraft paid a reported $175 million for the Patriots in 1994, which at the time was the highest price for any franchise. Kraft then borrowed money to build a new stadium, and while he did sell naming rights and keeps all the revenue streams from the new football facility, he still needs to pay bills.

In 1998, Snyder and his group spent over $800 million to buy the Redskins and Jack Kent Cooke Stadium. They then sold the naming rights to the place and expanded the facility to more than 91,000 seats, but again, bills are due and Snyder is using local revenues to pay down the debt.

Jeffrey Lurie bought the Eagles for a reported $185 million in 1994. Lurie has also put $300 million into the team's new stadium in south Philadelphia. That is an enormous debt to pay off, hence Lurie's need to keep local revenues. Kraft, Jones, and Lurie are using NFL G-3 money, loans from other clubs to use to pay off the debts on their stadiums.

Those three owners are against increased local revenue sharing yet are taking loans from other NFL owners.

NFL teams share in the $24 billion TV deal reached last year with CBS, NBC, FOX, ESPN and DirecTV along with corporate sponsorship. But there seems never to be enough money for the owners. Franchise costs have skyrocketed since the 1993 labor accord. Still, Forbes magazine claims that both the Cowboys and Redskins - two of the league's signature major-market franchises - are worth more than a billion dollars.

Upshaw's players have also prospered since the 1993 labor agreement.

Of course, star players could command far more money if there was no salary cap, and Upshaw has said that if the owners can't get their house in order very soon, a capless 2007 could lead to the end of the salary cap altogether.

Of course, NHL players said the same thing during their negotiations in the 2004-05 NHL owners lockout, and eventually gave into NHL owners salary cap demands. Some of the high-revenue owners, like Dallas's Jones, have suggested they could live with a different system. "It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if we didn't have a salary cap," Jones said last fall.

But most owners will do all they can to maintain the salary cap, which is why Upshaw wants a CBA extension now. Upshaw and his association and Tagliabue and his owners have enjoyed a decent relationship since 1993, which bodes well for talks between the two sides. Unfortunately for Upshaw and the players, the owners need to settle their differences before any headway can be made.

"They are going to have to decide how to spend their money if they're going to reach agreement among themselves," he told the AP.

At some point, possibly at the spring owners meetings beginning March 25, someone will have to remind the owners that there are billions of dollars on the line and that a modified revenue sharing plan is better than losing salary cap protection. With the possible exception of Jones, they're likely to listen, and Upshaw knows it. At the Super Bowl conference, he quoted Denver owner Pat Bowlen as saying: "If we can't reach agreement, we should all be shot."

Information from the Associated Press was used in this article.

Wednesday, February 8, 2006

Pulling guard: Upshaw shows the way for the NFLPA


CONTRA COSTA TIMES

It was June 1983 when Gene Upshaw placed the call to Raiders owner Al Davis, asking to meet with his boss.

Upshaw was mulling a big decision and wanted Davis' advice.

Should he retire from football and take a job as the NFL Players Association's executive director? Or, after spending the 1982 season on injured reserve, should he return to the Raiders for another year?

Davis told Upshaw to meet him that night in San Francisco at a restaurant where he and his wife were having dinner. He promised him 20 minutes.

"I sat in that restaurant with Al Davis and his wife, and we sat and talked about what I was going to do," Upshaw said last month.

"That 20 minutes turned into three hours. Now it's turned into 23 years."

Upshaw, a Hall of Fame guard, took that union job, with Davis' blessing and encouragement. And for nearly a quarter of a century, he has held it.

Upshaw led the players through a bitter and failed strike in 1987. He led them to a huge antitrust victory in federal court in 1993, forcing owners to grant them true free agency for the first time as part of a seven-year collective bargaining agreement. He led them as the salary cap grew from $34.6 million in '93 to an expected $92 million-95 million in 2006.

And now, Upshaw is leading them in their toughest battle with owners in over a decade, trying to negotiate an improved labor agreement, likely through at least 2011.

"This one we're trying to get now will be my last one, no doubt about that," said Upshaw, whose contract as executive director runs through 2008.

This negotiation is no slam dunk.

Players are pushing hard to get a bigger share of the wealth. They get 64 percent of "designated gross revenue," primarily from television deals and ticket sales. Now they want at least 64 percent of all revenue, including money from local marketing and advertising.

Millions and millions of dollars are in play. What's more, the clock is ticking toward 2007, the final year of the deal.

Here's the kicker: 2007 will not have a salary cap unless players and owners agree to extend the CBA by March of that year. Consider that the nuclear option.

"Once you get to that, there's no way in the world we'd ever agree to a cap again," Upshaw vowed.

In the coming months, Upshaw, 60, will be smack in the middle of this minefield, trying to make a deal.

Growing up in the small south Texas city of Robstown, Upshaw never dreamed he'd one day lead a football players union.

Yet in retrospect, that's when Upshaw began preparing for this job that demands he wear so many hats -- diplomat, politician, advocate, brawler -- and remain cool under fire.

"I grew up in the segregated South, where there were separate schools, separate water fountains, separate restrooms, separate everything," Upshaw said.

"My dad (Gene Sr.) would never allow us to believe we were second-class citizens or not part of the community. He would not allow us to take the other side where we would be so hostile and fighting against everything that was there. You were aware of it but never let it stand in the way of what you had to do."

It was as a child in Texas that Upshaw learned the value of hard work, picking cotton during scorching summers. His father and mother, Cora, instilled the virtues of "discipline, religion and education," Upshaw said. They were "very active" in their church and community, where Gene Sr. eventually served a stint on the city council and Cora ran a senior citizens center.

Upshaw never intended to play football when he enrolled at Texas A&I, a small college some 24 miles from Robstown. He had played only one year of high school football and still weighed under 200 pounds when he graduated.

"I was not into football," Upshaw said. "I didn't like it. I liked baseball a lot better."

One day, though, Upshaw was watching A&I's football team practice when the coach spotted him.

"What are you doing here?" the coach asked.

"I'm just looking," Upshaw replied.

Not for long. A&I's coach persuaded Upshaw to walk on to the football team. Then he soon gave Upshaw a scholarship. By the end of his freshman year, Upshaw said, he had grown to 6-foot-5 and 260 pounds.

"I outgrew baseball and grew into football," Upshaw said. "It was a means and a way to get out. I never thought I'd wind up the No. 1 draft choice of the Raiders."

But that's exactly what he became in 1967. And it soon became clear that this big guard from a small Texas school was a natural leader.

Upshaw played in the Senior Bowl with some of college football's biggest stars, from Bubba Smith to Bob Griese to Alan Page and Steve Spurrier. Upshaw was a team captain for that game and for the College All-Star Game.

Early in his NFL career, Upshaw was chosen to be a Raiders team captain. He kept that honor until he retired.

"We called him 'The Governor' because he was the politician on the team," former Raiders fullback Pete Banaszak said. "He was the team captain and deservedly so. Gene was a good leader.

"Gene was always a good talker. Talked a lot, played both sides of the fence pretty good. We liked Gene. I liked him. He was a great teammate. A lot of the young guys looked up to him."

Even during his career with the Raiders, Upshaw was involved in Democratic Party politics and was appointed to several state and local commissions and boards.

"We felt he would be a politician one day," said Hall of Fame tackle Art Shell, who had a locker next to Upshaw's. "He always talked about being in politics.

"He was a very vocal guy. Always had the press. The press would migrate to him because he always had a line for them to write in the papers. I'm trying to get dressed, and he has a doggone press conference."

A funny thing happened on Upshaw's way to the governor's mansion. He became more and more involved with the NFLPA. He served as the Raiders' union representative throughout most of his playing career and eventually became union president.

Then the NFLPA made him its executive director.

"It's funny," Upshaw said. "Everyone always thought I was going into politics. I always tell (them), 'What do you think I'm in now? This is the biggest political job you can have.'"

Upshaw has had to deal with Congress, the media and lawsuits. He has had to rally his union troops during tough fights. And every few years he has had to win re-election.

"It's a very political environment to operate in," NFLPA assistant executive director Doug Allen said. "Knowing how to count votes and how to build consensus and a majority is a very necessary skill set.

"He had that going before he got here. All you had to see is how he operated in the Bay Area and in the locker room with the Raiders."

Playing for Davis, Upshaw said, helped prepare him for his current job. Davis encouraged him to be involved with the union as a team representative and later as its president.

According to Upshaw, Davis even pointed him in the right direction at times in his battle with owners.

"He encouraged me all the time," Upshaw said. "If it hadn't been for him back when I was playing, the union might have been in a different position than it is today."

Upshaw succeeded Ed Garvey as NFLPA director during one of the union's bleakest times. The players were coming off a 57-day, seven-game strike in 1982. True free agency was still a dream. The NFLPA was in dire shape financially and psychologically, rife with bitterness and divisiveness.

"The fates blessed us to have Gene," NFLPA western director Dave Meggyesy said. "Starting with his experience. Starting with his skin color. Starting with his upbringing in Texas and what that was about, just his sensibilities."

Shell called Upshaw the right guy for the job at that volatile time.

"He played the game," said Shell, now the NFL's senior vice president of football operations and development. "He understood the concerns of the players, and he also had an idea of what the owners were going through. He could see both sides."

"When I took over in 1983, the first thing (owners) did was say I was militant," Upshaw said. "I was coming off a strike. It was a bitter strike.

"It was always perceived in those days if you were big and black you were militant. Then all of a sudden you go through all of that, you end up where we are today. You will hear some people say, 'Maybe he's too close.'"

Too close to the owners. Too close to commissioner Paul Tagliabue. Too close to the so-called enemy.

Those are some of the charges Upshaw has heard from his critics during the past 13-plus years of labor peace in the NFL.

Upshaw's response?

"You keep your friends close and your enemies closer," Upshaw said. "You have to. I remember (former NFL coach) Bum Phillips saying it years ago. 'You catch more bees with honey then you do with vinegar.'

"But you never lose who you are through all this. There are certain things that can be negotiated, and there are some things that are not negotiable."

Former baseball players union boss Marvin Miller has been one of Upshaw's most outspoken critics, pointing to the dearth of guaranteed contracts in the NFL and the NFLPA's acceptance of a salary cap.

"Every league's union except the NFL's has chosen to hire professional leadership," Miller told the Newark Star-Ledger last year. "The NFL Players Association hired a former player. You see the results."

Upshaw has heard it all before.

"When God issued brains, he didn't just issue them to Marvin Miller," Upshaw said. "We have a few of them."

Meggyesy, another former NFL player, said Miller is off-base when he criticizes Upshaw.

"The proof is in the pudding," Meggyesy said. "We're getting the largest percentage of the gross. We have the best benefits package. What other measure do you want?"

When Upshaw became union chief, players and owners were, in many ways, fierce adversaries. Now, he said, they are partners, trying to grow the game financially together so both sides will benefit.

"I think more than anything, he's caused the relationship with the league to mature to a point that the players truly are, both by agreement and in reality, partners with the owners," NFLPA general counsel Richard Berthelsen said. "When we started back in the early '70s, it was like chipping at the Rock of Gibraltar. Now in a real sense we own a major share of the rock."

Now the players and Upshaw are trying to increase their share of that financial rock.

"Gene's political instincts are absolutely impeccable," Meggyesy said. "He really does know when to push and when not to."



Tuesday, February 7, 2006

Labor issue gets local revenue twist

By Ken Murray
Baltimore Sun reporter

February 7, 2006

If battle lines were drawn in the NFL's latest scuffle with its players union, those lines would look more like a triangle than trench warfare.

You've got high-rolling landlords in one corner, small-market owners in another and a group of anxious players pondering the complexity of it all.

It's not quite a free-for-all, but negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement may require a roster and a road map. Here's why:

The players, under the auspices of the NFL Players Association, want a larger percentage of league revenue. But they want that percentage of the league's total football revenues to include the suddenly sizzling local revenues.

The high-revenue owners - folks like the Dallas Cowboys' Jerry Jones, the Washington Redskins' Daniel Snyder and the New England Patriots' Robert Kraft - not only don't want to share their local revenues with the players, but they also don't want to share them with the other owners.

And the small-market owners - people like the Buffalo Bills' Ralph Wilson, the Kansas City Chiefs' Lamar Hunt and the Ravens' Steve Bisciotti - feel they need to share all local revenues to maintain competitive balance in an ever-growing league.

Complicating the issue is the fact the players union wants the debate over local revenues settled before signing off on a collective bargaining agreement, so as to get a greater percentage of the bigger pie.

But the owners want a collective bargaining agreement in place before deciding how much local revenue they're willing to share.

Piece of cake, right?

Maybe that's why Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFLPA, was so fractious during his state-of-the-union address in Detroit last week.

It's also why commissioner Paul Tagliabue, after 12 years of labor peace, was less than optimistic a day later when assessing negotiations.

"If we are having difficulty now reaching an agreement," Upshaw said, "I don't want to imagine what it would be like in 2006 and 2007, when there's an uncapped year. Because if they don't like our proposal now, they really won't like it when we go [deeper into negotiations]."

The NFL's calendar year technically starts in March. This year, it marks the beginning of a 12-month countdown to chaos.

The current CBA has two years to run. But if there is no agreement on a new deal in 2006, the salary cap will be lifted for the 2007 season, making it an uncapped year.

Imagine the Redskins' Snyder with no financial ceiling to sign all the Pro Bowl players he wants. Imagine the high-revenue teams - among them, the Chicago Bears, Cleveland Browns and Denver Broncos - with money to burn and owners who want to win.

Furthermore, imagine the Jacksonville Jaguars, Cincinnati Bengals and Green Bay Packers - small-market teams all - trying to keep up with the high rollers in player costs.

"We have serious economic issues that we have to address and resolve," Tagliabue said in Detroit. "I don't know if we'll get something done by the annual [owners'] meeting in March right now, because it has been one step forward and at least several steps backward on a lot of different issues."

Free agency starts March 3. The owners meetings in Orlando, Fla., begin March 26. On March 9, Upshaw will confer with union representatives to determine if the NFLPA needs to decertify in anticipation of a lockout by the owners.

"Let's face it, the recent past shows that in sports, the leagues are inclined to lock out," NFLPA general counsel Richard Berthelsen said at the union news conference.

But if the union decertified, the owners couldn't lock out the players under antitrust law, Berthelsen said. If the owners tried, the union would take them to antitrust court.

As Berthelsen sees it, in that scenario there would be no union, no lockout and games would go on. But there would have to be "some form of reasonable free agency," he said.

Tagliabue downplayed that scenario.

"I don't think we'll be in litigation," he said. "I don't think we'll be decertifying the players association. I don't agree with some of the things that Gene said along those lines, but we are not making the kind of progress that I think is necessary."

The union reportedly rejected an offer from the owners last month. Upshaw wants at least 60 percent of the league's total football revenues - ESPN.com reported he is seeking 65 percent - to go toward player costs.

While Upshaw has issues with the high-market owners, he doesn't have one with Snyder.

"You have to take Dan Snyder out because he's completely different," Upshaw said. "He's a high-revenue club and he spends a lot of money on his players. We like that; we think that's great.

"What I have a problem with [is] there's a group of those guys that are in the high-revenue area that are spending less than $66 million on their players out of $300 million. That's not a fair share."

At the other end, Upshaw said, there are low-market teams spending 70 to 80 percent of their revenue on player costs.

"Either they want to have a system or they don't want to have one," Upshaw said. "But either way, if we get through the capped year [in 2006] and we go to the uncapped year, we won't come back."

ken.murray@baltsun.com

Copyright © 2006, The Baltimore Sun

NFL's retirement plan is an embarrassment

Oakland Tribune

Article Last Updated: 2/05/2006 07:43 AM

THEY ARE America's forgotten war veterans, growing old gracelessly after jeopardizing life and limb not for their country but for victory on Sunday.

It never has made much sense, really, how the NFL, the most lucrative of all sports leagues, raking in billions and always scrambling to grab another nickel, offers the sorriest retirement benefits in major team sports.

For playing through pain (for the good of the organization), surrendering body parts (for the good of the organization) and taking years off their life (for the good of the game), it's not unusual come away with less than $2,000 per month in retirement.

Then there is the astronomical cost of medical care for those whose wounds go unhealed.

How is it that so few of the spoils go to those in greatest need?

There are thousands of horror stories like those reported by colleague Dave Newhouse in today's newspaper (News 1). Endless sad tales of yesterday's heroes trapped in misery, coldly neglected by the guardians of the game.Some have trouble walking. Others have trouble sleeping. Some have undergone multiple surgeries. Others have committed suicide.

Some, unable to shed the excess weight, become cardiovascular nightmares.

Nearly all need more money than that provided by their pension — which is vastly inferior to those of Major League Baseball and the NBA.

ESPN's "Outside the Lines" tackled the subject the other day, speaking to several retirees, none of whom is comfortable in retirement. Former Buffalo guard Joe DeLamielleure, for example, took his pension at age 45, because that was when he needed the money. He could wait no longer.

He gets $992 per month.

A baseball player with a similar career span who collects at age 45 would get about $6,000 per month.

If DeLamielleure, who played 13 seasons and entered the Hall of Fame in 2003, had waited until he was 55, he would have gotten about $2,200 per month, according to ESPN.

If former Washington cornerback Darrell Green, who played 20 years, decides to collect at age 55, he'll get the largest pension in NFL history: $69,660 per year.

A baseball player with a similar career, Cal Ripken Jr., stands to collect at age 62 about $160,000.

"It's the deep, dark secret nobody wants to talk about," Raiders Hall of Famer Howie Long tells the Charlotte Observer.

"Embarrassing," says Marcus Allen, another Hall of Famer.

Another Hall of Famer, Deacon Jones, is so turned off by the league's indifference he no longer attends induction ceremonies in Canton, Ohio.

The upside is Jones saves money on travel and accommodations. Yes, NFL Hall of Famers, unlike those in other sports, have to pay their own way to the yearly gatherings.

Understand, the NFL stands to make about $25 billion over the next eight years — off TV alone. Additional billions come from sales of tickets, apparel and memorabilia.

The NFL is one of the biggest cash cows in American history, awash in profits, little of which makes it way to those who served the league during its greatest growth.

When retired players turn to the NFL Players Association director Gene Upshaw, someone with access to the system, someone who should understand, he responds by firmly putting them in their place.

Which, apparently, is as far away from the league's money as possible.

"The bottom line is I don't work for them," Upshaw tells the Observer. "They don't hire me, and they can't fire me. They can complain about me all day long. They can have their opinion. But the active players have the vote. That's who pays my salary."

Upshaw reportedly is paid $3 million per year.

Scripps Howard News Service recently released a study relating obese former NFL players to premature death. In the face of evidence powerful and comprehensive, the league shrugged and resumed counting its money.

"The issue of obesity in our society transcends sports and must be dealt with in a comprehensive, responsible way," says Greg Aiello, NFL vice president of public relations. "This media survey contributes nothing."

In other words, take your months of painstaking research into thousands of dead former football players and shove it.

If it's appalling insensitivity you seek, you'll find it in the NFL. If astounding arrogance turns you on, bingo. The NFL has your back.

The temptation is to compare these greedy scoundrels to those who feed off the weak at the bottom of the boxing world. But the NFL is worse, because dollars are more plentiful. And because it exploits with a collective smirk, daring anyone to effect change.

The league continues to get away with this because nobody with clout, including Upshaw, is bold enough to challenge the mighty NFL beast. Those who might be able to generate change are too busy getting theirs.

How do these people sleep at night? On pillows stuffed with cash.

Monte Poole can be reached at (510) 208-6461 or by e-mail at

mpoole@angnewspapers.com.

Monday, February 6, 2006

Pain is the price of glory for many old-time football players

Article Last Updated: 2/05/2006 09:57 AM

Pain is the price of glory for many old-time football players

By Dave Newhouse, STAFF WRITER
Inside Bay Area

ANOTHER SUPER BOWL, the 40th, takes place today in Detroit, matching four-time champion Pittsburgh and first-time participant Seattle.

The focus is on the Vince Lombardi Trophy and whether East or West will claim it. The Steelers and Seahawks are physical by nature, and their impending collision could rank among the most macho of Super Bowls.

Blitzes will be coming, bodies will be flying and the hardest-hitting team likely will emerge triumphant. But the aftershock will not be felt for years to come, not until these same Steelers and Seahawks reach middle age.

Then they will join a growing football fraternity of the sick and the suffering, men who willingly sacrificed their bodies to achieve the ultimate glory that Pittsburgh and Seattle are seeking in the Motor City.

Only a small percentage of NFL players reach the Super Bowl, but a much higher percentage will be broken down physically by their 40s and 50s, when the pain they once played through now refuses to go away.

And by the time they become senior citizens, they will hurt too much to walk normally or sleep regularly. Their agony will be ongoing from too many surgeries. Even artificial body replacements won't guarantee them comfort.

Today's heroes are tomorrow's infirmities. It's the nature of the beast, or beasts, 300-pound bodies striking with incredible force, very often after a running start. The most vulnerable target in sports is an unsuspecting, stationary quarterback who's about to be steamrolled from behind by a full-speed-ahead, licking-his-chops pass rusher.

At least a batter in baseball can see a beanball coming.

However, today's football players, as a rule, won't suffer nearly as greatly as their predecessors from 30 years ago. That's because the field of medicine has advanced, and so have salaries. This means current players are cared for much better any way you examine their working conditions.

"A lot of the young so-called heroes don't play like the old heroes," former Oakland Raiders center Jim Otto said. "They will leave the game sooner in many ways. You will get a Jerry Rice, who had one or two knee surgeries. But he didn't get beat up like an interior lineman or a linebacker.

"Guys today don't play as long because they have money. They don't have to worry about their future. I always felt I had to do good to take care of my family."

Otto, who never missed a game for the Raiders (210 straight), is the poster boy for retired NFL players. His dedication to duty was unparalleled. He was named All-Pro after playing a full season with every ligament torn in one knee. Even getting him to sit out a practice was inconceivable.

Otto's loyalty to the Silver and Black, though, has led to post-career physical afflictions unlike any other NFL alumnus. He has had more surgeries, more factory-made body parts and more near-death experiences, yet he pushes onward with 10 times more grit, too.

"I don't want people to say, 'He played too long. I'm not going to do what he did,'" Otto said. "I enjoy my life every day."

So much so that Otto refuses to be seen by current Raiders players while walking with the aid of crutches or a cane, even though he certainly warrants additional support. He leaves the crutches and cane at home.

The subject of whether retired players are taken care of properly in terms of their ailments raises as many doubts as assurances.

Joe Montana first became aware of NFL afterlife at a 49ers alumni function.

"I was watching some of the older guys go up three steps to get onto a platform," he said. "It was almost embarrassing that we can't do something about that."

Montana then discovered for himself how the NFL treats its retirees.

"You want to know how bad they are?" he said of the league. "I'll give you a perfect example. I've been getting my knee done, and my neck. I won a judgment against whoever it is — the 49ers or workman's comp — and the NFL sued me. They fought my case, and all I wanted was medical coverage.

"So I won medical coverage for life. I get a call from my doctor, because I'm working on my knee right now, that (the NFL) has been refusing my claims. They've decided they're not going to pay — after I won my case! I blame it as much on the players association as the teams. ... We have the worst medical coverage, the worst retirement plan of any of the major sports."

Injury grievances for retired NFL players were set up — intentionally? — to reach stalemates. There would be three representatives for the players and three representatives for the owners. Thus 3-3 ties every time.

But longtime 49ers defensive tackle Charlie Krueger, victimized by disguised medical information by a team physician over a debilitated knee condition, sued the 49ers. He was awarded $2.36 million in damages in a San Francisco Superior Court in 1988, then settled out of court for a reported $1 million. He was the first player to defeat the NFL in an injury case.

"It has to do with informed consent," Krueger said recently. "Having the player know what danger he's in, what his situation really is. If he consents to it, he's OK. If he doesn't, he's defrauded."

Otto views it somewhat differently.

"The NFL has come a long way with different types of disabilities. Years ago, there were no provisions for it, but there is now," he said. "I've been able to be treated by some of that disability. It's not a large sum of money, but you're remembered."

Gene Upshaw agrees. Upshaw, like Otto a former Raiders lineman and a Pro Football Hall of Fame member, is executive director of the NFL Players Association.

"In 1993, when we got the collective bargaining agreement. we improved the pension plan like it had never been improved before," Upshaw said, "and we included all the people who played the game.

"We're the only players association to improve the pensions of players who aren't in the game any longer. The money came from the current players — $110 million. They wanted to do that. Guys now are making more money in pensions than when they played.

"We also dropped the vested period for (NFL players) from five years to four years. We're paying out $5 million a month to 2,100 players and their dependents. There have been all these improvements that people take for granted."

Upshaw, in addressing the physical malaise of former players, said the old 3-3 stalemate is a thing of the past.

"The medical people are making those decisions, not the (NFLPA's) board of trustees," he said. "This all changed in 1993 when we became a true partnership. We're negotiating right now on a new contract extension. We've improved pensions and (coverage for) disabilities. The record speaks for itself. But we can't satisfy everyone."

Regardless of how post-career infirmities are perceived or administered, the reality is that NFL alumni continue to suffer badly.

ANG Newspapers interviewed five former NFL players about their physical hardships — Otto, Krueger, Jim Plunkett, MacArthur Lane and Dan Colchico. Here are their first-person accounts of their daily ordeals:

JIM OTTO

Age: 68
Residence: Auburn
Position: Center
College career: Miami (Fla.), 1957-59
Pro career: Oakland Raiders, 1960-74

"I really haven't gained any strength yet since my illness this summer and fall. On June 7, I was in toxic shock. My wife was in Colorado Springs. It was a very difficult situation that came up for her. She called, I mumbled something. She found a young deputy sheriff to come to the house.

"I went from the hospital at UC Davis to Stanford, where doctors took my leg apart. The artificial knee was inflamed — the fourth major infection I've had in my right knee in eight years. I'm very fortunate to be alive. (Ex-Rams wide receiver) Jack Snow died a month ago from an infection in his hip.

"I got very sick at Stanford. I thought I could die at any moment. Then I had a heart problem come up in the hospital; the infection attacked my heart. From June 6 to November was one of the most miserable times of my entire life.

"There are all kinds of things happening to me. I'm in remission from (prostate) cancer. There's scarring on my liver from infections. I'm on heavy antibiotics every day. I feel puny, but I'm getting better.

"I've had 52 major surgeries, three this summer. I've had 12 artificial knees, and four artificial shoulders. I've had steel rods put in my back a couple different times, because some vertebrae were wiped out.

"I'm a Christian man, and I pray every day. I kept asking God this summer if he wanted me now. Everything turned all white around me. Things grew calm. By the grace of God, I'm still here.

"A doctor told me that if it wasn't for what I put my body through as a football player, I would not have been able to handle the stress of the infections, and the stress of the fevers. My body was that strong.

"I was driven to win, driven to accomplishment, driven to prove something: I wanted to be the best. And all I wanted was a pat on the back; I didn't need any money. I just wanted people to appreciate me.

"I still get around to functions, and people say, "Gosh, you look great, Otto." That's the pat on the back that keeps me going, and I'm ready to take on the world."

CHARLIE KRUEGER

Age: 69
Residence: Clayton
Position: Defensive tackle
College career: Texas A&M, 1955-57
Pro career: San Francisco 49ers, 1958-73

"I played 16 years and didn't sit out too many games. In 1963, I had a knee tear in Los Angeles and missed the last half of the season. Another year, I sprained the other knee. Then I had back spasms against Cleveland. The coaches asked me at halftime, 'Can you?' So I went ahead and played, and I never suffered more in my life. I spent the next four days in a hospital.

"But the left knee continued to bother me from that day in 1963 to this day. I had four or five operations on it. The last one, I was in a cast for eight months. So I wanted to know what my state of health was. I had a physical. They said, 'You're fine, son. Go on your way.' That was 1973.

"My (49ers' $1 million injury settlement) situation was a landmark case. A precedent-setting case. They should have known they were messing with a hard-headed old dog. All in all, nine judges were involved, and only one ruled against me, the first one.

"Today's players don't owe me a thing. I'm just glad that (the system) didn't stick it to me. That's one thing I'm proud of, that I fought the system, as grievously unfair as it was. It has to do with right of consent, having the player know what the situation really is, what danger he's in.

"Players want to play. They grow up in a situation that encourages manhood. Right now, my ears are pain-free, but the rest of my body hurts.

"The worst time of the day is when I wake up, 3 or 4 a.m. The first 30 minutes, I don't feel good. I take different medicines to get going. Getting down the steps, or going up, it hurts. I'm too beat up, like a truck that's been over too many rough roads, and the shocks and springs are gone.

"Both my wrists, and both my shoulders, are arthritic. I had calcium deposits in my foot that were removed. I had a back problem to where I thought, 'If I live 10 more years, it won't be worth it.' But my knees are still my own. I need an artificial knee, but I don't want one. If I get an infection, I'm on my back for six months. I'll be crazier than I am now."

DAN COLCHICO

Age: 68
Residence: Concord
Position: Defensive end
College career: San Jose State,
1957-59
Pro career: San Francisco 49ers, 1960-64, 1967; New Orleans Saints, 1968-69

"It's all a mental game. I played with all of my fingers either broken or dislocated, and with knees that were unreal. One season, I had over 140 shots of Novocain and cortisone in my knees. Never missed a minute of play.

"The following January, I had an operation on one knee, and in March, two operations on the other knee, and I played every game the next season. But I worked out so hard that I snapped my Achilles against Chicago.

"They repaired it, but I came back too quick and I severed three-quarters of it again. So the 49ers offered me a coaching job, but that wasn't me. So I played two more years in New Orleans, and I snapped my other Achilles against Houston. I came back too quick and severed two-thirds of it again.

"I was out that year, and came back in'69. I had a complete dislocation of my elbow. It took me 10 days to get it going, then I did 60 pushups with it. I had three broken ribs, taped them up, and kept playing.

"You didn't go off the field or somebody else would play. I always reported to camp with the rookies. We only had 30 to 36 players back then. You had to protect your position, even if it meant taking shots at halftime.

"I just wanted to play ball. (Baltimore Colts lineman) Jim Parker hit me in the head. I played the rest of the game with Charlie (Krueger) telling me what to do on every play. I had a helluva game. Was it worth it? What else are you going to do on a Sunday, go to church? I'd do it all over again.

"The NFL isn't too kind to the old players, the guys who laid the foundation. I've been cut on 13 times. I've had both knees replaced. The more I sit, the more I hurt. I feel pain from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet, which are going dead. My shoulders are killing me. When I have physicals, doctors just shake their heads. I sleep three hours a night, but at least I wake up."

JIM PLUNKETT

Age: 58
Residence: Atherton
Position: Quarterback
College career: Stanford, 1968-70
Pro career: New England Patriots, 1971-75; San Francisco 49ers, 1976-77; Oakland-Los Angeles Raiders, 1978-86

"Some days, I feel better than others, but there's not a minute that goes by that I'm not in pain. I hurt everywhere. It's not fun being in this body right now. It's mostly from getting knocked around and having the joints twisted and turned and bent, some of the things you expect playing in the NFL.

"I've had 13 surgeries, and I'll have more. I'll probably have my knees replaced at some point. I have a tremendously bad back, but I don't want to have it operated on. Sometimes, getting out of bed and getting around without being hunched over is very difficult.

"I have a really bad shoulder, which I've separated and dislocated, and which has been operated on six times. It's still not right and never will be. I can't run anymore. I can't play basketball or tennis, the things I used to love to do. I can still play golf, but I don't play it well anymore.

"If I could go back, I would have done some of the things differently. When I retired, I felt pretty good, but I used to run for a hobby. I wouldn't have run nearly as much because that helped with the wear and tear on my body. Gradually, the degenerative process accelerates. I'll wake up in the middle of the night aching. It might be my shoulders, my knees or my back. So I'm awake a lot.

"But I loved playing the game. It was such a thrill for me to be on the football field. I enjoyed the people I played with for the most part. You can't get that adrenalin rush unless you're on some athletic field. I can't imagine it being the same in business. So I really have no regrets. Heck, I'm still around. I'm having a great time. I get to see my (two) kids grow up and spend time with them.

"Wheelchair-bound one day? I hope that's not the case. I've got a bad disc in my back that spasms a lot. I've got a herniated disc in my neck. Oh, and I've got arthritis.

"But I love life, and I love what I'm doing, and that's kind of the price you pay."

MacARTHUR LANE

Age: 63
Residence: Oakland
Position: Running back
College career: Utah State, 1965-67
Pro career: St. Louis Cardinals, 1968-71; Green Bay Packers, 1972-74; Kansas City Chiefs, 1975-78.

"I played fullback during my 11-year career — a fullback who wore a collar. That tells you something, that this guy has some neck problems. The neck was strong as heck, but if you pinch a nerve, then everything just goes numb. Then it starts tingling, from your neck to your hands.

"But it was something you just dealt with. Hey, go ahead and line it up again. You can't let the enemy know you're hurt.

"I also dislocated my elbow in 1977, missed the last half of the season. But I kept playing with broken ribs. They didn't have a flak jacket back then. They'd put a pad over it, tape you up, and you go right back out there. If you sat on the bench, you lose your job. And they just might cut you. So you were always battling, with injuries or not.

"To get ready for a season, I'd take a month off in the offseason to lick my wounds a little bit. Then I'd run every day on Alameda beach. Running on the sand prolonged my career because it got me in the best possible shape. I'd run at least a couple of miles, sometimes with heavy boots. The tide's in, it's softer sand. The tide's out, the harder the sand. I'd run in the rain. They don't stop football games in the rain, do they? Only lightning.

"That's what made you better, though. You learned to live with that pain. I had a family to feed. Today's players are breastfed. You can't yell at them. Coaches used to yell at us all the time.

"I just had a knee replacement in April. A doctor told me I've got another 50,000 miles on the other knee. I've had to deal with a lot of sleepless nights because of the neck injury. I wake up and my hands are numb. Sitting here right now, my hands are getting numb, because of the neck. It's all related, a combination of all the hits.

"If I can't run that beach today, I'll walk it. I'm still at my playing weight of 225, though everything's in moderation. It's a maintenance program. But my body's my life."

Friday, February 3, 2006

Union: Labor deal not close

Upshaw wants 60 percent of total revenues for players, says legal action a possibility

By Jamison Hensley
Sun reporter

February 3, 2006

DETROIT -- Super Bowl

Saying the sides are "significantly" apart on a new collective bargaining agreement, the NFL Players Association is set to take the league to court.

In the union's annual Super Bowl news conference, executive director Gene Upshaw struck a defiant pose on the problematic negotiations, saying discussions about legal action against the NFL will begin March 9 if no deal is reached.

The heart of the discord, Upshaw said, is the players' percentage in an expanded revenue-sharing system with owners.

The current contract expires in two years, but the final one - which begins in 2007 - is an "upcapped" year. If the sides can't agree on a new deal, negotiations on players contracts are expected to be difficult when free agency begins March 3.

"The price of poker will go up," said Upshaw, who had previously been chided for his close relationship with commissioner Paul Tagliabue. "We can not stay in the place where we are now."

Upshaw said the union would only accept a proposal that gives the players at least 60 percent of total football revenues. A couple of months ago, he said the owners have offered to set the cap at 57 percent.

Negotiations are expected to intensify after the Super Bowl.

There has been long-standing labor peace in the NFL since the salary cap took effect in 1993. But the talks have become combative, although Upshaw indicated the union has the leverage.

If the contract expires after 2007 with no new CBA, the union would decertify itself to keep the owners from locking out the players and go to antitrust court to ask for a set of rules under which the NFL would operate.

There is a possibility that the courts would allow the league to lock out players, but Upshaw is confident the league would not let that occur because of the new lucrative television contracts.

"If you paid that amount, you want prime rib and not hot dog," Upshaw said.

Upshaw also warned that if the contract reached that uncapped year, the union would not return to a salary cap system.

Another topic addressed by the union was the retired players pension. Earlier this month, 13 Hall of Famers interviewed by The Charlotte Observer expressed concern that the NFL and the league players association don't do enough to help former players.

"The current players are the ones we legally represent, but morally we represent them all," Upshaw said.

jamison.hensley@baltsun.com

Copyright © 2006, The Baltimore Sun

Union hedges on retiree plight


Vincent says former players responsible

By
pyasinskas@charlotteobserver.com

NFL Players Association President Troy Vincent said Thursday that complaints about how the union treats retired players should not be aimed at the current administration.

Referring to a January story in the Charlotte Observer, in which numerous retired players complained about their benefits, Vincent said those former players should blame themselves.

"Some of the comments that were made by some very, very prominent individuals in our sport I would first like to say, let's check the source in which those comments have come from," said Vincent, a safety for the Buffalo Bills. "I think that's the question, what did they do when they were in position to make change?"

He said retired players aren't ignored by the union.

"We talk about retired players and benefits every day," he said. "That was here before I was here and it will be here long after I'm gone. Current players today, we want to increase our benefits as well. It's really a balance of trying to find a way to contribute to the past, the present and also build for the future."

NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw, a former player, said the union's primary responsibility is to represent current players.

"When I say (retired players) don't have anyone in the room, when you take that just by itself, it's true," Upshaw said. "But they have the best one in the room, which is me. I'm in every negotiating session. I know exactly where the economics are on these issues. If I don't understand the plight of the retired players, I don't know who will."

Upshaw said he believes the union has done its best for retired players.

"We are the only organization that has ever gone and done what we've done for people that are no longer part of the bargaining unit," he said. "That record has been there. It was actually started with that whole process when Ed Garvey was the executive director and it's continued on.

"He always ... told us, `One day, you will not be in this room making decisions. Someone else will be in this room making decisions and don't ever forget to go back.' We never have forgot to go back and we never will and history shows that."



Blog Archive