As NFL training camps are opening summertime discussions gently shift from baseball pennant races to predictions for 32 teams heading into the 2010 regular season. We start to ask more pointed questions about quarterbacks, new rookies, relocated veterans, rebuilding teams and the fragile perch where several teams occupy in terms of power rankings.
Well, I have a pointed question… how did we get here?
Here? What’s here?
The cloudy state of labor negotiations between NFL owners and the NFLPA.
Oh… there!
I know it seems odd, but looking at where things are with a new NFL collective bargaining agreement I can’t help but recall the same question my ex-wife asked me as we were signing our divorce papers last year. How did we get here? Gee… like a million other divorces, let me count the ways. Don’t you somehow think a few geniuses on Wall Street or in Washington probably asked the same question as our national economy went down the toilet?
Sorry, I can’t help it. When you listen to the laundry list of issues keeping NFL owners and players on course for a 2011 lockout you can’t help but wonder how and why both parties let things continue to simmer, fester, and eventually build up to a boiling point. These issues really aren’t news. It’s not like any of these issues weren’t already being discussed a few years ago. In fact, some of these issues were discussed when Paul Tagliabue was NFL commissioner, and these issues were definitely discussed when the late Gene Upshaw was running the NFLPA. So why, after more than a couple of years of issues being on the table, are we looking at a stalemate and potential work stoppage?
Here’s my limited theory…
I believe many of the issues fundamental to today’s ongoing labor strife were discussed often among owners, players, Tagliabue and Upshaw. Then Tagliabue retired and Roger Goodell took over as commissioner in August 2006. Tagliabue had his own vision and agenda; Goodell has his own vision and agenda as well, though not necessarily identical to Tagliabue’s. Upshaw was ill with pancreatic cancer, albeit unaware of his illness or how quickly it was killing him. To say Upshaw had a contentious relationship with retired players was an understatement (this will be discussed more later).
But Upshaw passed away in August 2008 and the NFLPA essentially went leaderless until DeMaurice Smith took over as executive director in March 2009.
Why is this basic timeline important? The last collective bargaining agreement in 2006 focused on television revenue, the salary cap, how much of the revenue pot would go towards player salaries, how much of the pot would go towards extended medical benefits for retired players, and rules for free agency. This was a CBA negotiated with Tagliabue, Goodell and Upshaw all playing major roles.
But the owners voted unanimously to opt out of that collective bargaining agreement in May 2008, approximately three months before Upshaw’s unexpected death, primarily because player salaries – especially for rookies -- were getting out of hand. Now we have a CBA about to expire two years earlier than planned, all because of money no matter which angle we view things from. Worse, the NFLPA didn’t have any official leadership for approximately ten months after the owners opted out of the current CBA. To say the least, the timing of things has not helped matters as the 2010 season begins.
What seem to be the primary issues at the crux of this CBA impasse?
1. Percentage of revenue pot going to player salaries.
2. Guidelines for rookie contracts, length and salaries.
3. Rules for free agency.
4. Overall player discipline policy.
5. Testing for Human Growth Hormone.
6. Expansion of NFL regular season schedule from 16 to 18 games.
Allow me to address each issue:
Testing for HGH – I’m sticking my neck out and going on the record as 100% in favor of this. Yes, the blood test is more invasive than a urine test. Yes, the testing protocol has its flaws. Yes, it may take incredible luck to catch an HGH user with the reliability limitations of this test. But it is for the best interests of professional sports to use whatever means are available to ensure clean and healthy players. Say what you want about MLB using HGH testing in the minors, but something needed to be done as a first step towards making HGH testing part of the big league landscape. Just as the reality for the MLBPA will be to accept HGH testing as Bud Selig’s office gently forces it down its throat, the same will be true for the NFLPA. In the case of NFL players, testing for and cleaning the sport of HGH use is vital considering the long-term health risks players face after their careers end. The rule of thumb has long been that one year of playing contact football shortens the life span by approximately nine months. Think about it… just how many of your former football heroes live into their 70s and 80s?
Do the math… the average US male has a life expectancy of 72-74 years. The average NFL career is approximately four years, after an average of 6-8 years of playing football at the college, high school and lower levels. So, let’s work with an average football player having 12 total years of contact; this translates to shortening his life expectancy by nine years, meaning the average football player can expect to die sometime between ages 63-65. If the federal government does as expected, retirement age for the sake of saving Social Security an early demise will be raised to 70. Why? Because average Americans are living longer and costing more in terms of health care. But former football players aren’t going to live as long, even though they potentially cost more in health care costs due to debilitating injuries.
Now it’s time for a quick lesson in math and science: If an NFL player uses HGH with the goal of extending his career for as long as possible, what are the implications for the rest of his life? Well, let’s suppose an NFL player wanted to use HGH and enjoy a 20-year career like Brett Favre (no, I’m NOT accusing Brett Favre of using HGH). This player enjoys a long career, piles up lots of impressive stats, perhaps even wins a few MVP awards and Super Bowl rings, and earns more money than you or I would know what to do with it. He retires at the ripe old age of approximately 42, assuming he was drafted out of college after playing his full four years of eligibility.
Being such a prolific player, we’ll assume he’s entering Canton as a first-ballot hall of famer at age 48. So, on a bright and sunny Ohio day, this 48-year-old football legend stands before all of his adoring fans, friends, family members and contemporaries, to give the speech of his life and recall the glory of approximately 30 years of playing football, from his pee-wee league days all the way to his final game in an NFL uniform.
While we’re all soaking it in, we’re all oblivious to the fact that our beloved gridiron warrior, our football hero, is a physical time bomb waiting to go off. Why? Those 30 years of playing football potentially shorten Mr. Football Hero’s life by 24 years, so instead of living to an average age of 74 he’s potentially among the dearly departed by 50, only two years after his Hall of Fame induction. Sounds familiar? All you have to do is look at all the former players who have recently died between the ages of 44 and 52. Did all these players take HGH? Of course not, but if the wear and tear of years of brutal contact could shorten their life spans through an assortment of physical ills, is it really that outlandish to envision the scenario I presented?
Player Discipline Policy – It’s no secret that NFL players were finding their fair share of trouble without consequence towards the end of Paul Tagliabue’s stewardship. When Roger Goodell took over in 2008, player discipline and “honoring the shield” became top priority. As prosecution, judge, jury and executioner, Commissioner Goodell has certainly made us all aware of the new sheriff in town, and despite the harsh and unilateral impression of this conduct policy, things are working in the right direction.
Naturally the players take exception with the way this conduct policy works, since they bear the brunt of consequences. But ask yourself this, even if the NFLPA provided its version of a public defender, and offending players were provided the same “constitutional rights” as criminals in our nation’s courts, would we honestly expect much different penalties imposed, or none at all, on Pacman Jones, Tank Johnson, Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, or Plaxico Burress?
Just last week, Jeff Pash, the legal counsel for the NFL, invoked Burress’ name, without specifically saying it, to Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic on their ESPN Radio morning show. At issue was Burress’ legal right to retain his signing bonus with the New York Giants even after being sentenced to prison for “shooting himself in the foot” with an unlicensed handgun in a Manhattan nightclub. I tend to agree with Pash on this insinuation; I don’t think Burress deserved to retain any money associated with his Giants contract. The moment his gun went off should’ve automatically nullified any rights. Yes, it’s been explained to me that some of his bonus money was for service before the shooting, but no one can fully convince me he had the legal right to keep any of that money, since his self-inflicted shooting made him useless to his employer. Ask yourself this: if you or I did the same thing, what would the consequences be?
Only a few days ago, Roethlisberger told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that he’d be torn apart if Steelers fans booed him at home this season. This was interpreted by ESPN’s John Clayton as “Ben’s finally getting it” about his off-field reputation in relation to Steelers fans. REALLY? If anything, I think it shows how little Roethlisberger still gets about the consequences of his actions. He’s not promising to be a better person; he’s begging for a free pass from fan wrath. NONSENSE! I think Steelers fans SHOULD boo Roethlisberger as much as possible during the pre-season so he gets the message loud and clear how disgusted fans are with his behavior the past three years. He should hear their disapproval and disappointment with him so it sticks in his head for his entire six-week regular season suspension, a reminder of how much worse things could be if he screws up again. When Roethlisberger finally returns from his suspension, then Steelers fans can cheer him.
But Roethlisberger’s suspension is another issue of concern regarding the player conduct policy. Roethlisberger’s suspension is for six weeks but could be reduced to four if he demonstrates progress towards behavioral expectations. This is where I believe Commissioner Goodell needs to avoid hypocrisy and stick with six games, even though I was among many folks calling for eight in the first place. To reduce the suspension almost caters to the emotional manipulation ploy Roethlisberger seems to be playing through the media: please love me… don’t hate me or punish me… my ego can’t take it if you don’t keep worshiping me.
If you didn’t already figure it out, I’m very much in favor of the conduct policy staying just as it is, if not tougher than its present format. The sad reality is that no matter what actions Commissioner Goodell takes with players who can’t honor the shield, players will continue to transgress off-field, so this conduct policy is not a fool-proof deterrent. But as long as there are fools on NFL rosters, a maximum toughness policy is a necessity.
Rookie Contracts – All we need to see are the new contracts and signing bonuses given to Sam Bradford and Tim Tebow to know that NFL economics are completely out of whack. There needs to be a rookie salary cap as well as a limit to guaranteed monies in the form of bonuses for kids barely of drinking age who have yet to play a single down in an NFL regular season game. Many years ago, in 1965, the New York Jets singed rookie quarterback Joe Namath to the richest contract in professional sports history, $427,000 for three years. One of the most lasting reactions was by defending NFL-champion Cleveland Browns quarterback, Dr. Frank Ryan: “If Namath is worth $427,000, I’m worth a million.”
For as outlandish as Namath’s contract appeared, many folks are unaware that Jets owner Sonny Werblin and head coach Weeb Ewbank required Namath to earn no more than $30,000 per year in base salary in order to prevent all-out mutiny by veteran teammates making in the neighborhood of $10,000. The rest of Namath’s contract was deferred to ensure income later on during his career or after his career ended. The bottom line was Namath’s contract represented a balance between reward for talent and pragmatism relative to the grand scheme of running an organization, even if this contract did represent a new era in spending.
Do we honestly know how Bradford and Tebow will fare with their teams? No. Does Bradford deserve the largest signing bonus for a number one draft pick? Not if we’re comparing his potential, coming off a lost junior season at Oklahoma, shoulder surgery and playing behind a porous St. Louis offensive line against a decade of high level performance by Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. Should a rookie receive some healthy compensation for being a top draft pick? Yes, but not equivalent to an entire continent’s GNP.
Do I believe Bradford can be successful in St. Louis? Yes, but with a supporting cast. But let’s see how performance works out before the keys to the vault are turned over. If Bradford does turn out to be the second coming of Kurt Warner in St. Louis, there will be plenty of opportunities to restructure his contract and reward him fairly.
In the case of Tebow, it’s no secret Broncos head coach Jeff McDaniels is rolling the dice and staking his entire coaching career on the fortunes of this quarterback. Is Tebow a gifted athlete with great intangibles? Yes, no doubt, but as I’ve also written prior to the NFL Draft, I don’t believe Tebow will ultimately succeed as an NFL quarterback, but could very well become a very productive tight end or H-Back. Again, the Broncos signed Tebow to a contract as a very overrated first-round pick, and the guaranteed money is quite handsome. What happens if I’m right and Tebow fails as a quarterback? The Broncos end up with egg on their face for throwing millions at someone who should’ve been a third-round pick and converted to a more appropriate position on offense.
Now we see the risk of unexpected injury with Cowboys first-round pick, receiver Dez “carry your own shoulder pads” Bryant. Bryant didn’t even make it through his first week of training camps before an ankle injury sidelined him 4-6 weeks. But the contract is signed and the bonus check is cashed. Already the only guarantee the Cowboys have is that whatever guaranteed money has started depreciating in terms of investment.
Why such a harsh stance against rookies who any team would love to have on their roster as part of a rebuilding process? Consider Exhibits A, B and C -- Ryan Leaf, JeMarcus Russell, and Michael Vick. What do all three quarterbacks have in common? All inked contracts with very large bonuses and their teams got incredibly lousy returns on their investments.
And this doesn’t just apply to quarterbacks. Look at offensive linemen busts like Tony Mandarich, or linebackers like Brian Bosworth. Any number of running backs from Penn State -- Blair Thomas, Ki-Jana Carter and Larry Johnson come to mind. If you want to consider wide receivers, just look at all the busts former GM Matt Millen drafted for the Lions.
Signing rookies to their first contract and providing upfront money does present lots of risks. Players can get injured or complacent, or they can find a lifetime of off-field trouble, or simply encounter a small dose of bad luck. I think it would be far less outrageous and risky if bonuses weren’t escalating at the pace of a geometric progression. I’m clearly in favor of setting up a rookie salary scale, rookie salary cap, and limit on bonus money. I don’t begrudge players their money; I just think the time has come to spread the money wisely. Pay enough of a signing bonus for players to establish themselves in adult life in a new home and geographic location, make sure they have enough money to help out immediate family and establish a economic foundation in terms of a bank account.
Twenty-somethings don’t need millions of dollars to bankroll a posse of hanger-ons, organize a future entertainment career, or throw away on other foolish fluff. If rookies better understood there’s a fundamental scale difference between the “American Dream” and creating a Vegas-like lifestyle. Why do players pursue a professional football career, for the passion for the game, competition and pursuit of a championship – or do they pursue the career as a means to an end, a stepping stone towards becoming yet another commercialized brand? If NFL owners have issues with what their players are potentially becoming, then they should’ve given more thought to creating and perpetuating this monster. Sadly, the owners are the enablers with the money.
Do we also need a standard length for rookie contracts? Yes, but not as the NFLPA wants things. The NFLPA wants three-year contracts so all rookies would be unrestricted free agents at the expiration. This can’t work if owners are going to continue signing rookies with astronomical bonuses and sometimes get little in return on the investment. In fact, in some cases it literally forces a team to throw players into action before they’re ready to positively contribute (see Tim Tebow in Denver).
Rules for Free Agency - If the owners and NFLPA can agree on a rookie salary cap, salary scale, and put reasonable limits on signing bonuses then I could theoretically live with three-year contracts for all rookies. However, unrestricted free agency cannot take place at the end of the contract. For so many rookies it may take well beyond three years to make any significant impact. If players are restricted free agents at the end of the third year, perhaps in the context of rookie contracts having fourth-year vested options, then this could be a reasonable compromise where all players can be unrestricted free agents after their fourth season.
Perhaps the most troubling theme throughout these issues is the NFLPA, owners and players all fighting over more, more, more, and having it now, now, now. Yes, the average length of an NFL career is barely four years, but maybe if players didn’t come to the NFL with the agenda of getting all they can as fast as possible, while the getting’s good, perhaps their priorities and focus would be better and their careers might be longer and healthier. In fact, as we hear more and more about current NFL players fighting with their teams over contracts and money, one really has to wonder what long-term risks they take by going toe-to-toe with the people writing their checks. Again, I don’t begrudge the money. I do take exception with ego and money dominating the dialogue when the majority of NFL players are essentially disposable at some point in their careers.
Dividing up the Revenue Pot – Again, here is another issue where ego, money and the need for artificial and immediate gratification warp the system. Players currently receive 60% of league revenue towards salary. Owners would like to redistribute that allocation. The underlying question is whether the owners are trying to pocket more money for themselves, so at first glance it seems millionaire players are battling billionaire owners over shared wealth. I don’t necessarily see it this way because, again, I think the key issue appears to be the players’ cut is all desired in terms of as much as possible and as soon as possible while the window is open yet in the process of slowly closing.
I believe the owners could continue to live with 60% of revenue going to current player salaries, but not in the form of short-term payments. Given how many former players deal with financial problems, for one reason or another, in addition to serious debilitating injuries, I think owners could be more comfortable with salary deferments for players so there’s income waiting for players after their on-field contributions end. For star players, long-term deferments of salary could be tied to personal services contracts where they could continue to work for the organization in a variety of positions after their playing days are over. By remaining members of the organization after they retire as players, these former players could be taken care of on the organizational group health plan. If given the choice between income and health care, I’d think every former player would welcome continued health care benefits from their former team for as many years as possible. But if the goal of a player’s contract is to get as much money as fast as possible, there’s no long-term plan beyond what the NFL has in place as part of its agreement with the NFLPA and retired players association.
Are the retired players receiving as much as they should for their “golden” years? Hardly. Case in point, look at the recent lawsuit filed by former Miami Dolphins running back Eugene “Mercury” Morris, suing the NFL for retroactive retirement benefits to the tune of $3,000 per month. Think about it… one of the NFL’s most electrifying running backs from the 1970s is suing the NFL for being shortchanged $3,000 per month, or $36,000 per year. One could only wonder how much total money the entire suit seeks, not to mention how little Morris is forced to live on each month as a man in his early sixties. Granted, the salaries were much lower forty years ago, but the story is still the same: inflow of funds, quality of lifestyle, purchasing power and personal acquisitions are all drastically different years after one leaves the game compared to the height of your playing career.
Today’s players will be living quite differently and having much different expenses 20, 30, 40 years from now, assuming they’re still alive. Do they understand the concept of saving for the rainy days, and not necessarily a short-term lockout? Do today’s players comprehend how retired players struggle to live on a daily basis? I’m very skeptical as to how many of today’s players fully comprehend and appreciate NFL history prior to the last work stoppage in 1987, much less the implications of how past labor battles have shaped the evolution of today’s multi-billion dollar industry.
Again, I don’t begrudge today’s players their money. I do, however, believe today’s players need to make the money less about them and their fast track narcissism. If today’s players were more willing to look at their income with more long-term and bigger picture perspectives, there would be a more cost-efficient way of enjoying that 60% revenue share where they could help retired players more and lay a stronger foundation for themselves when they retire.
Repeat after me: it’s not all about us, so let’s find a way to make things win-win for all NFL stakeholders. Perhaps this was Gene Upshaw’s biggest flaw as NFLPA Executive Director – only believing and advocating his representation of current players at the expense of retired players and rookies. The Upshaw mantra was “my salary is only paid by players currently on NFL rosters”, and this made him Public Enemy Number One to his fellow retirees.
Expansion to 18-Game Schedule – This is perhaps the DUMBEST move by the NFL and most myopic effort to generate more revenue from fans and television networks. This issue has been tossed around since the current CBA was negotiated, and has always been a long-term vision of Commissioner Goodell. The rationale is to provide football fans more of a great thing and spare fans and networks of four mediocre-quality preseason games. It seems inevitable that NFL owners will approve an 18-game regular season schedule with the tradeoff being only two preseason games. In theory, players are still only playing 20 total games, but fewer games would be meaningless. For those of us who enjoy football more than any other sport, we could get a longer season and more of what we love.
However, unlike the majority of NFL fans Commissioner Goodell cites in a recent speech to Green Bay Packer boosters, I would rather stick with the current schedule of four preseason games and 16 regular season games. Why? Because two additional weeks of regular season games increases the potential for more player injuries, especially starters who are on the field for almost every team’s play. At least in preseason games your team’s starters get time off to save on physical wear and tear.
For those thinking an 18-game regular season schedule would force teams like the Colts to play their stars throughout the entire season and not take games off like they do after clinching a division or home-field advantage, I expect the opposite to be true. If the Colts can clinch their division in the same 13-14 games as they did in 2009, fans should expect them to rest their regulars for even more of the final weeks of the regular season. If you’re pining for a perfect season, you can likely forget about that forever.
The players are naturally complaining about potential for injury, but diminish their position by also complaining about being paid their multi-million dollar salaries for two extra games instead of the current 16. Excuse me? We need to prorate an increase in salaries? Are NFL teams going to do this with coaches, trainers, office staff or referees? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I frankly don’t understand why players are paid their salaries in 16 weekly checks. The players are essentially full-time employees with off-season training programs, mini-camps and training camp. I wouldn’t be surprised if NFL players are at team facilities for as many days during a calendar year as teachers are at schools during any given academic year. That being said, if teachers are paid over monthly or semi-monthly paychecks, why can’t NFL teams pay players every 15th and 30th of each month? Oh… I get it… if players are paid in 24 semi-monthly paychecks, the checks will have smaller amounts compared to 16 weekly checks, and smaller isn’t good in today’s era of monetary egocentrism.
As you can tell, I have little sympathy for players in terms of how their salaries are paid, much less the size of each paycheck. However, I do side with the players overall on this particular issue. 18 games is too long a regular season, unless we’re talking the Canadian Football League, where players only play 18 regular season games with no preseason at all.
However, if the NFL does go to an 18-game regular season, owners and the NFLPA need to make certain adjustments in order to make this new schedule as safe as possible for players:
1. The NFL mandates a bye week prior to the start of regular season games, as well as another bye week prior to the playoffs.
2. Each team receives two by weeks during the regular season, as opposed to one.
3. Elimination of regular season overtime, allowing for games to end in ties scores.
4. Expansion of active team rosters to 55 players with a commensurate salary cap.
5. Maintain six-man practice squads.
Since every issue on the negotiating table contentiously revolves around money, I don’t expect this issue to be resolved with any more ease than the other issues.
The bottom line is that players and owners are equally green-eyed when it comes to money and the new CBA. This is hardly new, and these issues have all been kicked around among players and owners since before the current CBA was negotiated. For a sports league boasting so much wealth and revenue, it seems foolish for money to be the volatile focal point for potential sabotage. Everyone needs to zoom out the focus lens and scan the broader picture of how the NFL has evolved and how it will continue to evolve. There’s more than enough money to go around and the NFL is too big, too successful and too popular to bog down over all this money. While there’s certainly enough blame to go around for all parties, the players are mostly in the wrong on almost every issue. But today’s players are the manifestation of a worldview gone amok when things were going good and no one was minding the store as closely as it should’ve been.
No comments:
Post a Comment