The players answer Goodell

[WaterMan]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=nfp-...o_roger_goodell

 

 

The decertified NFL Players Association has responded to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's letter with a letter of their own addressed to the league's top executive.

 

 

Here's the full text of what the players had to say to Goodell:

 

 

March 19, 2011

 

 

Roger Goodell

 

 

Commissioner

 

 

National Football League

 

 

280 Park Avenue

 

 

New York, NY 10017

 

 

Dear Roger:

 

 

This responds to the letter you sent to all NFL players on March 17.

 

 

We start by reminding you that we were there at the negotiations and know the truth about what happened, which ultimately led the players to renounce the NFLPA's status as the collective bargaining representative of NFL players. The players took this step only as a last resort, and only after two years of trying to reach a reasonable collective bargaining agreement and three weeks of mediation with George Cohen of the FMCS. At all times during the mediation session we had representatives at the table with the authority to make a deal. The NFL representatives at the mediation did not, and the owners were mostly absent.

The mediation was the end of a two-year process started on May 18, 2009, when our Executive Director sent you a letter requesting audited financial statements to justify your opting out of the CBA (letter attached).

The NFLPA did all it could to reach a fair collective bargaining agreement and made numerous proposals to address the concerns raised by the owners. In response, the owners never justified their demands for a massive give-back which would have resulted in the worst economic deal for players in major league pro sports.

 

 

That is why we were very troubled to see your letter, and repeated press reports by yourself, Jeff Pash, and the owners, which claim that the owners met the players halfway in the negotiations, and that the owners offered a fair deal to the players.

Your statements are false.

We will let the facts speak for themselves.

 

 

• The proposal by the NFL was not an "a la carte" proposal. The changes in offseason workouts and other benefits to players were conditioned upon the players accepting an economic framework that was unjustified and unfair.

 

 

• Your proposal called for a pegged amount for the salary cap plus benefits starting at 141M in 2011 and increasing to 161M in 2014, regardless of NFL revenues. These amounts by themselves would have set the players back years, and were based on unrealistically low revenue projections. Your proposal also would have given the owners 100% of all revenues above the low projections, including the first year of new TV contracts in 2014. Your offer did NOT meet the players halfway when it would have given 100% of the additional revenues to the owners.

 

 

• As a result, the players' share of NFL revenues would have suffered a massive decrease. This is clear by comparing your proposal to what the players would receive under the 50% share of all revenues they have had for the past twenty years.

 

 

• If NFL revenues grow at 8% over the next four years (consistent with Moody's projections), which is the same growth rate it has been for the past decade, then the cap plus benefits with our historical share would be 159M in 2011 (18M more per team than your 141M proposal) and grow to 201M per team in 2014 (40M more per team than your 161M proposal).

 

 

• Your proposal would have resulted in a league-wide giveback by the players of 576M in 2011 increasing to 1.2 BILLION in 2014, for a total of more than 3.6 BILLION for just the first four years. Even if revenues increased at a slower rate of only 5%, the players would still have lost over 2 BILLION over the next four years. These amounts would be even higher if your stadium deductions apply to the first four years (your proposal did not note any such limits on these deductions).

 

 

• We believe these massive givebacks were not justified at all by the owners, especially given recent projections by Moody's that NFL media revenues are expected to double to about 8 BILLION per year during the next TV deal.

 

 

• Given that you have repeatedly admitted that your clubs are not losing money, the billions of dollars in givebacks you proposed would have gone directly into the owners' pockets. We understand why the owners would want to keep 100% of this additional money, but trying to sell it as a fair deal to the players is not truthful.

 

 

• You proposed a CBA term of ten years. But you did not include any proposal on the players' share of revenues after the first four years, which left open entirely how much more the owners would have taken from the players.

 

 

• The owners continued to refuse to give any financial justification for these massive givebacks. Our auditors and bankers told us the extremely limited information you offered just a few days before the mediation ended would be meaningless.

 

 

• Your rookie compensation proposal went far beyond addressing any problem of rookie "busts", and amounted to severely restricting veteran salaries for all or most of their careers, since most players play less than 4 years. What your letter doesn't say is that you proposed to limit compensation long after rookies become veterans - into players' fourth and fifth years. As our player leadership told you and the owners time and again during the negotiations, the current players would not sell out their future teammates who will be veterans in a few short years.

 

 

• Your proposal did not offer to return the 320M taken from players by the elimination of certain benefits in 2010. It also did not offer to compensate over 200 players who were adversely affected in 2010 by a change in the free agency rules. Your letter did not even address a finding by a federal judge that you orchestrated new television contracts to benefit the NFL during the lockout that you imposed.

 

 

• You continued to ask for an 18 game season, offering to delay it for only one more year (you earlier said it could not be implemented in 2011 no matter what due to logistical issues). This was so even though the players and our medical experts warned you many times that increasing the season would increase the risk of player injury and shorten careers.

 

 

• All of the other elements you offered in the mediation, which you claim the players should have been eager to accept, were conditioned on the players agreeing to a rollback of their traditional share of 50/50 of all revenues to what it was in the 1980′s, which would have given up the successes the players fought for and won by asserting their rights in court, including the financial benefits of free agency the players won in the Freeman McNeil and Reggie White litigations more than 20 years ago.

 

 

• The cap system for the past twenty years has always been one in which the players were guaranteed to share in revenue growth as partners. Your proposal would have shifted to a system in which players are told how much they will get, instead of knowing their share will grow with revenues, and end the partnership.

You had ample time over the last two years to make a proposal that would be fair to both sides, but you failed to do so. During the last week of the mediation, we waited the entire week for the NFL to make a new economic proposal. That proposal did not come until 12:30 on Friday, and, when we examined it, we found it was worse than the proposal the NFL had made the prior week when we agreed to extend the mediation. At that point it became clear to everyone that the NFL had no intention to make a good faith effort to resolve these issues in collective bargaining and the owners were determined to carry out the lockout strategy they decided on in 2007.

 

 

We thus had no choice except to conclude that it was in the best interests of all NFL players to renounce collective bargaining so the players could pursue their antitrust rights to stop the lockout. We no longer have the authority to collectively bargain on behalf of the NFL players, and are supporting the players who are asserting their antitrust rights in the Brady litigation. We have heard that you have offered to have discussions with representatives of the players. As you know, the players are represented by class counsel in the Brady litigation, with the NFLPA and its Executive Committee serving as an advisor to any such settlement discussions. If you have any desire to discuss a settlement of the issues in that case, you should contact Class Counsel.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Kevin Mawae(notes)

 

Charlie Batch(notes)

 

Drew Brees(notes)

 

Brian Dawkins(notes)

 

Domonique Foxworth(notes)

 

Scott Fujita(notes)

 

Sean Morey(notes)

 

Tony Richardson(notes)

 

Jeff Saturday(notes)

 

Mike Vrabel(notes)

 

Brian Waters(notes)

 

Cc: All NFL Players

Edited March 19, 2011 by WaterMan

[tazinib1]

Don't really give a SHAM WOW! anymore. But, I have to ask, why respond at all?

[piratesownninjas]

Don't really give a SHAM WOW! anymore. But, I have to ask, why respond at all?

Because they're children all growed up.

[Cunning Runt]

This letter just reinforces my opinion that much more regarding my pro-ownership position. I used to like Brees. I think he's a dick now.

[electricrelish]

It seems strange that they answered the letter since there is no longer a union, yet they're acting like they are speaking for all the players. Was that letter a trap?

Edited March 19, 2011 by electricrelish

[Bronco Billy]

Anyone else here looking at a guaranteed 27% increase in their salaries over 5 years? Funny how the players above omitted the additional moneys available to vets with the reduction in the rookie salaries. That's all the more money in their pocket when that $141M sets in and affects the numbers substantially as well as making the top 16 rookies' salaries realistic instead of the ridiculously unsustainable amounts they would be scheduled to make otherwise without having to play a single down in the NFL when they sign.

 

Someone really needs to tell these guys to call me sily call me rude, but call me please.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[tazinib1]

It seems strange that they answered the letter since there is no longer a union, yet they're acting like they are speaking for all the players. Was that letter a trap?

 

I was thinking the same thing. But I don't know all the tricky legalities of it so...

Edited March 19, 2011 by tazinib1

[WaterMan]

It seems strange that they answered the letter since there is no longer a union, yet they're acting like they are speaking for all the players. Was that letter a trap?

 

Maybe the NFL knows these players might be on steroids so a response would be easy to get.

[bpwallace49]

Anyone else here looking at a guaranteed 27% increase in their salaries over 5 years? Funny how the players above omitted the additional moneys available to vets with the reduction in the rookie salaries. That's all the more money in their pocket when that $141M sets in and affects the numbers substantially as well as making the top 16 rookies' salaries realistic instead of the ridiculously unsustainable amounts they would be scheduled to make otherwise without having to play a single down in the NFL when they sign.

 

Someone really needs to tell these guys to call me sily call me rude, but call me please.

 

 

The cap system for the past twenty years has always been one in which the players were guaranteed to share in revenue growth as partners. Your proposal would have shifted to a system in which players are told how much they will get, instead of knowing their share will grow with revenues, and end the partnership.

 

Any thoughts on that piece of the letter BB? It certainly does present an area that "could" represent th eplayers as partners with the increasing nature of the salary cap, so that the players compenstaion is directly tied to leaguue revenues, which then INcreases compensation. . . . making them kinda "limited partners" in the revenue distribution.

 

While I am sure the players arent included in the team letterhead, it DOES present an interesting look at how the players could be interpreted as limited partners despite your assertions to the contrary. . .

[kcmast]

Anyone else here looking at a guaranteed -27% increase in their salaries over 5 years?

Fixed. Getting there.

Edited March 20, 2011 by kcmast

[Bronco Billy]

Any thoughts on that piece of the letter BB? It certainly does present an area that "could" represent th eplayers as partners with the increasing nature of the salary cap, so that the players compenstaion is directly tied to leaguue revenues, which then INcreases compensation. . . . making them kinda "limited partners" in the revenue distribution.

 

While I am sure the players arent included in the team letterhead, it DOES present an interesting look at how the players could be interpreted as limited partners despite your assertions to the contrary. . .

 

By that logic some salesmen are partners with their companies, authors are partners with their publishers, and recording artists and actors are partners with the studio. Do you believe this to be true?

[Skilly]

It seems like there are two different sets of accountants and each side is figuring out the numbers in completely different ways.

 

What do you think of that 8% increase each year in projected revenue? Is that a realistic figure that can be maintained? All this money is coming from US, the fans. Can we maintain that level of spending on the NFL? Not me, that's for sure. The only money I have spent on the NFL in the last year is purchasing the RedZone channel last season and a Broncos t-shirt for my brother. Total spent: about $50.00. That's 50 bucks more than I want to spend THIS year, I'll tell you that!

[WaterMan]

It seems like there are two different sets of accountants and each side is figuring out the numbers in completely different ways.

 

What do you think of that 8% increase each year in projected revenue? Is that a realistic figure that can be maintained? All this money is coming from US, the fans. Can we maintain that level of spending on the NFL? Not me, that's for sure. The only money I have spent on the NFL in the last year is purchasing the RedZone channel last season and a Broncos t-shirt for my brother. Total spent: about $50.00. That's 50 bucks more than I want to spend THIS year, I'll tell you that!

 

Don't worry about it. The Top 10 % can spend as much as they want.

[flemingd]

It seems like there are two different sets of accountants and each side is figuring out the numbers in completely different ways.

No, this is the spin in action. It's each side only telling us what sounds best.

 

"You've given us no financial information"

"We've given you more than you've ever had, and more than some of the owners have"

"Oh, well that's not the information we want"

 

"We offered you a huge raise over the next 5 years"

"Yes, but your offer was a 10 year deal - what about the last 5 years?"

"..."

"And while we're at it, you're offering us a static raise in those 5 years - what about if revenues grow more than anticipated? You gonna give us some of that?"

"What about if they are less - are you gonna take a paycut?"

"..."

 

This is why it's a joke to play this out in the media, and why it's worthless for us to hear it, worry about it, or take sides. It's all a bargaining ploy, a negotiation tactic. They are just doing what all capitalists do - try to work the best deal for themselves without breaking the partnership. It will get done, no one is walking away from $9B.

[muck]

Good letter. I learned some things. Thanks for posting it.

[Furd]

While I am sure the players arent included in the team letterhead, it DOES present an interesting look at how the players could be interpreted as limited partners despite your assertions to the contrary. . .

 

You can define "partners" in a number of different ways. I'll pick one:

 

A contractual relationship between two or more persons carrying on a joint business venture with a view to profit, each incurring liability for losses and the right to share in the profits.

 

Typically, partners invest capital into the venture. Partners share profit and losses. Partners have some say into how the business is run. And you have to jump through hoops before you can get rid of a partner.

 

The relationship between NFL players and owners is not a partnership. Although players contribute sweat equity, none of them would invest capital into the NFL. They don't share profits and losses (although the players want to share the profits.) The players have no control over how a franchise is run. And an owner or player can sever the relationship on a whim.

 

NFL players are employees.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Furd

[Ursa Majoris]

• We believe these massive givebacks were not justified at all by the owners, especially given recent projections by Moody's that NFL media revenues are expected to double to about 8 BILLION per year during the next TV deal.

Anybody else skeptical of this? I read somewhere a while back that the networks are actually making a loss on the NFL but feel that "have to have it" to be a playa and to advertise their other shows. If that's the case, will they really double down on what they already pay?

 

I've always seen the NFL - TV relationship as symbiotic, in that neither can do without the other but double? I dunno, I can't see the networks, already struggling because of the Internet, increased viewer choice and the economy in general, forking over twice what they do now.

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

and yet another step by the players which angers me and leaves me feeling alienated from them.

[The Mucca]

If the players are partners, like they seem to think, shouldn't the NFL be entitled to share in the

millions of dollars of endorsement $$$ these players are banking off their NFL status?

[The Mucca]

On another note, I haven't done any research on it, so I could be wrong. Although I doubt it.

One of the major complaints from the players is that the owners pay salaries to the relatives.

I wonder how many players wife's, brothers, sisters, parents, uncles,cousins, draw salaries

from all these player foundations. I bet the answer would shock a lot of people.

[Bronco Billy]

Legal Dictionary definition of "Partnership"

 

An association of two or more persons engaged in a business enterprise in which the profits and losses are shared proportionally. The legal definition of a partnership is generally stated as "an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit" (Revised Uniform Partnership Act § 101 [1994]).

 

Formation

 

The formation of a partnership requires a voluntary "association" of persons who "coown" the business and intend to conduct the business for profit. Persons can form a partnership by written or oral agreement, and a partnership agreement often governs the partners' relations to each other and to the partnership. The term person generally includes individuals, corporations, and other partnerships and business associations. Accordingly, some partner-ships may contain individuals as well as large corporations. Family members may also form and operate a partnership, but courts generally look closely at the structure of a family business before recognizing it as a partnership for the benefit of the firm's creditors.

 

Certain conduct may lead to the creation of an implied partnership. Generally, if a person receives a portion of the profits from a business enterprise, the receipt of the profits is evidence of a partnership. If, however, a person receives a share of profits as repayment of a debt, wages, rent, or an Annuity, such transactions are considered "protected relationships" and do not lead to a legal inference that a partnership exists.

 

Relationship of Partners to Each Other

 

Each partner has a right to share in the profits of the partnership. Unless the partnership agreement states otherwise, partners share profits equally. Moreover, partners must contribute equally to partnership losses unless a partnership agreement provides for another arrangement. In some jurisdictions a partner is entitled to the return of her or his capital contributions. In jurisdictions that have adopted the RUPA, however, the partner is not entitled to such a return.

 

In addition to sharing in the profits, each partner also has a right to participate equally in the management of the partnership. In many partnerships a majority vote resolves disputes relating to management of the partnership. Nevertheless, some decisions, such as admitting a new partner or expelling a partner, require the partners' unanimous consent.

 

Each partner owes a fiduciary duty to the partnership and to copartners. This duty requires that a partner deal with copartners in Good Faith, and it also requires a partner to account to copartners for any benefit that he or she receives while engaged in partnership business. If a partner generates profits for the part-nership, for example, that partner must hold the profits as a trustee for the partnership. Each partner also has a duty of loyalty to the partnership. Unless copartners consent, a partner's duty of loyalty restricts the partner from using partnership property for personal benefit and restricts the partner from competing with the partnership, engaging in self-dealing, or usurping partnership opportunities.

[delusions of grandeur]

If the players are partners, like they seem to think, shouldn't the NFL be entitled to share in the

millions of dollars of endorsement $$$ these players are banking off their NFL status?

 

That'd be like the players asking for a share of Home Depot revenues, since Arthur Blank makes his money from that too (and in fact can pretty much guarantee HD a sponsor spot with the Falcons). I see the point you're trying to make, but you can't say that personal endorsements and outside endeavors have much of anything to do with one another. The reason why Peyton Manning gets more endorsements than Tom Brady is not because he can sling a ball better or has gotten more exposure. It's that he has a more marketable personality to be a spokesperson for a company, a completely unrelated talent to what he does on the field.

 

But getting back to NFL matters, what about things like jersey sales? Should the guys who are generating tens of millions in jersey sales just say, "well, forget the 10's of thousands of fans in the stands who paid $100 to put my name on their back; I'm just fortunate to be making what I'm making".

 

They may not be partners financially, but many players do incur a great deal of risk to their careers, while the "product" they put out on the field is an integral part of what generates billions. People won't pay $100 for a Curtis Painter jersey or come to the stadiums just to eat an $8 hot dog and drink $7 beers all night.

 

 

BTW, Bronco Billy, please quit with all of the personal analogies, legal definitions of partnerships, etc. No one is disputing that this isn't a financial partnership, so for the sake of you not nitpicking with definitions, how about we just call it what it is: a symbiotic relationship. Both sides here have leverage and benefit tremendously from one another beyond most other industries, so the normal business analogies simply don't fit. As has been reiterated a ton of times, the NFL is far from a normal business model and top athletes are far from expendible... If the players really should have as little leverage as what you like to claim, then the owners wouldn't even bother negotiaiting.

[The Mucca]

Home Depot doesn't make it's money from the NFL. Do you really think these players would

be making millions in endorsements if they never played in the NFL.

 

Saying Manning would make 15mil a year selling products on tv if he never played

in the NFL is idiotic.

[delusions of grandeur]

Home Depot doesn't make it's money from the NFL. Do you really think these players would

be making millions in endorsements if they never played in the NFL.

 

Saying Manning would make 15mil a year selling products on tv if he never played

in the NFL is idiotic.

 

OK, I'll admit that was a bad analogy (even though it does show how owner's endorsements of their companies can also be interrelated, yet still seperate)...

 

But I'm not saying that Manning hasn't gotten exposure from the NFL. What I'm saying is that, even if they WERE in fact financial partners in this, what Peyton does outside of their business is his own business. Just because he's been recognized for being a marketable spokesperson because he's in the NFL, doesn't mean that the NFL is the primary reason why he's a marketable spokesperson.

 

To give another "idiotic" analogy: If your job enabled you to get exposure to land a side-gig to make some extra cash, do you feel you owe your employer anything for you having gotten recognition for a talent that's unrelated to your present job duties?

[The Mucca]

That'd be like the players asking for a share of Home Depot revenues, since Arthur Blank makes his money from that too (and in fact can pretty much guarantee HD a sponsor spot with the Falcons). I see the point you're trying to make, but you can't say that personal endorsements and outside endeavors have much of anything to do with one another. The reason why Peyton Manning gets more endorsements than Tom Brady is not because he can sling a ball better or has gotten more exposure. It's that he has a more marketable personality to be a spokesperson for a company, a completely unrelated talent to what he does on the field.

 

But getting back to NFL matters, what about things like jersey sales? Should the guys who are generating tens of millions in jersey sales just say, "well, forget the 10's of thousands of fans in the stands who paid $100 to put my name on their back; I'm just fortunate to be making what I'm making".

They may not be partners financially, but many players do incur a great deal of risk to their careers, while the "product" they put out on the field is an integral part of what generates billions. People won't pay $100 for a Curtis Painter jersey or come to the stadiums just to eat an $8 hot dog and drink $7 beers all night.

 

 

BTW, Bronco Billy, please quit with all of the personal analogies, legal definitions of partnerships, etc. No one is disputing that this isn't a financial partnership, so for the sake of you not nitpicking with definitions, how about we just call it what it is: a symbiotic relationship. Both sides here have leverage and benefit tremendously from one another beyond most other industries, so the normal business analogies simply don't fit. As has been reiterated a ton of times, the NFL is far from a normal business model and top athletes are far from expendible... If the players really should have as little leverage as what you like to claim, then the owners wouldn't even bother negotiaiting.

 

Yes, that's why he is making that much in the first place. He is making money for his employer, if the employee ceased to

make money for his employer, then he would be of no benefit to the employer.