Labor Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Retirees
There is unrest among fans of the National Football League. A group of retired NFL players have declared their intentions to leave the Republic file a complaint against both the NFL Players' Association and the NFL owners. This separate movement, under the leadership of the mysterious Count Dooku former players Carl Eller, Franco Harris, Marcus Allen and Priest Holmes may make it difficult for the limited number of Jedi Knights players and owners to hammer out a collective bargaining agreement and end the lockout. To learn more about every NFL fan's "favorite" saga, make the jump to lightspeed.
Just when we thought there might be a chance the lockout could end without affecting the NFL season, we have this. A group of retired NFL players are filing suit against all 32 NFL teams, the NFL, the plaintiffs named in the Brady et. al. lawsuit, and DeMaurice Smith to prevent any further discussion by the NFLPA about retiree benefits, such as better pensions and help for medical treatments, and so forth. The retirees believe the players aren't looking out for their interests, and haven't been since they decertified and filed their antitrust lawsuit back in March. To be honest, I can't say I blame them too much for feeling that way.
Over the course of CBA negotiations, lawyers for the players blanched at the idea of using some of the money within the salary cap to pay for retiree benefits. The current numbers being mentioned would dedicate $320 million within the salary cap and $320 million outside the cap to be spent on retirement benefits, for a total of $640 million dollars over a 10 year span (the proposed length of the CBA). Without that money from inside the cap, those figures shrink to $32 million/year for 10 years.
Doesn't sound so bad, right? Sure it does, if you leave out the fact that as of last December, only 3,154 players received pension benefits at a cost of $63.7 million, it would be a good deal. Even if they left the numbers alone, the amount the retired players would get would barely cover just their pensions from last year. That's not including medical and disability benefits in the package. If I were a retired player and the current players were trying to keep money that's supposed to go for my benefits in their pocket, I'd file suit too, and I'd certainly want to prevent them from negotiating retirement benefits on my behalf.
In many ways, this reminds me of two children squabbling over who will be taking care of their aged father and how much each of them have to spend, with neither side giving the father any chance to have a say in the matter. And that's what these retired players really want. They feel like they've been cut off from the conversation and are being blocked from joining the negotiating table. They want to negotiate retirement benefits separately from the players.
Whether this will hold up CBA negotiations is still up in the air. Ultimately, I don't think it will. The retired players are well aware that time is running out before the lockout affects the NFL schedule. Most figure the very latest the lockout can last without affecting the season is the middle of July. Even if it is just a couple of preseason games missed, that's still a good $200 million per game that would be lost, and that's money that would go towards the salary cap. Nobody wants that to happen. Besides, there's still some question as to whether the retired players have standing in the Brady et. al. lawsuit. If they can't prove they have standing, the lawsuit won't last for long. If the lawsuit does stand, then we could see the following happen:
From the New York Times:
To streamline the process — and, Hausfeld said, to avoid holding up the completion of a deal that would start this season on time — retired players have offered to negotiate a dollar figure with the league and current players, based on what the retirees say are realistic projections of future costs. The retirees would then devise the programs in conjunction with the league after a new collective bargaining agreement is reached.
I do hope the next time I write about the lockout is to announce its end.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The answer is to outlaw professional football
Let the lawyers handle this one. I’m sure there is a team of lawyers salivating over what they can make by pursuing this one.
I don’t know if you knew this or not, but the lawyers always get paid. Unless they’re taking this one on commission….nawwwwwww!!!!
I didn't do anything wrong!.... and, I won't do it again.
screw all of these greedy pricks. that is all
Feeling the five stages of grief since 2002.
by NoSafetiesNeeded on Jul 5, 2011 7:33 PM CDT reply actions
Getting what you deserve ain't always greedy
Priest Holmes gave his heart and soul to football (YOU have a severe spinal injury after a helmet-to-helmet and come back and play more football) and all he wants is to make sure he can still provide for himself.
Remember, it’s not greed, it’s economics. Our obsession with football (hey, we are chatting on a texans blog in july during a lockout; we’re obsessed) has contributed to the evolution of an economic model in which some players are worth more than $10 million to play about 48 hours of football. They didn’t hold us hostage and force us to buy NFL Sunday Ticket or watch the Super Bowl with such religious fanatacism that the Army has to declare the next day a training holiday so no one shows up hung over.
At this point, dissing athletes who play (or have played) in a sport we love for wanting to get paid should be referred to the Supreme Court case of Hating the player v Hating the game
not a personal attack, nsn, because we all know you aren’t the only one thinking it. :)
On a lighter note, did I completely miss the forbiddance of “rule 8008”?
by pholmesandhtexans on Jul 6, 2011 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions
I can't be mad at the former players wanting to get taken care of
Just can’t. Every time I try to, I think of all the ones who can barely walk because they busted their ass to make the game great.
"Lord, beer me strength."
I know, right?
If anything, it makes me a little madder at the players for trying to throw them under the bus; especially since they’ll be in that position someday soon.
Despite my better judgment, an author at Battle Red Blog.
Supreme Galactic Editor of Battle Red Onion.
I am a visionary, I am a genius, and now I am angry! Now where are those pants at?!
by UprootedTexan on Jul 6, 2011 1:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Wil the modern player be in that position?
They get more money now, the game’s less violent with an emphasis on player safety…..will anyone end up like Earl Campbell?
I understand the NFLPA wants to get theirs, but they really should be united with the former players….it would really give them a little extra leverage/sympathy from the public.
"Lord, beer me strength."
I think it'll still be an issue, though maybe to a lesser degree.
Unless they start going full nerf out on the field and nobody gets concussed or serious breaks and tears to their body, there’s still the chance to end up like poor Earl.
As for the NFLPA, I think they’re being really shortsighted when it comes to the CBA. I think they know they’re going to lose out this go-around so they’re going to grab as much pie as possible so they don’t feel like they got taken to the cleaners.
Despite my better judgment, an author at Battle Red Blog.
Supreme Galactic Editor of Battle Red Onion.
I am a visionary, I am a genius, and now I am angry! Now where are those pants at?!
by UprootedTexan on Jul 6, 2011 1:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Just look at the credit card debt numbers in the US...
people aren’t concerned about what happens to them later, only what they can get now. I’m more sympathetic to the retired players than I am to the current ones (or the owners) really. I can definitely see why they would be upset about not even having a seat at the table.
BTW, as I read that intro, I heard the music along with it, haha
Earl Campbell makes great sausage and BTW, his condition has nothing to do with football!!!!
Why do ignorant people continue to use Earl Campbell as an example. His condition is hereditary, people!!!
I didn't do anything wrong!.... and, I won't do it again.
His sausage is my favorite brand, easily.
They use him as an example because even he has admitted that football plays a part in it.
Campbell has developed severe arthritis in his knees and has debilitating back pain. He attributes his back pain to a congenital back condition aggravated by his football career.
"Lord, beer me strength."
That's wikipedia
From an interview he did in 2004
The back surgery, he said, was to correct a congenital problem and is not related to football.
I didn't do anything wrong!.... and, I won't do it again.
This part:
“I understand the NFLPA wants to get theirs, but they really should be united with the former players….it would really give them a little extra leverage/sympathy from the public.”
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying to people. Yes, I realize that the NFLPA’s interests and the former players’ interests aren’t a perfect overlap, but they are close enough that the benefit to the current players from trotting out the memory of Dave Duerson is bigger than any detriment from minor competing interests the two groups may have.
The Two-Day Hangover @ SBN Houston | Twitter
-
"MDC: Droppin' knowledge like a librarian with Parkinson's." --Jonathan Loesche
-
"Not to completely equate marriage to fandom, but both rely on suspended insanity a bit." --beefy
by MDC on Jul 6, 2011 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Entitlement
This country is chock full of liberal socialists who think they are all entitled.
“I played football, so I’m entitled. Give me money and take care of me.”
I didn't do anything wrong!.... and, I won't do it again.
The whole thing is just an extension of this Obama-entitlement philosophy that is pervading this country
Let’s all just print money and give anyone still breathing unlimited healthcare. We can afford it, can’t we?
I didn't do anything wrong!.... and, I won't do it again.
No Politics
This is a warning.
Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...
by Tim on Jul 6, 2011 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 7 recs
Quick question
Is political correctness banned as well? If not, it should be
Murphy’s 20th Military Law:
If it’s stupid, but it works, it ain’t stupid
by The Night Owl on Jul 6, 2011 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, I stepped over the line
Sorry.
On a more correct line of attack. When you consider all the issues involved, I don’t know how anyone can develop a system that will please everyone/most involved. I’m not one to give up, but I have a hard time seeing how it could work.
I didn't do anything wrong!.... and, I won't do it again.
I find this an interesting discussion
While I am all for the former players being taken care of, I do not think it is an issue between current players and the owners. I don’t think the former players have a right to insist that current players “take care of them.” That is between them and the league. There is no union, so whatever is negotiated with the players likely will change nothing concerning the (former) union.
It appears that the NFL needs to have a union, because it is a monopoly – and all of these negotiations will be moot without a union.
My name is Barry - I am from Texas
It is a real shame how little benefits the retired players have
However, those were the terms they agreed to when they signed their playing contracts. I dont believe the former players have any place in the current negotiations. If the current players want to carve out a piece of the pie to help the former players (and themselves eventually), that is very nice of them. I do not believe they need to consult the former players to do that, (although it might be nice).
Whatever happened to union dues?
Keeping in mind that something should be done for the current pool of retirees…
…for those still playing or having yet to play, couldn’t the NFLPA require a percentage of the player salaries as union dues…then invest that money so that, in theory, a player’s own salary pays for his benefits later?
I’m sure the bulk of players would rather spend that money rather than save it (see under: “single-digit Wonderlic score” and other PC insults) but, correct me if I’m wrong, this move would help lower the future costs of retired players, right?
(I’m also assuming there’s some minimum standard that qualifies a guy as “retired” as opposed to “no one wants to sign me”; similar to the army’s 20-year rule, again, correct me if my lack of understanding complex sports economics is showing)
P.S. A 25-cent AAFES pog for the first BRB writer who makes a credible post detailing exactly why the dumbest thing Rick Smith could possibly do (aka “what he will inevitably do”) is sign Ike Taylor and call him our supah-stah shut-DOWN cornerback.
by pholmesandhtexans on Jul 6, 2011 2:25 PM CDT reply actions

by 





















