After reading the memo from the NFL Players Association to certified player agents instructing them to prevent their clients from signing marketing deals that would contain provisions duplicating the contents of the union’s Group Licensing Program, we did some digging on the question of whether the fears of an attempt by the league to intercept group marketing rights are justified.
They are.
Per a league source, the concerns arise from the experiences of the early 1990s. While the antitrust lawsuit that gave rise to the current Collective Bargaining Agreement was still pending, the league established the “Quarterback Club” via NFL Properties. The goal was to accumulate the marketing rights for as many players as possible, in the hopes of drying up one of the key sources of funding for the antitrust litigation.
As the source explains it, four key players refused to sign with the “Quarterback Club”: Eagles defensive end Reggie White, Broncos safety Steve Atwater, Redskins cornerback Darrell Green, and Lions running back Barry Sanders. Consequently, the “Quarterback Club” wasn’t able to compete with the NFLPA for big-ticket items like trading-card deals.
This time around, the union fears that the league will round up the crown jewels of the trading-card industry: Rookies. And with Topps currently frozen out of the market by the NFLPA, the league could launch a new effort aimed at securing the rookie’s rights, which then would be sold to Topps or some other trading-card company.
The problem, as the source believes, is that the union has failed to provide the history and the context to the agents, opting instead to communicate via a series of “thou shalt nots.”
The players need to understand the history and context as well, especially since some of them might be more inclined to cut their own deals and keep the money in lieu of signing the GLA and surrendering all revenue to the lockout fund.
I just really hope this somehow gets us the NFL2Kx series back. The no-compete deal with EA has really done nothing but hurt consumers.
Man, that QB Club 98 game on the N64 was awesome for its time. You could tell it had potential while Madden was stale. I think those guys went on to make the NFL 2K series, which also crushed Madden by the way. I don’t know what this really has to do with the real topic of this post, but man, I loved that QB Club game. Didn’t even notice that those players weren’t in the game.
I come to this website to relieve my boredom at work. I am more bored reading this legal crap than doing my actual work.
Screw each and every union in America! Unions are a plague on our country.
Screw the NFLPA. Screw all unions.
These are the types of things you do well at analyzing Florio. You’re better at breaking down these legal battles than most other sites, focus on that and leave on-field game analysis to real sports analysts who get paid big bucks for that skill.
Sooooo, nobody who reads this’ life will be altered in the least, correct?
This would be useful if we could write to players and/or owners like we (somebody) writes our Senators or Congressmen.
# dashoe says: November 19, 2009 4:30 PM
Screw each and every union in America! Unions are a plague on our country.
# SATAN567 says: November 19, 2009 4:40 PM
Screw the NFLPA. Screw all unions.
======================================
Here, here.
Even Stevie Wonder could see that they are ruining everything.
Right, because unregulated big business has never ruined anything.
Florio’s earlier post concluded “Frankly, something about this approach seems heavy handed at best, inappropriate at worst.”
After doing a little digging- i.e. contacting a league souce who has a clue of what is going on, you find that the NFLPA is right.
So in other words- you did a knee-jerk piece then actually did some research and found out you are wrong. And they pay you to do this- sweet! Heck, used to be the only thing PFT was better than anyone else was NFL enconomic issues.
Unions are needed for balance at least. Large corporations can, would, and have in the past, walk all over employees without labor unions to represent employees.
I used to work in sales for commission in a non-unionized company. The would constantly lower the commission rate of a product if it became too popular. They would schedule me for a 5 day work week and only provide 2 days worth of uniforms. I would average about $12-$16 an hour, but when there was required training I would get minimum wage.
Complaining resulted in: “Well, that’s the way it is .”
We as employees had no voice.
VonClausewitz: My eyes are wide open and I’ve seen allot in my 51 years.
I know that the union is the reason salaries are out of control.
I know that the union is the reason rookies are making way too much money, and more money than allot of veterans, EVEN THOUGH THEY’VE NEVER PLAYED A GAME IN THE NFL.
As to your comment “Absent a union that means they could, if they chose to, completely control how much money they would pay players.”
I will say this, If YOU owned a multi-million dollar corporation, you would know that no way, no how, would you want your employees underpaid. There’s a big difference though between not underpaying and really overpaying.
But you would need a business brain and your eyes completely open to see this.
So I’ll just say good night.
Joe,
I think that’s a simplistic analysis. If I owned a multi-million dollar company it would most likely not be a monopoly, so your logic fails. Hey if it’s open competition I’d agree – of course keeping your players happy is important. But that’s where the monopolies are different.
Also regarding the idea of “underpaying”. It’s all about perception. It doesn’t matter what they pay. It only matters that the perception of what they pay is acceptable. And when you control payscale absolutely you basically control everything. You can fire everyone and bring in a bunch of noobs and brainwash them all you want and keep repeating that cycle. Just look at EA if you want to see how the games programmers, for example, get sweatshopped. And that’s not even a monopoly. The point is, the concept of “underpaying” is very malleable. So again your argument is too simple.
Also your argument about not understanding the perspective of a business owner. Well, aside from being one, and working with large corporations on a regular basis, I would sadly agree. I didn’t understand large corporations. I didn’t understand how why they employ so many incompetent people. I didn’t understand why they don’t curb office politics. I didn’t understand why the dumber people rise. Until I realized that it was a system built at the highest levels to ensure the status quo. And then it became crystal clear. Listen if you think that large corps aren’t in it for the few at the top, or that those few at the top don’t want to get more money, then you won’t understand why unions are one of the few ways to prevent abuse under a monopoly.
DeSmith better enjoy his time as head of the union, he won’t be there much longer.
VonClausewitz: It’s far from a monopoly, there are 31 competitors, actually.
If you don’t pay your players fairly, you know there’s owners out there that will.
Free enterprise kills the “monopoly” argument and your “underpaying” argument.
As for understanding large corporations, you can’t understand them from outside looking in, you have to be inside.
Pretty basic stuff.
Anyway, it’s a matter of time before somebody here tells us to get a room, lol.
If you want to continue this, or talk about something else, I’m at joetoronto@yahoo.com