Skip to content

NFL Alumni continue to pressure NFLPA*

alg_split_nfl_martin_smith

With the NFLPA* not responding to a Friday offer from owners that, per the league, includes “funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2000 former players by nearly 60 percent,” some former players are getting antsy, and some want answers as to why talks aren’t continuing.  One man who is antsy to get some answers is NFL Alumni president, and former Giants defensive end, George Martin (pictured).

The NFL recently pointed out that Martin can’t get a meeting with NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith.  Martin has now pointed that out to Ralph Vacchiano of the New York Daily News.

“It’s disconcerting because, yet again NFL Alumni, although we appear to be in the discussion, we’re still treated as if we’re second-class citizens or an afterthought,” Martin said.  “We definitely feel there’s a moral imperative for those of us who have paid such an extraordinarily high price to help build this industry to be in the discussion.”

Martin says he was invited to the upcoming NFLPA* meeting in Marco Island, Florida, but that he wasn’t promised a meeting/audience with Smith.  Martin also claims that he had to fill out a questionnaire detailing his relationship and dealings with the league.

“To me it was a bit insulting,” Martin said. “Here’s a guy who played 14 years in the NFL, a 10-year veteran as a player representative, and was the president of the NFLPA for two years. Now my loyalty and allegiance is being called into question before I can come and address the very organization I spent 14 years officially supporting?”

But here’s the thing.  NFL Alumni has strong ties to the NFL, and the NFLPA* has its own relationship with retired players, including two of them (Jim McFarland and Cornelius Bennett) as non-voting members of the Executive Committee.  The league gave NFL Alumni a $1 million loan, interest free.  And the fact that the league has been supporting the idea of Congressional pressure to force Smith to meet with Martin suggests that the league views the group as a possible tool for driving a wedge between current and former players, in the hopes of getting the players to eventually cave.

As to the “questionnaire,” we’re told that Martin was asked questions via e-mail exchange regarding whether he supports the Legacy Fund and the union’s efforts at the bargaining table.  Given the possible ties between the league and NFL Alumni, it’s not unreasonable (in our view) for the union to be interested in ensuring that the motives of NFL Alumni are pure, and that the group isn’t being manipulated by the league.

Though Martin is a former player, there’s a history of acrimony between former players and the NFLPA.  The late Gene Upshaw once said that he doesn’t represent former players.  Though De Smith has taken a more conciliatory tone, the effort has coms at a time when both sides have been trying to win the hearts and minds of the fans, perhaps first by winning the hearts and minds of the game’s greats.

Permalink 67 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
67 Responses to “NFL Alumni continue to pressure NFLPA*”
  1. chapnastier says: Mar 15, 2011 10:01 AM

    I love that entire paragraph that does its best to spin this back against the NFL even though De Maurice won’t meet with this guy. Since the NFLPA* didn’t accept an offer that would have given the alumni more money, I would think Smith owes 15 minutes of his time to sit down and explain why.

    What a joke.

  2. kc4life7 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:07 AM

    The NFLPA* is so full of it. Wasn’t one of Drew Brees’ “main concerns” about helping PAST, present, and future players? This just proves they have been lying the whole time. I don’t care what side your on, not letting someone like George Martin to directly speak to De Smith is ridiculous!

  3. scudbot says: Mar 15, 2011 10:09 AM

    DeMaurice Smith made sure to pay emotional lip service to “our forefathers” when he spoke to the press after they abandoned negotiations while NFLPA reps were still negotiating. What a crock. Every NFL fan alive cares about the vets. Too bad the union doesn’t.

  4. easyeddie says: Mar 15, 2011 10:15 AM

    But union leaders like Mr. Wonderful Drew Brees insist they’re indebted to the former players.
    What a condescending, hypocritical joke the union has become — stuff like this and pressuring the draftees not to attend draft day.

  5. FinFan68 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:16 AM

    Sounds to me like the NFLPA* should shange its name to the National Football League CURRENT Players Association. These guys don’t care about the future success of the league as long as they get theirs right now. They also don’t care about the former players as demonstrated in the article. These players are all about “ME, ME, ME”. They conveniently forget that if not for the players that came before them and the owners that pay them exorbitant salaries, these current players would not be in the position they are in now. The league’s last offer was a concession and the union chose to ignore it. They have not made any realistic attempts to bargain in good faith. I hope they get their bubble popped in court. These players fail to understand that they are replaceable…just loke those great players that the current crop of ingrates replaced. The league will go on with or without them. As much as I love the game, it might be better to not have football until these self-absorbed children endure a substantial dose of reality.

  6. eagles83 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:17 AM

    Smith is in this for himself. He’s alienating the very players he says he represents. This guy has had his own political agenda from day one and this is all part of his plan.

    Screw you Smith.

  7. krow101 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:18 AM

    Whatever… if 15,000 fans decide to NOT buy that new team jersey then it’s $1,000,000 these greed-heads DON’T get.

    Stop feeding the beast.

  8. tv426 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:18 AM

    Is this guy sweating profusely in this photo? He looks like he just boxed 15 rounds.

  9. flapjack1231 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:19 AM

    I’m glad people are starting to realize what the decertified union was & will be again once a deal gets done…….a total sham.

  10. northeastern31 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:20 AM

    I hope this ends with unemployment for a one , DeMaurice Smith. Can this bozo run the NFL into the ground? and have the owners ever offered more than they did on friday? I think not.

  11. angrycorgi says: Mar 15, 2011 10:21 AM

    Seeing as the NFLPA has done nothing to help out retired players benefits, why is it a shock to see that as an avenue to apply pressure. I have not heard one single word of former players in the crazy demands the NFLPA laid out when negotiations started. That’s pathetic and sad. Basically, the current players don’t give a flying flip about the past players, especially if they have to give up ANYTHING to help them.

  12. ditkasmustache says: Mar 15, 2011 10:23 AM

    While Upshaw was perhaps too blunt, the union’s first priority is the dues paying currently employed players. Thats just the way it is

    It is a fact that over many decades neither the league OR the union gave much attention to former players. In fact, it is one of the few things they were “on the same page” so to speak.

    Only when the brain injury issues became so prominent (think Mike Webter and Andre Waters) and Congress got involved did anything really improve for the Alumni.

    But the retired players ought to realize that taking sides in he current labor fight and getting in bed with the league is a bad move.

  13. angrycorgi says: Mar 15, 2011 10:23 AM

    When DeMoron Smith said “our forefathers” he meant all the blood-sucking lawyers that made bank before him…totally not an NFL reference!

  14. geemoney713 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:25 AM

    I think it’s the union’s job to worry about their predecessors. I believe the NFL doesn’t really have a responsibility to support them. They were paid for a job, and that job is done. Most companies don’t pay retirement anymore, so why would the NFL?

    If the current union wants a future union to take care of them when they’re in need, then they should help the NFL alumni now while they have a bargaining chip with the NFL.

  15. vetdana says: Mar 15, 2011 10:26 AM

    The motives of NFL Alumni are pure….this is not rocket science…its all about money….they want a 60 % retirement benefit pay increase and the sooner a deal is struck, that includes this proposed provision, the sooner they get payed. Forget the politics….we want the mula.

  16. xxwhodatxx says: Mar 15, 2011 10:27 AM

    Martin should know better than that, “KING”de Smith can’t give everyone an audience he’s got better things to do like count cash that he doesn’t deserve….

  17. thebigolddog says: Mar 15, 2011 10:29 AM

    “and the fact that the league has been supporting the idea of Congressional pressure to force Smith to meet with Martin….”

    Can you show me where the NFL has said that? Or again, are you implying because the reported it on their news site they are “supporting the idea.?”

  18. brownsfn says: Mar 15, 2011 10:31 AM

    WOW just WOW…Am I the only one who thinks Demaurice should be fired right this minute???

  19. mick730 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:32 AM

    There are a large number of truly horrible stories about what is happening to some of the older players from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. A lot of Packer fans I’m sure know of Willie Wood’s plight and how the Packers have stepped up to help him. There are others too. Remember Travis Williams? He didn’t have a very long career because of knee injuries, but if I’m not mistaken, he died alone and homeless. Lionel Aldridge suffered from severe mental disorders, lost his job, his family and his home.

    I don’t think Drew Brees, De Maurice Smith and the others really care about the older players. I think for them, it is a power thing, a money thing, and in some regards, a political, class and racial thing. Look at the owner’s offer from last Friday. It contained almost everything imaginable for the players plus the fact that no current veteran player would see a cut in his salary, yet because the players felt “frustrated and disrespected”, they walked away.

    Question: What does Drew Brees have to be so angry about? He is paid a king’s ransom, yet he slams the very owner who pays him that king’s ransom.

    Kevin Mawae hasn’t played since 2009, has no skin in this game, and is also very bitter. Does he ever plan to get on with his life outside of the NFL? There are so many former players who never seem to do so. All the while they’re telling the world that the NFL is a horrible business, they never leave it. Good lord, between all the networks, the cable channels, local tv sports channels etc, there is a veritable army of ex NFL jocks who have nothing better to do than cling to the NFL; the league that gave them their start, made most of them very rich men, and continues to make them very rich men.

    Most people and most fans are seeing the NFLPA leadership and their lawyers as a collection of spoiled, selfish, greedy, mean spirited and somewhat hateful people.

  20. kellyb9 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:34 AM

    This has nothing to do with the alumni. That’s just a bargaining chip (like the 18 game season). Something the NFLPA* could give up. This is about the 9 billion in annual revenue and who gets what.

  21. thebigolddog says: Mar 15, 2011 10:35 AM

    PS = Listen to the Pete Kendell interview. He’s upfront that the only thing that matters is the money and to resolve that, the OWNERS have to PROVE they need more. The NFLPA will include revenue the OWNERS make in other businesses “because they own an NFL team” when determining how much an OWNER should make.

    It’s the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. They have the owner/employee relationship completely backwards.

  22. eagles83 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:38 AM

    @ krow101

    I agree. No one should be buying anything NFL related what so ever.

  23. ditkasmustache says: Mar 15, 2011 10:42 AM

    brownsfn says: Mar 15, 2011 10:31 AM

    WOW just WOW…Am I the only one who thinks Demaurice should be fired right this minute???

    ————————

    No. You have no monopoly on stupidity.

  24. angrycorgi says: Mar 15, 2011 10:47 AM

    Thumbs up if you think D-Smith is satan…thumbs down if you worship satan.

  25. gridassassin says: Mar 15, 2011 10:48 AM

    Good for George Martin. Dave Duerson was one of the board members on the NFLPA that denied players disability benefits. I wonder if he felt a bit guilty about denying players disability benefits.

    Never forget the BS the NFLPA pulled:

    http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=3049213

  26. vomitingliberals says: Mar 15, 2011 10:50 AM

    The NFLPA cares only about the cash it can squeeze from the league today! It cares NOTHING for the past, and NOTHING for the future well being of this league we all love. George Martin and the NFL Alumni laid the foundation of the NFL’s success and they did so for a heck of a lot less in compensation, fame, and perks than today’s spoiled generation of entitlement minded talent!

    The NFLPA should be ashamed of itself for treating these men, who made their big money lifestyle possible, with such arrogant disrespect and casual disregard. The current players should be ashamed of themselves too for not standing up for the guys who came before them! So if the league is willing to finally help the Alumni, then they should throw in with the owners! Why not? The modern talent cares nothing for past their contributions even if they give lip service to the opposite. After all, actions speak louder than words!

  27. gridassassin says: Mar 15, 2011 10:52 AM

    DeMaurice Smith = Modern Day Napoleon

  28. scudbot says: Mar 15, 2011 10:53 AM

    After I heard George Martin on SiriusXM talk about this year+ long outrage, I went over to the NFL Alumni Assn website and bought a t-shirt. I’ll never buy another piece of officially authorized NFL gear.

  29. angrycorgi says: Mar 15, 2011 10:53 AM

    It’s the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. They have the owner/employee relationship completely backwards.

    ——

    Totally agree. In the audited financials they wanted to know all the non-NFL related investments by the owners too. So if an owner did some real estate trading on the side, that income he generated would count as profit in their eyes. The stupidity and insanity on the players’ side is atrocious.

  30. angrycorgi says: Mar 15, 2011 10:54 AM

    No. You have no monopoly on stupidity.

    —-

    On the other hand, you appeared to have cornered the market.

  31. dryzzt23 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:57 AM

    The Union wants….demands the books from the owners by claiming that owners and players are “partners”, therefore they want the financial numbers for “all total revenue” over and above just total football revenue.

    Well if that is the case the why don’t the owners demand, from their “partners” the players, the financial numbers of the total endorsements, business profits, etc that the players make? After all, if these players were not playing in the NFL they would have NO endorsements, etc

    It should go both ways….

  32. dchuwo says: Mar 15, 2011 10:58 AM

    Beautiful move by the NFL to let this out. Without question done to garner support by former players, and it makes Smith’s players who say they want to help former/retired players look like they are giving little more than lip service. As this has progressed it has become less about getting a deal done and more about Smith’s ego. Remember, skinny pigs get fed, fat pigs get slaughtered.

  33. sakatak says: Mar 15, 2011 10:59 AM

    Fire Smith, Hire Vincent

  34. scudbot says: Mar 15, 2011 11:06 AM

    The University of Maryland just booked D. Smith to be their graduation speaker. One of the dweebs involved in the selection had this to say: “He is the only executive director of the NFL Players Association to have never played professional football. I think that shows the type of person and leader he is and the amount of support he’s generated.”

    *Facepalm*.

  35. richc111 says: Mar 15, 2011 11:08 AM

    Read below, this is from 2008: This is how the NFLPA values the retired players. Losers!

    “EA Sports makes what can only be described as mountains of money from the Madden NFL series. An update is released for every console platform on a yearly basis, and the title continually sells in the millions. Now retired NFL players are coming forward with lawsuits claiming EA isn’t giving them the money they deserve for the use of their likeness and career information, and according to some damning internal communication, it appears as if the the NFL Players Association intentionally brokered a lower-than-market-value deal for retired players as a favor to the gaming giant.”

  36. Patriot42 says: Mar 15, 2011 11:09 AM

    Instead of joining the NFL before graduating from college those veterans that took that chance are no better off then the average guy on the street that made bad decisions and are on the street. The owners owe them nothing.

  37. jerseydevil856 says: Mar 15, 2011 11:09 AM

    FinFan68 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:16 AM

    These players fail to understand that they are replaceable…just loke those great players that the current crop of ingrates replaced. The league will go on with or without them. As much as I love the game, it might be better to not have football until these self-absorbed children endure a substantial dose of reality.

    ****************************************

    I agree 100%, and came to the conclusion that the minute the owners opted out of the current CBA, it would be better to shelf the league for a season rather than continue on under the demands these players want. I love the game, but it’s completely ridiculous and out of hand.

  38. broncobourque says: Mar 15, 2011 11:11 AM

    I think it is terrible that the current players don’t care about alumni more but this is nothing new either. When the current alumni were players, they didn’t worry about alumni benefits or post career planning either. In most industries, if you want to have a good pension or good post career benefits, you need to negotiate to get them while you are still working, not count on the union giving up other things so you can have that money and those benefits when you are already retired.

  39. myspaceyourface says: Mar 15, 2011 11:18 AM

    It’s becoming more evident the players or their representation have any idea what they are doing.

    They apparently don’t know how to negotiate. They are mad and want more, but they have no way of communicating it.

    They must realize they will be retiring soon and the better the deal the work out for the retired players ultimately helps them in the end.

    I think the NFLPA is a train wreck.

  40. jamaltimore says: Mar 15, 2011 11:19 AM

    Once again the Union is always looking out for it’s members. Union was quick to agree to rookie cap yet they tell the guys not to show up to the draft. Who’s looking out for who? They complain about the game and protecting the retiree’s yet they don’t take a meeting with leader of the retired players. Why?? Because it appears its the LEAGUE who is the one helping them not the very Union clowns like brees and mawae who say they are fighting for players former and future. The ego maniacs of today’s NFL care of no one but themselves.

    Tell me how come we keep referring to the NFLPA if they no longer exist? Please make them go away, tear up all the contracts and say tryouts start in march for anyone intersted in playing in the NFL. Pay is based on performance and your ability to show up for work.

  41. laeaglefan says: Mar 15, 2011 11:19 AM

    No one should be surprised that the NFLPA* is taking such a stance toward former players. After all, the “What have you done for me lately?” attitude is apparently alive and well.

  42. chatham10 says: Mar 15, 2011 11:26 AM

    Mr.Smith keeps talking about former players and fans when he really does not care as long as he makes a name for himself. I still want to know if he is now making .67 cents paycheck like he said he would. Mr. Brees, I do know what your major was at Purdue but you seem to have all the answers regarding the CBA and how the union is pure and the owners are crooks. Please be careful what you say as it could come back and bite you.

  43. shallowfan says: Mar 15, 2011 11:30 AM

    If the NFLPA doesn’t want to talk to the alumni because they are close to the league and the nflpa wants to make sure they have “pure motives”…does it really matter if the alumni have “pure motives”? the nflpa took up the cause to fight for former players rights and the nfl offered to up coverage by 60% this year and the players said no thanks to the deal.

    If the nflpa really cared about former players as much as they say they do perhaps they would’ve “split the difference” and gave up something like $320 mil to gain $82 mil this year for former players…after all if you really are looking out for the future of the game and the average career length is 3 years then the current players are going to be former players who need benefits very quickly…so why not give up something now to gain something that will help you and your family in the future when you most likely will need it more?

    If i’m off base with my facts let me know…

  44. ditkasmustache says: Mar 15, 2011 11:34 AM

    brownsfn says: Mar 15, 2011 10:31 AM

    WOW just WOW…Am I the only one who thinks Demaurice should be fired right this minute???gridassassin says: Mar 15, 2011 10:52 AM

    DeMaurice Smith = Modern Day Napoleon

    eagles83 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:17 AM

    Smith is in this for himself. He’s alienating the very players he says he represents. This guy has had his own political agenda from day one and this is all part of his plan.

    Screw you Smith.

    ——————————–

    Nothing like a strong willed black man standing up for other black men that gets white folks all riled up!

    The minute the union rejected the all white owners last offer the nastiness started spewing forth. It looks to me that most folks that post here think that the slaves should be grateful to the “massa” for his generous offer.

  45. Kave Krew says: Mar 15, 2011 11:44 AM

    The one thing I do agree with is that the alumni players sacrificed plenty (and got paid for it too dont forget) and helped the current players get to the luxurious point they experience now.

    The current players should let the former players have a voice of some type in this saga as a courtesy thank you at minimum – but mostly to shut out the NFL and owners from gaining favor with them.

  46. jakek2 says: Mar 15, 2011 11:48 AM

    Looks like all the pro-owner suck-ups are out and about in full force. Although I am a rabid Giants’ fan, I am ashamed of Martin. Here is a guy that allegedly fought the good fight for 14 years. Now he’s pressuring De “Braveheart” Smith because his Smith is fighting the good fight that Martin allegedly fought? You’re a sellout George!

  47. radrntn says: Mar 15, 2011 11:54 AM

    it’s a 3 ring circus on the NFLPA side of things being led by ringmaster smith aka Bozo the Clown….

  48. brambo67 says: Mar 15, 2011 11:57 AM

    This “union” doesn’t act like a true Union, with the ideals of helping past, present and future members. This “union” has only ever had the interests of the current membership in it’s mind when negotiating. Why do I think that? Well as the salary cap increased, the NFLPA should have considered whether the increases for players was justifiable, given that the increases to the highest paid was increasing far more rapidly that those at or around the league minimum. They could have negotiated for the increases in minimum wages to rise more rapidly and for amounts that would have fallen into the salary cap to be diverted into funds for past players. They did not of this. The NFLPA has not acted as a true Union because the people who have become richer are the top players. They (are) were a sorry excuse for a true Union.

    I’m also of the opinion that the Brady v NFL lawsuit also does not have the “rank and file” members best interests at heart. If the players were explained to what would happen under full antitrust legislation it would become clear that the wages of the vast majority of players would not increase, but instead would decrease in real terms, as there would be no minimum wage level other than that which teams decided to set themselves.

  49. chacochicken says: Mar 15, 2011 11:58 AM

    This is a classic straw man. Martin is essentially schilling for the owners by creating a negative public opinion of the NFLPA* I’m sure that Smith and Martin will talk and the final deal will include money for former players. Martin’s entrance here is just jumping at the first offer.

  50. brambo67 says: Mar 15, 2011 12:14 PM

    The other thing that I think the “rank and file” membership of the NFLPA* realises is that if the lawsuit is taken to it’s conclusion, then there will be less revenue sharing – an illegal concept under antitrust legislation – so smaller market clubs would have less revenue. As they have less revenue, they cannot pay as high wages as under revenue sharing schemes. That means that more players would be paid less.

    At the same time, whilst teams like the Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots have higher revenue, they will STILL not pay more players higher wages. Why should they pay a back-up similar wages to that paid to start on other teams? Instead, they can maximize profits. Again, the only losers are the players.

    If you take antitrust legislation to it’s logical conclusion, a few players (Brady, Manning, Brees, etc.) will be paid more. At the same time, the vast majority will be paid less. And college graduates could easily become subject to lower wages than those offered under an rookie wage scale. Why? Because all teams would be able to create an incoming graduate pay-scale. They could “interview” players as they graduate college and potential employees that want to be paid above those amounts would not be employed. Think logically, whilst there is competition for the most highly skilled grduates as they leave college in other professions, none earn the amounts NFL players do. If a player like Cam Newton demanded he wanted to be paid $10m a year, most clubs could just ignore him in the interview process. And at the same time, why would a team like the Redskins pay Newton that amount of money when they could outbid lesser revenue clubs for the services of a highly skilled veteran?

    All of the above is why I cannot support the NFLPA* in any way shape or form. Their bargaining position is aimed at making the best paid players richer, not the “rank and file”.

    They have no clear policies to redistribute the wealth of the NFL more evenly. As the salary cap has increased a select few have seen their wages massively increase, not all players.

    If the NFLPA* and especially the litigants named (Manning, Brady and Brees in particular) wanted to see the NFL players better paid, they would have looked at methods to place a MAXIMUM salary on wages. Brady would not produce on Sundays if there were not 5 OL to block for him and another 5 guys catching the ball or protecting him. Does he deserve to be paid well? Yes. Does he deserve to be paid up to 50 times as much as guys that keep him safe?

    Manning, Brady and Brees are a joke.
    DeMaurice Smith is a joke.
    The NFLPA* is a joke.

  51. jerseydevil856 says: Mar 15, 2011 12:14 PM

    ditkasmustache says: Mar 15, 2011 11:34 AM

    Nothing like a strong willed black man standing up for other black men that gets white folks all riled up!

    The minute the union rejected the all white owners last offer the nastiness started spewing forth. It looks to me that most folks that post here think that the slaves should be grateful to the “massa” for his generous offer.

    ***************************************

    Wow, this is the second time this morning I’ve seen the race card played…I guess the pro-player folks are running out of ammunition.

    And FYI Ditka…it wouldn’t matter if Smith was white, black, yellow, brown or Barney purple…an idiot is an idiot.

  52. chapnastier says: Mar 15, 2011 12:26 PM

    @ ditka

    You know one side is losing an argument when they bring out the race card!

  53. tombradyswig says: Mar 15, 2011 12:28 PM

    FIRE De Smith NOW!!!!!!
    and hire Troy!!!!!!!

  54. mattsffrd says: Mar 15, 2011 12:33 PM

    that is one sweaty black man

  55. turgidsen says: Mar 15, 2011 12:39 PM

    ditkasmustache says:

    Nothing like a strong willed black man standing up for other black men that gets white folks all riled up!

    The minute the union rejected the all white owners last offer the nastiness started spewing forth. It looks to me that most folks that post here think that the slaves should be grateful to the “massa” for his generous offer.

    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    you have just proven there is no monopoly on stupidity as you claimed browns fan has.

    Next I didn’t realize Drew Brees, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning were black. Wake up!!!! This is not a racial issue . If Gene Upshaw (RIP) could have been in there this most likely would have been resolved . But Demaurice does not have the best interest of the players he has the best interest of himself .Not because he’s black its because he is an idiot.

  56. bleedblue18 says: Mar 15, 2011 12:40 PM

    Why would this benefit only 2000 former players. The NFL has been round for 80 yrs I know there is more than 2000 former players. Hell I bet there has been a lot more than 2000 former players come and gone since 1980.

    Something sounds shady with this owners deal.

  57. biggerballz says: Mar 15, 2011 12:50 PM

    why is the *nflpa pressured? They don’t owe anything officially to the retired players. It’s funny how much entitlement the players have, the ones who retired long before to contracts that didn’t include money after retirement feel like they are owed. The current players feel like getting 60 cents of all revenues isn’t enough. Geez I can’t wait for robot football, until they become selfaware terminators that is…

  58. brambo67 says: Mar 15, 2011 12:54 PM

    Here is an ongoing picture of the salary cap year by year for those in which it existed.

    Year Maximum Team Salary
    2009 $123 million
    2008 $116 million
    2007 $109 million
    2006 $102 million
    2005 $85.5 million
    2004 $80.582 million
    2003 $75.007 million
    2002 $71.101 million
    2001 $67.405 million
    2000 $62.172 million
    1999 $57.288 million
    1998 $52.388 million
    1997 $41.454 million
    1996 $40.753 million
    1995 $37.1 million
    1994 $34.608 million

    Note, that over a period of 16 years it increased by
    $88.4m, that is an increase of 255%. If the NFLPA really had the rights of all players at it’s heart, wouldn’t we expect to see huge similar increases in the minimum wages of players?

    How about over a shorter period, say 2000 to 2009? Well the salary cap rose by 97.8% over that period. Minimum wages over that period? Rookies rose by 117K or 60.6%. How about 3rd year players? Rise of 150K or 39%. And those with 7 to 9 seasons? Rise of 305K or 69%. Quickly we can see that not all rises have been equal. And that whilst top salaries rose substantially, not all salaries rose equally.

    As you can see, they’ve really had the best interests of a select few in mind, not the majority of the players. The numbers do not lie.

  59. ninerdynasty says: Mar 15, 2011 12:59 PM

    Finfan68
    The league will go on with or without them. As much as I love the game, it might be better to not have football until these self-absorbed children endure a substantial dose of reality.
    —————————————————-

    Could not agree more! i rather go without football a year then to see these greedy a-holes get what they want.. they don’t care about the fans and apperantly neither about the sport or history of the game.. just themselves.
    Firefighters, cops, military.. they put more in the line than just their bodies.. they put their life in the line and i don’t see this type of bs coming from them..

    Im gonna go ask my employer to give us 60% of his shares and pay for my full benefits for life .. we’ll see what they says.. wish me luck!

  60. arcaero says: Mar 15, 2011 1:15 PM

    @ninerdynasty

    sounds like the players want the same deal Congress gives themselves. Maybe you should run for office!

  61. brambo67 says: Mar 15, 2011 1:20 PM

    biggerballz says: Mar 15, 2011 12:50 PM

    why is the *nflpa pressured? They don’t owe anything officially to the retired players. It’s funny how much entitlement the players have, the ones who retired long before to contracts that didn’t include money after retirement feel like they are owed. The current players feel like getting 60 cents of all revenues isn’t enough. Geez I can’t wait for robot football, until they become selfaware terminators that is…

    Why don’t they owe anything officially to the retired players? Because they are now not a Union? In that case yes. But the NFLPA was formed as a Union, with similar mandates as other Unions to look after the interests of past, present and future employees. Somewhere along the line they’ve forgotten that mandate. Maybe it was getting lawyers to run the damn thing rather than ex-players, Maybe it was when the greed of players increased that they forgot that they’re intentions. They’ve made massive increases for current stars but not the massive majority of players for a whom a Union is meant to protect. And now we have the ridiculous situation of three of the wealthiest saying they were disrespected by owners. Manning, Brady and Brees should be black-balled. They don’t have the true belief in seeing all players doing better. Why am I so adamant in that belief? Because if they truly did, they would not have allowed an “arms race” to develop were each wanted to the highest paid player in the NFL. Under a salary cap situation, every extra $1m they take in contract is another $1m less that the other players are paid in total.

    When Manning, Brady and Brees are gone the NFL will still exist. Their teams will get new fans, new players and those fans will find new heroes. These guys are in it for themselves. They want as much money as possible FOR THEMSELVES. There is no altruistic nature in them signing this law-suit. Only fools that hero worship these flawed individuals will be taken in by their actions.

  62. ditkasmustache says: Mar 15, 2011 1:35 PM

    ninerdynasty says: Mar 15, 2011 12:59 PM

    Firefighters, cops, military.. they put more in the line than just their bodies…

    ———————–

    I guess you don’t follow the news much. The ruling class wants to bust the police and firrmen’s unions too.

  63. phelbin says: Mar 15, 2011 1:35 PM

    It’s amazing to me that the vast majority of comments here are very much against the players. I keep hearing on talk radio that the fans aren’t taking sides, but I really don’t think it’s true. I’m fine with losing a season if it crushes the union! The 49ers stink anyway.

    @Ditka – By saying that the owners didn’t take the deal because De Smith is a strong black man, you’re basically saying that the NFL owners should have accepted a bad deal BECAUSE he’s a strong black man. Doesn’t that make YOU the racist? I, for one, would rather look at the merits of the deal and ignore the race of the parties involved.

  64. ninerdynasty says: Mar 15, 2011 1:57 PM

    Ditkamustache-
    It looks to me that most folks that post here think that the slaves should be grateful to the “massa” for his generous offer.
    ————————————-

    WOW.. way to bring the racial card in.. i don’t think anyone here said anything about black, blue, white.. Slaves did not get paid 10Mil a year and were dummies that shot themselves on the foot… literally and then asked for more $ would not WORK.. and yes, work, as the players are EMPLOYEE’s.. not partner or slaves..

  65. hobartbaker says: Mar 15, 2011 3:29 PM

    Looking at George, I think he might be the guy to exert pressure on Smith. Specifically on his carotid artery at the base of his throat. For about 5 minutes. Just to be safe.

  66. lucky5927 says: Mar 15, 2011 4:31 PM

    Good thing Brees and Manning are defending this prick who will not care about them in 10 years.

  67. dredmonk says: Mar 16, 2011 12:38 AM

    Nothing like a strong willed black man standing up for other black men that gets white folks all riled up!

    The minute the union rejected the all white owners last offer the nastiness started spewing forth. It looks to me that most folks that post here think that the slaves should be grateful to the “massa” for his generous offer.

    ———————————

    I’m sorry. I was under the impression that there were white men, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups playing in the NFL too – I didn’t realize they were all black men.

    Anyways, no one is forcing the black man to play in the NFL, and make hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in the process. I think that pretty much disqualifies them as “slaves”. They can walk away any time they like.

    As for DSmith, he owes it to the Alumni to at least make them part of the process. At least to me, it shows he’s got his own personal agenda.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!