Skip to content

De Smith shouldn’t be surprised about new revenue sharing arrangement

DeMaurice Smith AP

One of the surprising aspects of the NFL’s Thursday night press conference arose when the league mentioned that the owners approved a new supplemental revenue sharing plan.  It was surprising because no one knew the NFL was considering a new supplemental revenue sharing plan.

Even more surprising was the concern expressed by NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith in his e-mail to the player representatives regarding the owners’ supplemental revenue sharing plan.

“As you may have heard,” Smith wrote, “they apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal.  Obviously, we have not been a part of those discussions.”

The NFLPA* hasn’t been part of those discussions regarding that issue because the NFLPA* showed no interest in that issue.  All along, the elephant in the room was the league’s effort to fix revenue disparities by taking money back from the players.  For reasons still unknown, the NFLPA* never pushed that issue.

So while there may be plenty of reasons to balk about the misguided power play that the owners have tried to pull, complaining about an issue about which the players previously didn’t care badly misses the mark.

Permalink 65 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
65 Responses to “De Smith shouldn’t be surprised about new revenue sharing arrangement”
  1. Little Earthquake says: Jul 21, 2011 9:04 PM

    All they had to do was speak up to be a part of the discussion….isn’t that what their team of high-paid attorneys is for?

  2. footballfanatic3431 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:04 PM

    Something is totally screwey about this situation.

    Some players say they haven’t even seen the deal yet.
    Other players are saying that the owners added things to the deal that the NFLPA didn’t agree too.

    There is so much confusion and it just further pisses me off.

    Super close to cancelling my DirecTv NFL package and boycotting the season.

  3. footballnut2011 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:04 PM

    The guy has NO CLUE !

  4. firethorn1001 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:04 PM

    If the owners take from their piece of the pie, who cares what they do with it?

  5. larryfinfan says: Jul 21, 2011 9:06 PM

    The revenue sharing plan has no affect on the negotiations. That plan is for the business of the NFL owners and how they distribute their own share of the revenues…what is De Smith concerned about ??

  6. tgrfan42069 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:06 PM

    NFLPA is just making excuses not to vote.they are nothing but greedy spoiled brats holding out for more.

  7. echoplex89 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:07 PM

    he should be fired. these players and their lawyers have been schooled by the rich owners and their fancier lawyers.

    They’re pros on the field, but amateurs off the field.

    Pathetic.

  8. hunter300win says: Jul 21, 2011 9:07 PM

    De Smith is the most incompetent mother fu###r I have ever seen in my life. Off with his head !

  9. monk316 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:08 PM

    What do the players have to do with the revenue sharing plan?

  10. doe22us says: Jul 21, 2011 9:08 PM

    Am i the only one that thinks D.Smith’s face looks like a butt-hole?

  11. patriotsdefense says: Jul 21, 2011 9:08 PM

    Has HBO’s ‘Hard Knocks’ survived or has the lockout claimed another causality?

  12. deadeye says: Jul 21, 2011 9:08 PM

    For there to be a 90 or 95% salary floor, the league HAD to institute some serious revenue sharing like the NFL did in the 70s and 80s, until Jerruh came along. Ever since the early 90s, revenue sharing has been greatly widdled down.

    We fans obviously haven’t been privy to the details, but it looks like there is an increase in the revenue sharing based on the fact that Wilson and Brown voted for this agreement. If so, that’s good news for the league.

    The players should be happy with that as well since it will keep teams from smaller markets viable much longer than the previous CBA would have. More teams means more union members.

  13. kom2k10 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:09 PM

    Every single post on this website better be RIPPING DeSmith for dropping the ball on this! They’ve been negotiating for weeks, Goodell got the owners to approve, it’s time DeSmith stops looking like a fool and GETS THIS DONE!!!

  14. kcfanatic says: Jul 21, 2011 9:10 PM

    I’m not sure there was a power play. I wasn’t in the room, but it sure feels as though the owners thought they had negotiated a settlement with DE Smith. It feels like major spin by the NFLPA* Lawyers. I want to see DE Smith come out and say live on TV if he agreed to these terms or not. This just isn’t passing the smell test.

  15. capslockkey says: Jul 21, 2011 9:10 PM

    Yep. If this is essentially the same deal he worked out with Goodall and the owners, why on earth would something like team revenue sharing be of any concern to the players? Just seems like another excuse for the players to drag their feet.

  16. apac6586 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:10 PM

    The title should read: “De Smith shouldn’t be surprised about getting beat up by everyone.”

  17. lewjr says: Jul 21, 2011 9:10 PM

    Trey Wingo just said it best.
    Quoting National Lampoon Vacation: “Are you sure you didnt order the family truckster? If you think its crap now…wait till you drive it”

  18. bigdinla says: Jul 21, 2011 9:11 PM

    Well duh! How dare the NFL decide what to do with it’s share of the pie without NFLPA approval.

  19. sonic5abi says: Jul 21, 2011 9:11 PM

    How pathetic

  20. awestcave says: Jul 21, 2011 9:11 PM

    Remember Gene Upshaw?

  21. eaglesfan290 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:11 PM

    When De Smith is done destroying the NFL I’m sure Obama will offer him a job!

  22. thephantomstranger says: Jul 21, 2011 9:11 PM

    Well, we came close. Whatever. Anyone see that the Lynx are in first place in the Western Conference?

  23. gtmann says: Jul 21, 2011 9:11 PM

    Why the hell would players care about revenue sharing ?????

  24. jaggedmark says: Jul 21, 2011 9:12 PM

    That’s YOUR spin, Mike.

  25. daedas says: Jul 21, 2011 9:13 PM

    Why would the players have any interest (or say) on how the owners share their side of the revenue pie?

    With cap max and minimum agreed to how the revenue gets shared among the teams shouldn’t have any impact.

  26. broncofan4life says: Jul 21, 2011 9:14 PM

    I just talked with some friends who said they love football and had no idea there was a lockout. Are we a rare breed or is the rest of the public that much in the dark. For all of us and the rest of the unknowing get it done

  27. lamepftposter says: Jul 21, 2011 9:14 PM

    i’m looking forward to spending my sports entertainment dollars on washington capitals gear/tickets.

  28. joemac1114 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:14 PM

    Really De with all that high priced legal “talent” someone left this issue on the table. Well I am sure the University of Virgina Law School is proud of your work.

  29. stew1020 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:15 PM

    Wouldn’t revenue sharing relate to what the clubs do with their percentage of the revenues? The players can pound sand on that issue.

  30. trbowman says: Jul 21, 2011 9:15 PM

    Just forget about these clowns and bring on the replacement players.

  31. capslockkey says: Jul 21, 2011 9:19 PM

    Sounds like according to Heath Evans on ESPN, they are still bitching about wanting that 320 million dollars.

  32. glen1904 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:20 PM

    how could the players be surprised that the owners tried to sneak things into the proposal and make them look bad if they don;t just sign away the next ten years. look at the greedy clowns they are dealing with. (yes JJ you)
    the only thing to do is just admit to themselves that they will be vilified no matter what they do by the ditto’s and anti-union/player type’s and dig in their heals and play hardball. It is the only way to deal with the large ego’s of these disgustingly wealthy owners. Multi billionaires all think they are the too big to fail, job creators as described in the press and everyone needs them, they are entitled and the world is their oyster.

  33. vetdana says: Jul 21, 2011 9:20 PM

    Why would the NFLPA* have no interest in a revenue sharing proposal and why would the owners include one in an agreement that was not first discussed with the players ? This makes no sense !

  34. msclemons67 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:21 PM

    Why would the NFLPA* have any part in revenue sharing? As long as they get their share and the lawyers get paid it’s a non-issue for the players.

  35. vicksbitch says: Jul 21, 2011 9:21 PM

    Your comment is tough to follow; because the NFLPA did not push an issue owners do not have the right to unilaterally impose it into a settlement at the last minute with no discussion with the other party

  36. drgreenstreak says: Jul 21, 2011 9:22 PM

    Time for D Smith to step aside. Maybe the player reps should as well.
    Smith knew what the owners were doing and approved it. If his communication with players is that bad, he’s toast.

  37. livenbreathefootball says: Jul 21, 2011 9:24 PM

    It is none of the NFLPA’s business how the Owners decide to share revenue amongst themselves. That is the owners’ business. Just like how and when to reconstitute the NFLPA is the players’ business.

  38. lovesportsandsurfing says: Jul 21, 2011 9:25 PM

    You all should do what I did, I looked into De Smiths supposed college degrees,..hes not a lawyer, and has no college education, not a legit one anyway.

  39. drgreenstreak says: Jul 21, 2011 9:28 PM

    Bad thing is owners playing the Daddy role and not giving Smith the info ahead of time.

  40. endzonezombie says: Jul 21, 2011 9:29 PM

    “The NFLPA* hasn’t been part of those discussions regarding that issue because the NFLPA* showed no interest in that issue.”

    No media source has any direct knowledge of the above issue. The entire process has been under a gag order by the federal mediator. The mediator did not want the media inflaming the process by spreading rumors based upin innuendo.

  41. Caldon says: Jul 21, 2011 9:29 PM

    and frankly how the league shares the revenue among team/owners has no impact on the players since that is separate from what they receive and thus is none of their business.

  42. bpjensen says: Jul 21, 2011 9:30 PM

    Yeah, what business is it of the players how the owner’s share of revenue is divided amongst the teams? Why would the players even think they have a voice in those discussions?

  43. timtheenchanter1 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:31 PM

    I thought it was the owners who refused to include it in the negotiations saying (perhaps rightly) that it was internal to the management of the league and thus not something to be bargained. In the last go ’round, Upshaw made it part of the deal and that was one of the biggest issues with the last CBA.

    Since the real “broken business model” for the owners was revenue sharing to cover the disparity between the Jones’s and the Browns, they wanted to see how much they could squeeze out of the players first before determining how much needed to be shared to keep the poorer teams afloat.

  44. cardsfann1 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:31 PM

    I have never been more disgusted than I am right now. I have always been quite the optimist especially since I am a Cards fan but I think I am about to give up hope. Never thought it would have come to this. Never. Pathetic and the players should be ashamed of themselves.

  45. tedskins333 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:32 PM

    maybe all these selfish egotistic, d-bag, a-holes should not be able to play at all…f*** them

  46. doe22us says: Jul 21, 2011 9:33 PM

    lovesportsandsurfing says:
    Jul 21, 2011 9:25 PM
    You all should do what I did, I looked into De Smiths supposed college degrees,..hes not a lawyer, and has no college education, not a legit one anyway.

    as much as i think D.Smith is a douche what are you talking about? stay off that reefer

  47. ee00ee says: Jul 21, 2011 9:34 PM

    They can’t compel them to form a union on any terms.

    It’s also dealing in bad faith to work out an agreement for vote and then slip in any other details. If it was simply a matter of how the owners will distribute the revenue between teams with no effect on the player it wouldn’t have required players vote. No, the owners are trying to pull a fast one…. again.

  48. austin2720 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:36 PM

    Wow, this crap isn’t close to being over! This is just a mirage…………………

  49. bob01826 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:40 PM

    Why do the players care. This is the deal the Big Market owners had to make with the smaller market owners. This is how Jones, Kraft, Snyder and Spanos paid off the Bengals, Jaguars and other fiscally struggling teams. They know the NFL is the success it is because these small market teams have a chance fiscally to compete. I would think the players would be thrilled about this.

  50. ehatem says: Jul 21, 2011 9:42 PM

    You know, maybe if the players had been, I don’t know, negotiating all the crap other then revenue while playing out their court cases instead of acting like 4 year olds holding their breath to get their way we wouldn’t be here. Am I saying they shouldn’t of sued? Of course not. Its the only way they got some leverage. But to ignore the other issues that COULD have been resolved by now because they wanted to case to proceed knowing damn well it would eventually get back to the negotiating table was the height of irresponsibility. Its not like the owners were saying they wouldn’t negotiate. Its all they freaking said during the court cases.

    Give up the 320 million that you agreed to give up via the last CBA (that the players ratified), tell Vincent Jackson to shut the Hell up, sign the damn contract, and play freaking football. My sympathy level for the players is done. The owners are no saints, but the players dug this hole and refused to do much about it until the last minute. I swear to God I’m about to just watch Australian rules football and be done with it.

  51. thefiesty1 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:04 PM

    It’s none of his business whatever the owners revenue sharing deal. He decertified and walked out on March 11.
    Why are the owners still talking to this a-hole?

  52. lostsok says: Jul 21, 2011 10:48 PM

    Average comment from the average “fan”:

    WAAAAH!!! IT’S ALL ABOUT MEEEEE!”

    Losers.

    It’ll be over soon, and all you cry-baby sissies who claimed you were “done” will come crawling back claiming YOU’RE the biggest fan.

    Pathetic.

  53. jjpack says: Jul 21, 2011 11:06 PM

    FYI, just to clarify, it was my understanding that the owners ALSO announced today that they had agreed to a supplemental revenue sharing plan agreement, apart from radifing the CBA agreement. This was not, and should never be included within a CBA as this is solely an issue as to how the owners will split their share between the clubs.

    This was an issue effecting the the CBA because until the owners settled their own differences it would/could impact on the final CBA with the players. De Smith said from day one that was the owners problem and their issue to deal with – SO THEY HAVE – and now he stays this is a problem, WTF is problem, I expect stalling, this has Kessler written all over it – playing on the fears of the the players to delay, delay, delay and he gets $$$$$$$$$.

  54. dknice says: Jul 21, 2011 11:30 PM

    The slave mentality that permeates this site is astounding. Somehow billionaire owners are the sympathetic figures who are above reproach while the players are greedy? This place is like Fox News light with the self loathing, ignorant posters.

  55. easyeddie says: Jul 22, 2011 12:36 AM

    dknice says:
    Jul 21, 2011 11:30 PM
    The slave mentality that permeates this site is astounding. Somehow billionaire owners are the sympathetic figures who are above reproach while the players are greedy? This place is like Fox News light with the self loathing, ignorant posters.
    ————————————

    Sorry, but its hard to make D. Smith, the other NFLPA clowns and the shoot-from- the -lip NFL flunkies with their inane tweets sound sympathetic.

  56. bjb2865 says: Jul 22, 2011 1:05 AM

    If the revenue sharing doesnt have anything to do with the players,then why the hell would they include it into the CBA?….It should have been an issue outside the CBA that the owners should have negotiated amongst themselves.

  57. lawboy2000 says: Jul 22, 2011 1:21 AM

    Best bitter beer face of them all. Even better than Manning.

  58. mathsimillion says: Jul 22, 2011 1:44 AM

    This is the Tard that the players wanted to lead them.

    I can just imagine Kessler sitting back letting De negotiate this deal only so he can come in and blow it up by pointing out all these things the owners wanted, or this language that doesn’t sit right, all so that he fulfills his wet dream of ruining football as we know it.

    This sucks.

  59. vabillsfan says: Jul 22, 2011 6:36 AM

    so if i have this right – the players never addressed revenue sharing between the owners – which by the way does not impact the players. so the owners add revenue sharing in at the last minute to the CBA. this should be a good thing because the likes of the bills and vikings may be able to stay put.

    despite this – the players freak out because this wasnt originally negotiated. So in response they ask for a 7 year opt out provision – apparently as a horse trade to approve the revenue sharing. that’s BS! just approve the deal you idiots and stop acting like spoiled brats.

  60. scudbot says: Jul 22, 2011 6:43 AM

    What, no Hitler reference? dknice says: “The slave mentality that permeates this site is astounding” thereby creating a straw man argument *and* setting up a false dichotomy, probably via his iDevice that no one else is allowed to touch. Read the Wikipedia article about logical fallacies and then retake the second semester of Propaganda 101.

  61. madrid517 says: Jul 22, 2011 7:35 AM

    It’s none of the players or the NFLPA* business how the owners share their revenue. All they should be worrying about is how much they are getting, which it sounds like they already know. Why start drama where it shouldn’t be?

  62. moochzilla says: Jul 22, 2011 8:17 AM

    Can someone explain this? Does it somehow remove revenue from the pool that would be subject to sharing with the NFLPA?

    Al Davis has always had issues with the revenue sharing agreement.

    So there’s a lot going on here that is being lost amid the “who won who lost” and “who is greedy” discussion, which is played by now.

  63. 4ever19 says: Jul 22, 2011 8:18 AM

    If how the owners divide up their money isn’t an issue for the players to worry their pretty little heads about, then why would the owners put it in the CBA? Why would they make it part of a deal the players are supposed to sign?

  64. moochzilla says: Jul 22, 2011 8:19 AM

    And if it has nothing to do with the CBA, why is it apparently IN the CBA for the players to ‘approve’?

  65. bigbeefyd says: Jul 22, 2011 9:56 AM

    It shouldn’t make a damned bit of difference to the players. This is owners’ business.

Leave a Reply

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