Smith the new NFLPA President

[Patler]

DeMaurice Smith it is. A few months ago he was considered to be a long shot for the position. I commend the players for an apparent effort to elect the best. They didn't simply go with one of the former players they knew. I don't know if they are right or not, if SMith really is the best or not, but it looks like they tried to do the best they could.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80f469df&template=without-video&confirm=true

[KYPack]

Who?

[Patler]

Who?

A trial lawyer from DC. The search committee identified him. I believe he wanted to withdraw at one point, but was encouraged not to because many at the top felt an outsider skilled in business and negotiations was needed. Here is a link to a good article about his background and plans for the NFLPA, along with interview excerpts:

http://views.washingtonpost.com/theleague/nflnewsfeed/2009/03/demaurice-smith-elected-new-union-leader.html

I first started looking into him a couple months ago, when articles identified him. He seems to really have a plan, including looking after the old retired players who built the league. Personally, I like the choice.

[bobblehead]

I was disappointed when I heard it was a trial lawyer...they tend to see things differently at times. That being said I know nothing about the guy but I hope both sides are being reasonable and not killing the goose that laid the golden egg while fighting over the eggs.

[Patler]

I was disappointed when I heard it was a trial lawyer...they tend to see things differently at times. That being said I know nothing about the guy but I hope both sides are being reasonable and not killing the goose that laid the golden egg while fighting over the eggs.

You must have been disappointed with the hiring of Mark Murphy, a former trial attorney. :lol:

I would agree that many criminal defense attorneys sometimes see things a little differently, but in general trial attorneys are very fact oriented. Facts are facts and have to be dealt with. Suppositions, innuendos and theories are not facts and shouldn't be treated as such. Criminal defense lawyers often try to give these the same weight as facts.

I think a person willing to deal objectively with facts is what is needed in the current CBA negotiation. Hopefully each side can put one at the bargaining table.

[vince]

Here's a good article introducing how Smith basically stole the job from the presumptive favorites by wowing the representatives with his presentation and grasp of the issues - and the overviewing the most important issues the players face for those interested.

The author presents and interesting and somewhat counterintuitive argument against greater rookie salary controls, which has been a popular rallying cry among fans and players.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/2009/03/and-the-winner-issmith/

And The Winner Is…Smith?
In a shocking reversal of direction that defied the pundits and conventional wisdom, Washington lawyer DeMaurice Smith was selected by NFL player representatives late Sunday as the new executive director of the NFLPA. Smith was considered the longest shot of any of the four finalists who offered presentations to player representatives and alternates in Hawaii. The other finalists included former players and union presidents Trace Armstrong and Troy Vincent and sports attorney David Cornwell. Smith was the only candidate with no connection to the NFL or its business.

However, history tells us that surprise candidates can have historic impact. Pete Rozelle, perhaps the most significant figure in the development of professional football as a business, was selected commissioner after more than 20 ballots in 1959.

Reasons for Optimism

And there is more reason to greet Smith’s election with optimism. In his first statements, he spoke of the tradition of labor peace that has helped the NFL put distance between itself and other sports that had to recover, or are still recovering, from work stoppages. The steroid era in baseball seems a direct result of the 1994 strike. Hockey may never recover from lockouts that claimed more than one and a half seasons in 1995 and 2005. The NBA has never reclaimed its relevance after its 1998-99 lockout. So labor peace cannot be underestimated. Smith also spoke about the moral and business need to address the health and welfare issues of retired players.

What apparently allowed Smith to come from off-the-pace to claim the vote was that he, like the big-firm lawyer he is, put together a presentation that explained the full scope of issues facing the union as it moves forward. His presentation was accompanied by advice from a dozen or more experts in finance, licensing and labor issues. Clearly, Smith outflanked his opponents with the breadth and specificity of his presentation and moved the player reps to cast their fate with him.

Smith doesn’t have hands-on experience in labor law or antitrust, the two primary battlefields where his work will take place as executive director of the union, but he’s been a partner in a major law firm known for its ability to gain influence inside the halls of power. He has also been a trial lawyer, meaning he can adjust quickly to a changing set of problems and has an ability to marshal facts, make an argument and convince people as to the correctness of his or the union’s case. Don’t expect Smith to be radical; insider Washington lawyers rarely are. But hopefully, he will be smart, able to borrow the best ideas from the current leadership of the NFLPA and courageous enough to opt for new directions and solutions as circumstances demand.

A Series of Challenges Await Smith

Here is a brief litany of the challenges Smith faces in his new job:

1. Smith must persuade owners that this is not a time for a lockout – or even an uncapped and unfloored year, or ending the draft, and the problems the owners have with players are not insurmountable. Ideally, Smith would want to quickly extend the current Collective Bargaining Agreement with as few concessions to the bad economy or ownership as possible. The greed of several owners has usually convinced a majority of the rest to come together in the past. Smith needs to effectively persuade or scare Cincinnati’s Mike Brown and Buffalo’s Ralph Wilson into agreeing that maintaining labor peace with similar financial commitments to the players is better than allowing Washington’s Dan Snyder and Dallas’ Jerry Jones to create an unrestricted market for player resources condemning small-market teams to being perennial also-rans.

2. Despite seeking peace, Smith must prepare for war – or in this case, a lockout and possibly the voluntary decertification of the NFLPA to avoid that lockout and then pursuing antitrust (collusion) claims on behalf of players as an association but not a union. The current players association did this in the early ‘90s, and the owners waved a white flag. But to do this, Smith must quickly earn and maintain the respect of players to keep the owners from reorganizing the players into a company union.

3. Smith must find new money sources to help retired players – and make their conditions better. It needs to come from new money since the present pie is accounted for. The unfortunate timing issue is that the licensing and sponsorship markets, which would be obvious sources of this new money, are greatly diminished in the current economy.

4. Smith must prevent his current players from joining with owners to destroy rookie compensation – a common practice in unions that’s known as “eating the young,” meaning that current members sell out future members without recognizing the cost implication this has to current members. The problem is that, while it sparks anger among veteran players, fans and owners, the amount that rookies are paid is actually critical to maintaining overall compensation for current players and free agents. If an unproven rookie is making more than a future Hall of Famer, it ensures future salary growth for veterans who can base their demands off the rise in rookie compensation. It is effectively football’s version of baseball’s system of “all-or-nothing” salary arbitration, an irrational escalator. Smith must find a way to give ground on this issue to appear reasonable but maintain its impact on overall compensation.

5. Understand that this is a business, but one that survives only if new fans are created – so the players union must be in the lead in re-establishing players as likeable and widely embraced role models; in keeping some ticket prices within reach of average fans; in keeping games on television and keeping television ratings and rights fees strong; in keeping kids in America playing football; in improving the new media outreach of the sport, and growing the game and interest in it internationally better than the half-hearted attempts made to date.

[Rastak]

Very cool article Vince, thanks for posting.

I do have issue with this one....


4. Smith must prevent his current players from joining with owners to destroy rookie compensation – a common practice in unions that’s known as “eating the young,” meaning that current members sell out future members without recognizing the cost implication this has to current members. The problem is that, while it sparks anger among veteran players, fans and owners, the amount that rookies are paid is actually critical to maintaining overall compensation for current players and free agents. If an unproven rookie is making more than a future Hall of Famer, it ensures future salary growth for veterans who can base their demands off the rise in rookie compensation. It is effectively football’s version of baseball’s system of “all-or-nothing” salary arbitration, an irrational escalator. Smith must find a way to give ground on this issue to appear reasonable but maintain its impact on overall compensation.




When rookie guy makes a ton, fringe guys get cut. This dude is supposed to represent ALL THE PALYERS, not the top 5%.


He needs to figure out how to get the majority of his members the most cash and longevity, not how to make the elite even richer. He needs to ensure the middle class of NFL players doesn;t get the boot for undrafted free agents because the top 5% is forcing cuts elsewhere.


In addition, I've heard Smith say "Once the cap is gone, it will never come back. I have a couple of things to say to that.

1) Fine. Consider the NFL isn't going to roll over and die if this is the absoulte breaking point. They agree to no cap, they also insist on percentage of the revenue and the majority of owners could force decent revenue sharing. If 3 or 4 oweners go nuts, the trust fund I assume the players would pay to to ensure the percentage of the revenue wasn't exceeded goes right back to the owners, and out of the players pockets.

2) If I'm the NFL, I say..."we put up the cash, 60% of the revenue is a thing of the past, you get 50%" The union goes nuts. Which leads me to 3.

3) I don't give a good god damn whose names are on the back of the jerseys. Most real NFL fans don't either. Did Patler, KY and Oregon stop watching the Pack when Curly Lambeau retired as a player in 1929? Did I ( a much younger fellow) quit watching the Vikes when Eller, Page and Marshall retired? Did I say, "well, that's that I guess, what else is on TV?"

The demonization of Favre proves beyond a shadow of a doubt to me, we don't give a flying fuck who wears the jersey. We cheer for the jersey, not the player for the most part.

If they started over in 2012, I'm watching. The players have a great deal. The next one won't be as great. They better get used to the idea, unless the owners are severe morons.

[KYPack]

I got yer Curly Lambeau right here, pal.

Trying to see if the old guys were still reading yer posts, Ras?

Actually, that was a pretty good funny.

[Patler]

Did Patler, KY and Oregon stop watching the Pack when Curly Lambeau retired as a player in 1929? Did I ( a much younger fellow) quit watching the Vikes when Eller, Page and Marshall retired? Did I say, "well, that's that I guess, what else is on TV?"

Foolish young whipper snapper! How could we stop "watching" something we couldn't "watch" in the first place? (No TV.) :lol:

By the way, what is a whipper and how does one snap it??? :? :?

[oregonpackfan]

Did Patler, KY and Oregon stop watching the Pack when Curly Lambeau retired as a player in 1929?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Rastak,

I laughed so hard with that comment, I almost saturated my Depends! :)

Though I may be an "Old Fart" by some posters standards, the year 1929 was long before my time. In fact, my late father was just 6 years old that year. He was still at the stage of looking at girls and squirming "Yuck!" before even thinking about bringing me in the world. :)

[vince]

When rookie guy makes a ton, fringe guys get cut. This dude is supposed to represent ALL THE PALYERS, not the top 5%.

He needs to figure out how to get the majority of his members the most cash and longevity, not how to make the elite even richer. He needs to ensure the middle class of NFL players doesn;t get the boot for undrafted free agents because the top 5% is forcing cuts elsewhere.
There's the counterintuitivity. The author makes exactly the opposite argument. He says it will be LOWERING and controlling rookie salaries that will get the fringe veterans cut and/or cause them to earn less money.

Controlling rookie salaries makes the (fringe) veterans more expensive then they are currently relative to the rookies, giving teams greater incentive to keep the less expensive rookies instead of the average vets.

Lowering rookie salaries then serves to lower the overall comparative pay scale for the average veteran players - ultimately putting even more money into the top 5% pockets.

[Fritz]

To me, it's not about lowering all rookie salaries - just those top ten or fifteen. I think the disparity in pay between a kid drafted at the #4 spot, say, and a kid drafted at the #24 spot is far too great.

If you can lower those top ten or so rookie salaries, you'd re-establish the #1 overall pick as being valuable instead of being an albatross. You'd also free up some cash for the fringe guys, and still be able to use the rookies' scale to help up the overall pay scale.

Thank you for considering me for your next NFLPA Packerrats leader. A vote for Fritz is a vote for stability, increased wages, security, and family values, whatever those are.

[KYPack]

To me, it's not about lowering all rookie salaries - just those top ten or fifteen. I think the disparity in pay between a kid drafted at the #4 spot, say, and a kid drafted at the #24 spot is far too great.

If you can lower those top ten or so rookie salaries, you'd re-establish the #1 overall pick as being valuable instead of being an albatross. You'd also free up some cash for the fringe guys, and still be able to use the rookies' scale to help up the overall pay scale.

Thank you for considering me for your next NFLPA Packerrats leader. A vote for Fritz is a vote for stability, increased wages, security, and family values, whatever those are.

EVERYBODY hates the disparity in the first round slots. I was looking over recent drafts and it's striking how many people are trading out of the 1st. We did it last year with a relatively low first round pick. The top pick pay scale has really gotten ridiculous.

This is gonna be a prime issue in the CBA/labor negotiation between the Union and the league. A strike or stoppage is almost guaranteed. It shapes up as being ugly.

[Waldo]

To me, it's not about lowering all rookie salaries - just those top ten or fifteen. I think the disparity in pay between a kid drafted at the #4 spot, say, and a kid drafted at the #24 spot is far too great.

If you can lower those top ten or so rookie salaries, you'd re-establish the #1 overall pick as being valuable instead of being an albatross. You'd also free up some cash for the fringe guys, and still be able to use the rookies' scale to help up the overall pay scale.

Thank you for considering me for your next NFLPA Packerrats leader. A vote for Fritz is a vote for stability, increased wages, security, and family values, whatever those are.

EVERYBODY hates the disparity in the first round slots. I was looking over recent drafts and it's striking how many people are trading out of the 1st. We did it last year with a relatively low first round pick. The top pick pay scale has really gotten ridiculous.

This is gonna be a prime issue in the CBA/labor negotiation between the Union and the league. A strike or stoppage is almost guaranteed. It shapes up as being ugly.

They can make that rookie pay problem go away real easy. As is, there is a rookie cap, but it has very little meaning as there are ways to easily circumvent it.

So:
1) Do similar to what they do with uncapped rules, limit salary (which would include single year roster and workout bonuses) growth from year to year to a fixed #, like the 30% currently used for uncapped years.
2) Eliminate all deferred option bonuses for players who haven't been in the league at least X number of years the day the contract is signed. (The way the rookie cap is currently circumvented, they give them their big signing bonus right after their rookie year when the rookie cap no longer applies).
3) Raise the rookie cap. Sounds counterintuitive, but the rookie cap right now is so low relative to how much rookies actually get in their contracts, the first two rules I laid out would cause the #1 overall pick to drop to a 10-15M contract tops with the current rookie cap, which is too low IMO.