Requiem to a Bad Man: Say what you want about Upshaw . . .

[goldenster95]

Amidst the din of the criticism being leveled at the participants in what’s masquerading as “labor negotiations”, none rings more hollow than that directed at Gene Upshaw. Incredibly, he’s being accused by some as the one poisoning the process by balking at an agreement over a piddly percentage difference on his union’s take on NFL revenue.

Well, just in case anyone’s forgotten, he’s the head official of a union. His job is to protect the interest of those he represents, which are the employees of 32 NFL teams that are owned by some of the most wealthiest individuals in the world. To be sure, some of his members might never see a Lear Jet that may ever completely meet their needs. But those few are eclipsed by the remaining lot of them -- dues paying members that fit the profile of the guy that lasts an average of four years in the league. When that guy’s out, he won’t have an education or any skills to show for himself and won’t also have anything left to last him a few years, if that.

Setting all that to one side, he’s also being asked to limit what their employers will be able to spend on them. Ever dream that a union, which usually mounts as its crowning accomplishment its scale of union wages, would ever be applauded for accepting a cap on its members’ compensation? Any union members out there want to gladhand your union officer for doing that? Better yet, ever think that he’d be criticized for being ever too greedy for wanting just a bit more than the cap allows? And please don’t offer up any garbage that the NFL is a different industry. It may be, but no so different to start turning on its head the most basic of conventions in collective bargaining.

And, yes, that damn cap. The richest franchises in major pro sports need a cap to halt the lottery-like contracts that will surely shatter the fragile intra-owner and labor peace they’ve brokered since the late ‘80s. And it doesn’t have to be any old cap. Oh no. It has to be a hard cap. Never mind that basketball has done well with a soft cap itself. And never mind that the hard cap has turned the once-honored ideal of player and team loyalty in the NFL into a perverse band of mercenaries willing to peddle their skills to the very highest bidder. Oh yeah, let’s not forget to thank his former team for sending him to finishing school. That education will come in handy for his next employer, the gleaming beneficiary of this elusive dream of parody errr parity in the NFL. But that’s yet another issue with the cap.

So, Gene, wassup up wit you, dog?

Maybe that question ought to be posed to Paul Tagliabue. And he ought very well to know what’s up. Or down. That’ll be the horror of the uncapped year next season. But that’s just the R-rated version of what might happen. I mean, why should G-Dawg be so accommodating? Hey, the union disclaimed interest about 20 years ago.

Why hold back on that now?

No union, no cap.

No union, no draft.

Free agency? Just try it, Paul.

Then face the antitrust suit that’ll be coming your way. Where will you be then? That’s right. On the phone with the union, asking to recognize them once again and begging them to come back to negotiate a deal with a cap and free agency.

And how’ll that phone call start?

“Hey Gene, it’s Paul, let’s meet for lunch tomorrow at the Capitol Grille.”

Yep, that bad man Gene.

He just never goes away.

[LiveStrongSkins]

good points all through that post. People are flaming Upshaw for doing his job.

[ImmortalDragon]

Great post

[Neophyte]

Sorry man. Even those guys in the NFL who only work for 4 years have it better than most in this country. If they work for minimum and only minimum salary with no bonus and no playoff experience while appearing in an average of 4 pre-season games they will make $2.07 million. That is not chump change, my friend and not something I am going to cry over. Most of those guys will also leave college debt free due to full rides.

I know how many decades (yes, decades) it would take me to earn that much at my current rate of pay (well above the average in this country) and frankly I don't want to work that long. Not to mention that it took 10 years to pay off my college debt. I work a longer week and I work more weeks.

Seriously man, who are you kidding. If they invest even half smartly during those 4 years in the NFL there is no reason they can't see well over $100K in interest per year and live off that for the rest of their lives, education or no. And while we are on that subject, if they don't leave college with an education it is their own fault and no one elses. Period.

These guys have the best of it right now. I will not feel sorry for them and I will not make Upshaw out to be a hero. He is just another labor union goon trying to wring money out of management when there is already a scarey amount of money there for "labor". And before you slap me around for not understanding unions I'll let you know I was a card carrying member of one for 3 years. Some of the worst money I ever spent was joining that union.

Sure, there is a cap. It is in the players best interests as well as the owners and don't let anyone tell you different. Every player I have heard interviewed in the last week with half a brain has been vocally in favor of the cap. It makes teams competitive. Every team. It is the basis for making this league the model of how sports should work in the country. I don't hear anyone arguing for baseball's system where the difference between the top payroll and the bottom payroll is nearly twice what the cap was per team this last year in the NFL. Do you?

Get real... This is greed. Period.

[stevenaa]

There is no question that Upshaw is trying to get the best deal for the players. That is his job. That doesn't mean he's not asking for too much. I don't no one way or another. Who of us can really say whether 60% is too much? I think that no CBA is ultimately worse for the players than the owners. Especially over the course of the next 3 years.

[Seabee1973]

good points all through that post. People are flaming Upshaw for doing his job.

A lot of the players are also one player that came forward with critisism of him was the minnesota center

[Seabee1973]

Evbery one of these players can hire a broker or someone to manage there brokerage accounts. If i had some of there pay at the interest i earn off of investing myself i would be set in a few years. instead i have to figure out how to invest more. LOL

[MisterPinstripe]

I believe he should be protecting the players, but I think he is going a little too far. He is going from protecting those players (including those lower salary four year guys) to hurting them. And those lower salary four year guys cant take it like the higher guys. It is going to hurt the players more then help them by not compromising and getting the cap extended.

[JimmiJo]

I'm not buying into a pity-party for the union or players. THere has not been a cap for most of the NFL's existence, yet we are worried about crazy money being spent? Hmmm, I seem to recall that salaries went up dramatically in the league after the cap was instilled and that prior that, players didn't make that much at all. Just ask any of the hogs.

The best part about the cap is the minimum it makes loser teams like AZ et al spend, otherwise we would be seeing teams dramatically under, like 50-70%.

[mikeyf316]

Amidst the din of the criticism being leveled at the participants in what’s masquerading as “labor negotiations”, none rings more hollow than that directed at Gene Upshaw. Incredibly, he’s being accused by some as the one poisoning the process by balking at an agreement over a piddly percentage difference on his union’s take on NFL revenue.

You make some good points, but I just can't agree with one of them -

His job is to protect the interest of those he represents, which are the employees of 32 NFL teams that are owned by some of the most wealthiest individuals in the world.

Setting a non-negotiable requirement, such as his well documented 60% demand, is not looking out for his employees. It is irresponsible to make statements such as that. That means that even if the owners offer 59.99%, he won't take it.

His job as the head of the union is to protect the players, absolutely. Is setting them up to possibly be locked out of their work and lose their income protecting them? His unwillingness to negotiate by having made public a set of demands rather than a bargaining point was a mistake. I doubt he's the bad guy that he's being made out to be, but announcing that you're not willing to negotiate certain points before entering a critical period of negotiations is foolhardy. It smacks of his personal pride talking rather than focusing on the best interest of the players.

[ewokninja]

So much union hate out here... Gene is simply doing his job. He's supposed to get as much as he can for the players. Need I remind you that of the three major sports the NFL is the only one without guaranteed contracts for their players? Seems like he still has his work cut out for him.

I suppose the rest of you non-union types like to negotiate without any real leverage, so don't be jealous if he uses the leverage that he has.

[mikeyf316]

I suppose the rest of you non-union types like to negotiate without any real leverage, so don't be jealous if he uses the leverage that he has.

You're missing the point.

Negotiation is a discussion intended to produce an agreement; as in "the buyout negotiation lasted several days." By going into a "negotiation" with demands that you are not willing to alter, you are not negotiating. Then, you are bullying.

His "leverage" is not good for the players or the league over the long term. His leverage can realistically lead to the players being locked out and none of them making any money. How is that doing what's best for the players?

I agree that the players deserve to be protected in their jobs. But the method Upshaw has chosen to use to attempt to achieve this is not a productive one. Making a statement to the media that he wants 60% for the players is fine. Making a statement to the media that he will not accept anything less than 60% for the players indicates to the owners that if they don't concede to Upshaw's demands, there will be problems. It's a negative approach to the whole event, and risks hurting everybody involved.

[ewokninja]

It remains to be seen if this 60% number is a firm number or if it's a negotiating point. There are rumors that there is already an agreement at 58.5% and if true is more than the 56% or so that was originally offered and almost certainly more than if the union didn't have any leverage.

Don't know what you mean not good for the players or the league long term, I thought that's the reason that the salary cap is a percentage of revenue. If revenues go down in the future, the cap goes down and the owners are still making money. I don't suppose you think that they will outsource the NFL to china?

These small market teams that are making all this trouble need to be pointed out more, if they can't take advantage of all of the various streams of income that owning an NFL team brings them, they should sell and do something else instead of trying to freeload on the Redskins and Cowboys and other teams that are actually managing their teams.

[Die Hard]

You're missing the point.

Negotiation is a discussion intended to produce an agreement; as in "the buyout negotiation lasted several days." By going into a "negotiation" with demands that you are not willing to alter, you are not negotiating. Then, you are bullying.

His "leverage" is not good for the players or the league over the long term. His leverage can realistically lead to the players being locked out and none of them making any money. How is that doing what's best for the players?

I agree that the players deserve to be protected in their jobs. But the method Upshaw has chosen to use to attempt to achieve this is not a productive one. Making a statement to the media that he wants 60% for the players is fine. Making a statement to the media that he will not accept anything less than 60% for the players indicates to the owners that if they don't concede to Upshaw's demands, there will be problems. It's a negative approach to the whole event, and risks hurting everybody involved.

I don't particularly care either way any more. There are pros and cons to both sides.... and I'm fine with whatever what the owners choose.

As an objective observer of the game though.... the players are going to take a HUGE hit in the next 3 years. And it's also rolling the dice with the integrity of the game.

I don't see a situation now of that of poverity in the league. Hardly. This is the richest NFL players have ever been. And the 58.5% will even increase it further... to unprecedented levels.. that will continue for the next 10 years.

Or, you can risk EVERYTHING right now, the league, the careers of players for virtually 3 years... with no guarantee of anything.

I'm sorry, Upshaw is going to make a lot of enemies in the union when he fails to protect the people he's paid to protect.

I'm just going to shake my head if it happens... but so be it. It doesn't affect me any.

[Peregrine]

Very poor post. You said it yourself, his job is to protect the interests of his union members. How is 10 million LESS a year, less parity and a worse off league good for his union members? The fact is, hes been offered WELL above what the union EVER had before. Why was it good enough in recent years but now its no longer good when its an even better offer? Yet he still wont compromise, one tiny bit. Negotiation is between 2 parties. It requires 2 to compromise. The owners have. The owners also have all the risk, and all the liability, the players dont.

The object of a union is to get a FAIR WAGE. The NFL owners are offering a huge percentage increase over what has ever been seen before. Id call that a fair wage plus some. The point of a union is not to get its guys fired because teams cant afford the players.

[ewokninja]

Wow, you must be management I don't even know where to begin. First off, until the CBA actually expires, this is all negotiation and a big game of chicken. BOTH players and owners have a lot to lose. As it happens, Gene feels that they have less to lose with the prospect of an uncapped year and potential to never return the cap that has made some of the owners lazy and well-paid at the same time.

The object of a union is to get the best deal possible for it's members. Maybe in your world the players should just be happy with whatever crumbs the owners toss off their table, but why should they? You think that players aren't taking a risk every time they step on the football field? You must be kidding me. Life doesn't end at 35 or 30 or whenever you've taken your last snap in the profession that they've trained their entire lives and the only guaranteed money that they get is whatever they have in their hand at that moment. You must have zoned out and confused football with baseball or basketball for a moment.

[mikeyf316]

It remains to be seen if this 60% number is a firm number or if it's a negotiating point. There are rumors that there is already an agreement at 58.5% and if true is more than the 56% or so that was originally offered and almost certainly more than if the union didn't have any leverage.

Upshaw has been quoted directly: "Our number has to start with a six." While I hope he has since reconsidered that position, he placed a demand rather than a discussion point. He wants 100% for the players, and I am sure that is in their best interest, but it's not realistic. Likewise, placing your demands before your discussion is not a realistic way to come to an agreement which both sides can live with.

Don't know what you mean not good for the players or the league long term, I thought that's the reason that the salary cap is a percentage of revenue. If revenues go down in the future, the cap goes down and the owners are still making money. I don't suppose you think that they will outsource the NFL to china?

His leverage is decertification and making things tougher on the league through anti-trust. This can lead to a lockout, work stoppage. That is not good for the players, as they don't get paid. I have no problem with the union going to that after exhausting their options and patience through negotiations, but it is irresponsible to bring that stuff up at this point in negotiations. Yes, revenues going down effects everybody. With a lockout, what are the chances that DirecTv's Sunday Ticket will bring in the same kind of money as if the regular players were on the field? The chances that the fan base will maintain sold out crowds and continue purchasing gear? Where you get the idea of outsourcing from, I'm not sure. It doesn't seem appropriate for the discussion.

Look at Upshaw's methods and logic when applied to a different situation:

Hostage negotiator shows up at a crime scene where four people are held hostage. Instead of asking for what the criminals want and what can be done to resolve things peacefully, he comes straight out and says that they have 30 seconds to release all four or SWAT is coming in blazing. The criminals offer two people to get them to back off, but the negotiator sticks to his guns. 30 seconds later, he green lights the mission and everything goes to **** for everybody.

What was the purpose of even having a talk between the negotiator and the criminals?

My point has been that the manner in which Upshaw has presented his side of the arguement has been less than appropriate. If negotiations don't lead to a solution, and a lockout, decertification, strike, whatever is the result, so be it. Just don't throw the negotiations under the bus before giving them a chance to work out.

These small market teams that are making all this trouble need to be pointed out more, if they can't take advantage of all of the various streams of income that owning an NFL team brings them, they should sell and do something else instead of trying to freeload on the Redskins and Cowboys and other teams that are actually managing their teams.

I agree that teams which are being cheap need to be dealt with appropriately. No arguing your point there.

[Big Weirdo]

If his interest is to protect the players he's not doing a very good job. He's gambling on their future and the game's future and over what? A few percent? Granted the "few percent" is millions of dollars.

Most players are pissed off at Upshaw now anyway because they know he's en route to royally ****ing this thing up. He has left them totally in the dark about what's going on. If you can read the article where Matt Birk blasts Upshaw for the way he's handled it he is speaking for most players in there, too.

Either way I think Upshaw has basically lost his job after this whole situation. And the even funnier thing is I don't think he even knows it.

[Die Hard]

Maybe in your world the players should just be happy with whatever crumbs the owners toss off their table, but why should they? You think that players aren't taking a risk every time they step on the football field? You must be kidding me. Life doesn't end at 35 or 30 or whenever you've taken your last snap in the profession that they've trained their entire lives and the only guaranteed money that they get is whatever they have in their hand at that moment.

Funny story. I was watching NFL Network this week... and they were doing a profile for a player over the stretch of 6 days. At one point, the player looks into the camera and says "Because of the NFL, I have the opportunity for generational wealth".

And we're talking about a career choice with a life span of 4 years on average.

I think you need to get some perspective... we're not talking about crumbs here.

[ewokninja]

Reasonable arguments and only have a couple of quibbles. I know what Gene Upshaw has been quoted as saying, but I also seem to remember him saying that he wasn't going to extend the CBA one more day, yet he backed off and accepted three more days for negotiation, so I don't think that if they get reasonably close to the magic 60% along with other concessions, he'll walk away.

During negotiations a lot of things are said and you really can only look at what is actually done. Using your hostage analogy, I happen to believe that

(a) the first thirty seconds warning would definitely get the attention of the criminals and maybe they actually come out before the time is up

( after the thirty seconds are up you can still give them ten more seconds, but the criminals won't know until that time is up.

Upshaw has been quoted directly: "Our number has to start with a six." While I hope he has since reconsidered that position, he placed a demand rather than a discussion point. He wants 100% for the players, and I am sure that is in their best interest, but it's not realistic. Likewise, placing your demands before your discussion is not a realistic way to come to an agreement which both sides can live with.

[Big Weirdo]

Reasonable arguments and only have a couple of quibbles. I know what Gene Upshaw has been quoted as saying, but I also seem to remember him saying that he wasn't going to extend the CBA one more day, yet he backed off and accepted three more days for negotiation, so I don't think that if they get reasonably close to the magic 60% along with other concessions, he'll walk away.

How close do they have to get? The reports were the owners offered up 58.5%. Sounds like Gene wants nothing less than 60% to me.

[ewokninja]

Funny story. I was watching NFL Network this week... and they were doing a profile for a player over the stretch of 6 days. At one point, the player looks into the camera and says "Because of the NFL, I have the opportunity for generational wealth".

And we're talking about a career choice with a life span of 4 years on average.

I think you need to get some perspective... we're not talking about crumbs here.

I think you need to get some perspective here. We're talking about BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars here. So this player when he gets his check for whatever it is in a relative sense it works out to crumbs. And in fifteen or twenty years when he can't walk around without a cane and has blown through much of his "generational wealth" on health care and rehab or whatever, maybe the NFL network will look him up and see how he's doing.

Somehow I doubt it.

[Hogskin1]

I think you need to get some perspective here. We're talking about BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars here. So this player when he gets his check for whatever it is in a relative sense it works out to crumbs. And in fifteen or twenty years when he can't walk around without a cane and has blown through much of his "generational wealth" on health care and rehab or whatever, maybe the NFL network will look him up and see how he's doing.

Somehow I doubt it.

Doesn't that just make you feel SO SORRY for those poor boys that have to play in that awful NFL for those measly millions. Dang. What a pitiful life they have to look forward to. But SOMEONE has to do it...

[ewokninja]

How close do they have to get? The reports were the owners offered up 58.5%. Sounds like Gene wants nothing less than 60% to me.

I don't think that's the holdup at this time. I think that the discussions are centering around "cash over cap" and small-revenue owners vs big-revenue owners. I think that if they limit cash over cap then the union would want a bigger piece of the pie because there's less money to go around.

[ewokninja]

Doesn't that just make you feel SO SORRY for those poor boys that have to play in that awful NFL for those measly millions. Dang. What a pitiful life they have to look forward to. But SOMEONE has to do it...

Don't you wish you could. I'd rather be an owner deciding if I should buy an island or another jet.