NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw must be feeling a lot more secure in his position than he did a week ago. Because Upshaw is officially on record as saying that he opposes a salary structure for incoming NFL players.
“Every year at this time, I hear it again,” Upshaw told Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports. “They don’t like how the rookies are paid. ‘They need some kind of pay scale.’ Well, I’m not going to limit how the rookies are paid because it has a huge impact on veterans. I’m not going to agree to it.”
So how does paying a skyrocketing windfall to ten or so players who haven’t worn an NFL helmet since Halloween when they were six years old (yeah, we use that one from time to time . . . because we’re as cool as the other side of the pillow) help veterans?
In two ways, according to Upshaw. First, the huge payments made to certain rookies give veterans more leverage. Second, lower rookie pay would make rookies more attractive than veterans, pricing veterans out of jobs.
As to Upshaw’s first point, we don’t buy it. The big free-agency contracts each year are driven by other recent veteran contracts, not by rookie deals. Sure, the rookie deals might be getting so out of control that they’re becoming a factor in the negotiations for veteran free agents. But the notion that providing a lot of extra money to a few rookies is a good thing for all veterans is ridiculous; at best, it will help only the few who are signed to big-money deals on the first day of free agency.
Upshaw’s second point, with all due respect, makes no f–king sense.
“We have to have a system where every player has an equal chance to get a job,” Upshaw said. “We don’t want to get into a position where the league is keeping four or five rookies because it’s cheaper than keeping one or two veterans.”
But, Gene, the problem isn’t with the second-day draft picks whose compensation won’t change at all if there is a formula used for setting the contracts for all rookies. Those guys will still get a signing bonus plus three or four years of minimum salaries. The focal point is the huge pile of money that gets paid to the small handful who happen to hear their names called early on the first day of the draft process.
Besides, Upshaw overlooks the system that was put in place earlier this decade to encourage teams to sign veterans. Though Cole makes reference to veterans “who make one of the varying minimum salaries,” the truth is that all players with four or more years of service are eligible to sign one-year contracts for increasing minimum salaries that entail an actual cost and a salary-cap charge of only $445,000 — even if the player is actually earning $820,000.
The reality is that a few agents (led by Tom Condon — who coincidentally represents Gene Upshaw) want to preserve their cut of these annual windfalls. Even if there’s merit to Upshaw’s argument that the huge dollars paid to a few rookies helps veterans, it will in reality help only a few of them each year, too.
Meanwhile, the interests of 90 percent of the players will be ignored. And, the last time we checked, it only took 50.1 percent of them to set policy for the union.
_2.gif)





April 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I doubt any union in any industry would agree to any sort of salary cap (which is, in effect what we’re talking about here) without serious coercion or major concessions in other areas. Once you give an inch, it’s harder to stand your ground in the next set of negotiations. And to this date, the owners have offered neither serious coercion or concessions. So even if veteran players are hurt by the spiralling salaries of unproven rookies, no union chief is ever going to go down in history as the guy that killed the golden goose — particularly if the much rumored no-cap year is in the near future. And ultimately, owners can bitch all they want, but they played as big a part as the agents in creating the mess they now find themselves in.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Upshaws second point, with all due respect….makes no f-ing sense.
Best line in the history of journalism, after the day I had, I needed that.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Of course the Union is against lower salaries. Upshaw’s multimillion dollar salary doesn’t just magically appear on his desk. Nor do strike war chests magically fill.
Upshaw has always been for just a small number of high-paid players and screw the rest. Look how he feels about retired players.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
That’s why this SOB needs to be fired. What a load of shit.
Headline should read: “Upshaw opposes…” not “Union…”.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Don’t high priced rookie deal “price” veterans out of jobs, too? A team is pretty much committed to a high draft pick for 3-4 years, no matter what, so that’s one less job for a vet.
Also, teams have a salary floor, so if rookies have a set (and lower) pay scale, wages have to go up somewhere to meet the floor. If rookies can’t take it, who does that leave? Hmmmm….
Still, at the end of the day, Upshaw can pretty much say that he hopes the vets all get hit by dump trunks and that flock of sheep otherwise known as “the players” won’t be inclined to challenge anything he says. Whether that’s from laziness or stupidity, I’ll leave for others to decide.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.5 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
How is this good for the veterans? The more money the rookies get, the less money will be available for the veterans because of the salary cap. Maybe Upshaw is thinking that there is not going to be a salary cap after 2009.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
There are a few points about unions (I am a union member myself and a Union Steward also), I would like to mention. I don’t know if it is the same with the NFLPA, but if you are new to the craft that the union covers, there is a waiting period before you can actually join the union (for our union it is a 180 day probation period). If this is also true (and/or the union does not collect dues before the player signs an NFL contract), the union does not represent players who are in the draft. So Upshaws remarks do not even make sense as in protecting draft prospects interests. They are not NFLPA members nor can they be protected by the CBA, since they are not an employee of the NFL until the sign the dotted line. I am not a lawyer by any means, but how in the hell can the CBA or the NFLPA have any say on how much the player can sign for. I know the NFL has a cap on a draftee’s max pay per team, but is there mininuim amount also? If not, all the teams have to do is NOT sign anybody in the first round. Problem fixed.
A second point, if Upshaw was pulling this crap like this in our union, he would be voted out quickly. He represents the best interests of the Union. Not any one member, but rather the members of the union as a whole. The union is to protect the majority of it’s members, not just a handful.
Really Upshaw is a disgrace to all Unions. His antics and policies are BS. And really what really has he accomplished? A makeshift extension to the CBA? He was sleeping with the enemy. Granted, he did put more money in the Union members hands then, but if there is a lockout in 2010, all of that extra money means squat when you are holding a picket sign up, as your bills pile up.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I agree with you Mike. The other point to make is that quite frankly, teams have to spend money on veterans. The salary cap has a floor as well as a ceiling and if there are limitations allocated to how the money is spent on rookies then in turn that will open up room for the money to be spent on veterans. Putting it simply, Upshaw is just trying to keep contracts as high as possible in areas where the teams have no leverage. It’s his job, but in the overall scheme of things, inexperienced, unproven rookies do not deserve more money than experienced, proven players of reasonable age. The fact that Asante Samuel is making roughly $10M in guaranteed less than JaMarcus Russell & Jake Long is simply ridiculous.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 am
Seems as though Upshaw is about as ethical as an average big company CEO — i.e. on the take. I feel dirty just reading about this stuff.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 am
If big money is committed to a rookie, esp. quarterbacks, unfortunately they are expected to play earlier, as a return on the investment. And putting a player on the field who has talent, but isn’t ready, can destroy careers, and scar the moral of teams and fans. So nobody really benefits, Mr. Upshaw: even a multi-million dollar bust is labeled a bust for life.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 am
Now I would never wish anything horrible to happen to anybody but I would not be upset at all if Gene Upshaw mysteriously disappeared never to heard from again.
Veterans get cut or take pay cuts to clear cap room for untested rookies. WTF is Gene smoking?
This has got to be one od the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
Not to give Upshaw too much credit, but we should keep in mind that he could be taking this stance just so he can give it up when it comes time to negotiate the new collective bargaining agreement. If he makes it seem like a big deal now but doesn’t actually think so, then he can gain some leverage by giving it up during negotiations without really losing anything. That’s classic negotiations 101.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 am
Does the term “stay the course” come to mind? When are we, as fans, going to take back the game? Somewhere there’s a broken down veteran who must remember looking across that line of scrimmage back in the day and seeing Upshaw nose to nose…little did he know this would be a backstabbing pimp somewhere down the line….irony at it’s best…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:58 am
“Upshaw’s second point, with all due respect, makes no f–king sense.”
I’m pretty sure Upshaw’s going to come to your house and break your g-d neck for that…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 am
Just a thought for some devious team…
What would happen if some team like the Bills got the first pick and then threw a huge sum of guaranteed money into the back end of a contract, then fired the guy after a year? It seems like they would “take a huge salary cap hit” which ammounts to saying they would get to subtract a huge sum from the minimum roster salary. This would give them a nice excuse to underpay their roster for a year or two while making a nice public statement about the escalating costs of rookies… and sticking it to the next year’s team making the first pick.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:45 am
So Upshaw’s second point is that an NFL team would get rid of good veteran players and replace them with unproven, late-round rookies to save money?
Oh, what a brilliant, brilliant man. If I was a player, I’d do everything humanly possible to get this man thrown out of the leadership position he’s in.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 am
Call me dumb, or naive, or whatever you want, but isn’t locking so much money into the first few picks of the draft holding those teams hostage for that money and not allowing them to go after blockbuster F/A signings?
Vetran player contracts should driven by how the player performs, not how much the first overall pick (at the same position) received.
Upshaw is an absolute idiot and whatever BS that he is trickling to the players through the agents needs to be stopped. I like what Matt Stover did and I hope to see more of it. The players need a representative that cares about them more than he cares about allowing his buddies to make millions and millions and in turn, they keep him in the millions.
I really hope the Matt’s (Birk and Stover) continue the push for change, and the change is made prior to negotiating the new CBA. Having a player rep that is looking out for the players would be a wonderful idea. They could write in language that allows teams to discipline the players for behavior (I assume the players that keep their nose clean, which is probably 98% of them, would appreciate that). They could write in language allowing teams to deal with malcontents (Again, players that honor their contracts and don’t complain about the deal THEY signed might appreciate that).
And here is a novel idea when it comes to player vs. owner earnings. Invest a percentage of the difference between the two sides into a retirement/injury fund for players who need help after their playing days are over.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 am
Upshaw couldn’t care less about the players. He is owned lock, stock and barrell by the NFL owners. He is a total fraud. Just ask Mike Ditka and those of his era.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 am
Rookie pay needs to be driven by the market, not by a payscale or whether or not they’ve proven themselves.
Here’s what we do: Next year, instead of having a draft order, just have a player auction. Then we’ll see whether the best players are overpaid or not.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 am
Well, I’m not going to limit how the rookies are paid because it has a huge impact on veterans. I’m not going to agree to it.”
Aside from how he continually personalizes everything like he’s Gengis Khan and the NFL is just his minion, I don’t understand any of this. There is a salary cap and a salary floor. Why does he care if there is a rookie pay structure? Teams still have to spend to the floor and more often than not will spend to the cap. So veterans by definition would benefit not be harmed. So why doesn’t Upshaw want a rookie scale? It’s downright bizarre.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
Upshaw has a terminal case of Rectus Injectus.
Translation: He has his head stuck up his a$$.
When is the rank-and-file going to grow a collective pair and get rid of him? Man, for all the testosterone in the league, they’re sure a bunch of vaginas.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
That’s pretty funny, Norseman, and true. As far as a rookie pay scale goes, the rookie slotting system that the NBA currently employs doesn’t seem to be working all that badly, now does it?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated