As the NFL lockout approaches, the average fan is clearly unaware of all of the issues

By Dr. Bill Chachkes-Executive Editor-Football Reporters Online

As I sit here writing this at 4:30 am on the 12th day of January 2011, we are 49 days away from the first job action in professional football in 23 years. The “labor peace” that so many worked so hard for over the last 30 years to keep in place is about to go up in a puff of smoke like the $12 cigars that Madison av. money men favor. But this time, the formula for this impending action comes out of 280 Park Avenue, the headquarters of the NFL itself. I’m not saying this is directly the result of anything that Roger Goodell has done. If anything, he is trying to affect the quickest possible resolution to the problem. Except that mr. Goodell’s authority is limited by the owners who run the NFL. A small fraction of these owners want to see a ”correction,” like the stock market take place in pro football.

Yes folks, this is the doing of a small group of owners who could care less about the players health and general well being. All the more saddening is the fact that the owners in question have more to loose then they realize, and the league has gotten big business and the TV networks to play along.

Although I have been paying attention the last few years to the goings on, I took part in the NFLPA media conference call yesterday with Assistant Executive director (for external affairs) George Atallah and player executive board members Dominuqe Foxoworth (Baltimore Ravens) and Scott Fujita (Cleveland Browns). Most of the questions revolved around the current health and safety issues and the Leagues’ launch of a new website to address these issues. Underneath it all is the countdown to when players will be “Locked Out” of their teams’ facilities (March 3rd).

While most would paint this as a “Millionaires vs. Billionaires” fight, the players in this case are getting the short end of the stick. Players’ rights have never been more at risk now then in all the time since Bernie Parrish helped lead the drive to organize in the 1950’s.

It’s true I subscribe to the “more football is good” theory, but when it’s cast about as a way to get around very real concerns about player health issues, then we have to look deeper. The owners want to add 2 regular season games to the schedule: great, right? Get rid of two pre season games, shorten up the time frame with regard to OTA and mini camps.

Players feel this is the major sticking point in getting a deal done. Not who makes more money, the owners or the players. "To me, right now, as things stand, 18 games, the way it's being proposed, is completely unacceptable. ... I see more and more players get injured every season," said Fujita on yesterday’s call.

Atallah informed us that 352 players were on injured reserve for all or part of the 2010 season, a record high, and just about 1/5th or 20% of the total number of active players this year.

Foxworth added "We put our bodies on the line and produce a lot of revenue, and we get five years (of post-retirement health insurance), And then they want to tack on two more games ... which is just going to multiply the injuries and the ailments that we're going to see after we go into our 40s, 50s, 60s -- 70s, if we're lucky”. ... Foxworth, like so many players, has a growing family, and considers a two thousand dollar a month COBRA payment a steep cost to keep health insurance active while locked out. While some players could probably afford to pay it, most of the younger players with less then 3 years of service in the league would probably have to seek temporary employment at something else to help pay that cost.
"We're not willing to budge on health and safety, and we'd like to gain some more ground in ways we can protect former players and current players." Foxoworth added.

I had a conversation at the 2010 draft With Kevin Mawae, who until this September was the players’ association president. “It all comes down to money, plain and simple. The owners had more then the players until the last agreement. The owners want it back now because the economy took a bad turn, so they want to make up for the outrageously high contracts they give to rookies, which add up to more money then most current vets will ever see, Not that I’m saying that a Bradford shouldn’t get every cent he can. You can die or be paralyzed at any time on the field of play” He was very open and candid about what many players see as a travesty in the making.

This is not to say that the financial issues aren’t important, and that the NFL and it’s workforce don’t need to agree to mutually beneficial terms to insure the survival of the great game of football. They do, and soon. But when you want to force a bad deal down one side’s craw as management is trying to do, I have to question what the owners (at least some) are doing here. If you were truly concerned enough to install and reinforce rule “tweaks” to the game this year to prevent more head to head contact injuries, why would you cut off players’ access to health care during a job dispute? Why have the TV networks agree to pay you money even if no games take place in 2011? Why threaten to lay off or furlough up to 50 percent of League and team staff?

Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones recently said on a 60 Minutes interview segment that “it wouldn’t be so bad if the lockout went to the 11th hour before something got done” That doesn’t sound like a man who cares about his players or their families does it? Fujita doesn’t think so either, calling those comments irresponsible.

What the NFL owners don’t see here is beyond costing both sides a great deal of money and anguish. They are going to kill off the popularity of the game, that the NFL won when professional baseball struck in 1994. I’d want to know why I’m getting charged how ever many thousands of dollars for my tickets next year if there won’t be football played, if I still had season tickets. As my fellow writer David Levy points out many times over in his article series about the fan experience these days, Most average people have been priced out of going to see the game they love. If the owners love this game so much, why do they want to kill off it’s popularity, esp. when this past weekend’s “Wild Card Playoffs” broadcasts averaged over 32 million viewers per game.


This is what people should be asking of the NFL.

NFL Commissioner Press Conference on Michael Vick - full text

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com



The Michael Vick issue has drawn a variety of views and opinions like mine above, but only one person has the ability to determine his football future and that's NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. A press conference was held Monday in New York where Commissioner Goodell presented his decision regarding the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback, but we've only seen bits-and-pieces of text. Here's the full press conference transcript, courtesy of NFLMedia.com

NFL COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL


Press Conference – Michael Vick Conditional Reinstatement

July 27, 2009


NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell: Good afternoon. As all of you are aware, I’ve made my decision regarding Michael Vick and I would be happy totake your questions. But before we do, I would just like to make a couple of points which I hope will be helpful inputting it into context.

First, and most importantly, we all want to recognize that the conduct that Michael engaged in was not only horrific, but it was cruel. And we all certainly recognize that and I believe after meeting with Michael that he recognizes that also. We engaged in a very thorough process. It was very carefully done and very thoroughly done. Multiple members of our staff were engaged as well as me. We went through his court records. We went through evaluations. We went through decisions. We know all the terms of his parole. We went through every detail, including about a four-and-a-half hour meeting with Michael last Wednesday here in the New York area. So we take this as a very serious matter. We’re dealing with a young man’s life. Our process was similarly reflective of the seriousness of that.

As you know, he can sign now with an NFL team. He can practice without delay with an NFL team. He may play in the final two preseason games of this preseason. And once the regular season starts, he can practice if the team so chooses. And I will decide within the first six weeks of the regular season when and whether he will be reinstated to play from there.

He has been very open and fully cooperative as well as his advisers and his counselors. I will say that one of the most important things that we talked about is that nobody gets through life alone. That you always have to have a mentor. That you always have to have somebody who will give you guidance and support at critical moments. Michael needs that right now and I have asked Tony Dungy to play a more formal role on my behalf but also on Michael’s behalf to serve as a mentor to Michael to help him and guide him through some very difficult decisions he’s going to have to make going forward. I do not expect he will be his only mentor,but Tony will be a big part in determining who else will serve as advisers to him. But I know Tony and Michael, who I spoke to earlier today on a conference call, both take it very seriously and are committed to making sure that they work closely together to make better decisions going forward.

I do believe that this transitional approach that we have outlined for Michael is the best thing for him, that it has the best opportunities to lead to success for a young man who has his life ahead of him. Whether he makes it on the field in the NFL is something that will be determined on the field. But he has some big decisions off the field to make in the way he conducts himself. I think he is at a point right now where he is prepared to make those decisions and hopefully conduct himself in a more positive way. I have said repeatedly,and many times before, that playing in the NFL is a privilege, we are held to a higher standard and it is not a right to be an NFL player. I think Michael clearly understands that is his responsibility and I think it is his opportunity now to earn that privilege back again. And that is up to Michael.

But one final point before I take your questions. As I’ve said many times before, I am very proud of NFL players. They do incredible things and exceed the standards that we set for them. And they do that both on and off the field. And I am proud of the things they do off the field. Obviously when you are dealing with 2,000 young men, you are going to have mistakes, bad judgments, and people are going to do things that you are not proud of. Obviously this is one case. But I hope something positive can come out of something that has been a very tragic circumstance and hopefully people will understand that the individual here has the right to earn that opportunity back again. He will be held accountable for that. He will be held accountable for his life management plan that he submitted to me, the things he says he is going to do, and I will make sure that he does that in responsible fashion, as will Tony.

Have any teams expressed an interest in signing him yet?

That’s not something that I would get involved with. I work for all 32 teams. As far as what team signs him, that’s an individual club decision and they’ll have to make that individually with him and negotiate.

On Michael lying:

He was not candid with me. In fact, prior to starting the hearing we spent a few minutes together and it was the first thing he raised with me. That he was disappointed in himself. That he was direct in the fact that he lied about his involvement in dog fighting. And I accept his apology. I understand. I don’t like being lied to like anybody else. But this is something that we have to move forward from. Michael understands that I am judging him on his activities going forward, on the words that he said to me, and on the conduct that hopefully will support the words he expressed to me personally.

What needs to happen in the next 12weeks for him to be reinstated?

A number of things. First he would have to sign a contract with a team. He will have to begin the process of getting re-acclimated into that community and that team. He’ll obviously want to relocate his family. He’s been very clear about that. He will have to get a support system around him. He will continue to go through the programs of his parole and also the programs that the NFL has designed for him. He will work very closely with Tony and me if necessary to make sure that we are providing the support necessary and the guidance. But he has a very difficult transition ahead and we want to support him in that and give him that opportunity. But he recognizes he has to earn that and his actions will have to support that.

Should Vick not sign with any team during the preseason, will the parameters of this reinstatement change? Have you looked into or discussed that possibility, if he doesn’t have the opportunity with a team during preseason?

Well that’s not something I can control. Of course individual clubs and Michael and his team will have to make that decision who he signs with ultimately. I don’t expect I would modify the terms of what I call the transition plan in any marginal way, but I’ll leave that option open if necessary – but I don’t see that as being something that I would engage in.

PETA has said that they had wanted you to have him undergo a psychiatric evaluation to show that he is truly remorseful and that if not they would consider protesting any team that would sign him. Did you have him undergo any evaluations?

Yes, in fact we worked with animal rights activist groups and we are clear: we worked with their medical professionals about the aspects of our evaluations. Michael fully cooperated with all of those tests. Those tests did not indicate there was any reason he couldn’t make a transition forward, but they also recognized that counseling and other aspects of support will be important for him going forward.


You mentioned there’d be an NFL component to his program as well, things he would have to adhere to. Could you elaborate on what that means beyond obviously the probationary things you have asked him to do legally?

Well the primary one is the role of (former Indianapolis Colts Head Coach) Tony Dungy. I believe that Tony is a very successful individual, he is somebody that I respect his judgment, I think he is wise and will give good counsel. I think he is committed to helping Michael asa young man – not as a football player. He’ll try to do what he can to help him reestablish his life and help him move forward. That’s the first thing that has to happen here. All of the conditions which we have outlined in the letter – which we will be happy to provide you with – we will hold Michael accountable for. He will be responsible for fulfilling those,and they will be part of my judgment about how long the period of time is before I’ll allow him to play in regular season games.

Did you feel a sense of urgency to make the decision quickly? Obviously it’s only been a week since he completed his federal term. How much of a relief – I don’t know if relief is the right word – but how much of a relief will it be for you tohave made this decision quickly?

Relief is not a word I would use here. I believe that it was my responsibility to make a thoughtful, clear decision, and to do it on a very timely basis. I am not here to punish anybody; we’re here to extend player’s careers rather than limit player’s careers. That is important for us to do as long as they recognize the standards by which we are going to hold them accountable and everybody in the NFL. I believe Michael understands that. I believe he deserves the opportunity to earn his way back onto the field – but he will have to earn it. It is up to him now, and we will support him the way we have outlined in my decision. I believe that I had the responsibility to make a decision as quickly as possible, one that was fair, and I hope this one is seen as fair – although I fully recognize that some people won’t agree with it.

About how many people played a role? Obviously this is your decision and your name is attached to it, but I know NFL security, probably owners and coaches, players past and present probably played some role in you formulating your final policy.

Well I believe very much in getting a variety of opinions to get a broad perspective. I reached out to a variety of leaders of our country, our society. I’ve talked to a number of current and former players, I’ve talked to a number of current and former coaches, I’ve talked to former and current executives – but I am very cautious about competitive issues here. I would not involve someone that would be involved potentially in Michael’s interest as a football player. I was interested in Michael as an individual and what we could do to help reestablish his life and get him involved in a positive way regardless of if he played football. I do believe very much in getting perspectives, and I believe that has served me very well in making decisions. As you pointed out, ultimately, at the end of the day, I had to go into a room and make a decision. I reached out to a number of people, including DeMaurice Smith (head of the NFL Players Union), former players, and coaches and I believe I had all the perspectives I needed to make this decision.

Did you talk with any of the sponsors of the NFL, any companies and what their reaction would be? Was there anything you would bounce off of them?

I didn’t – I can’t specifically recall contacting people in that context. From time to time I may have spoken to a CEO about how to make decisions like this and what are the important factors even though the circumstances, I presume, would be wildly different. But I never thought about it in the context of the commercial success of the NFL. That’s never been a factor for me from day one. The intent here was to do the right thing with a young man’s life and for the game of football and the NFL, and that’s what I tried to do.

NFL Reports Plan Of Layoffs At All NFL Business Units

This massive economic collapse has taken many companies and people into lower positions of wealth and caused many to lose their jobs at historic rates.  Well, after years of incredible growth, it was thought that the sports industry was immune to these developments surrounding the credit crunch.  


Not so. 


I received this email from the NFL's director of communications Greg Aiello:

  As part of an overall cost-cutting plan in response to the slumping economy, the NFL today confirmed plans to reduce its staff by approximately 150 employees during the next 60 days.

       There are 1,100 employees in three NFL locations around the country: league headquarters in New York; NFL Films production facilities in Mt Laurel, New Jersey; and NFL Network and NFL.com production facilities in Los Angeles.

       A voluntary separation program will be offered to personnel this week as a first step in the staff reduction.

       "These are difficult and painful steps," Commissioner Roger Goodell said Tuesday in a memo to his staff, "but they are necessary in the current economic environment. I would like to be able to report that we are immune to the troubles around us, but we are not. Properly managed, I am confident the NFL will emerge stronger, more efficient and poised to pursue long-term growth opportunities."

NFL COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL FALL MEETING ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA – OCTOBER 15, 2008 - NFL Media.com

NFL COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL FALL MEETING ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA – OCTOBER 15, 2008

RE: Lengthening the regular season to 17 or 18 games.

…to support our relationship with our fans, because of the length of the season. That included weather conditions, with the potential for the season to go into late February. It involved, obviously, our relationship with the players, our relationships with media companies and the quality of the preseason. We’ve discussed this also in the context of the offseason. Again, that goes to the part about football readiness and how there’s greater interest from our fans of having a longer and deeper relationship with the NFL all year round.

I’m not suggesting playing games all year, but there was a suggestion about idea of a spring game of some type. A preseason-type game.

Q: You don’t want to give us an offseason, do you?

RG: We know you don’t want one.

Q: Any suggestion that two preseason games would hurt the evaluation process for teams as they make their final roster cuts?

RG: I think that’s what we mean about football readiness. I think that has to be evaluated. From a football perspective, there are two purposes. One, you want to get your team ready. Two, you make your evaluations of who will make your team. Those are the two primary objectives. We want to make sure teams have the ability to do that.

The likelihood is that teams will adjust to this, work in more scrimmages or other ways to evaluate players. The second point is, and I think I mentioned this yesterday, a developmental league of some type. That’s another question that a lot of clubs raised: how do we continue to develop our players?

Q: Before there is a vote on this, will the proposal include a definitive number (17 or 18 games), or will there be more discussion as the CBA negotiations move along?

RG: First, we have a lot more work to do on the analysis. This is something we will continue to pursue and will continue to evaluate. Eventually, we’ll have to decide strategically which proposal would be most beneficial to our players, our media partners, and other parties involved.

Q: Do you have a timetable for when you’ll decide on a proposal and then make it?

RG: We’re working on a proposal now. The major focus is analyzing the labor agreement and assessing the impact that this could bring to the table. We’re talking about cost recognition, the overall economics of the labor agreement, including stadium construction, retired players, and potential of expanding to more regular season games within the 20-game format. All of those things are factors that we’re considering.


Q: Is it clear whether or not the proposal will be 17 or 18 games yet?

RG: There are different viewpoints on that. I would say the prevailing thought that I sensed in the room was that it would be 18 games rather than 17 right now. People were still debating that.

RE: Are you exploring expanding the number of teams in the playoffs?

RG: There was some discussion of that. That came up. Some folks thought that was important to consider and include. Others had a different view on that also.

Q: What is your personal preference?

RG: We have to evaluate it a little bit more. I think it should be very special to get to post-season. I think to set a bar where to make it into post-season you have to achieve success, and make that special, is something we should continue.

RE: Super Bowl ticket prices

RG: The core prices have been set. We’re still evaluating some things.

RE: NFLN and whether there is any chance that negotiations with Comcast will be restarted before there’s a ruling by the judge

RG: We would hope so. We still believe that this should be settled at the negotiating table. Ultimately, that’s what’s in the best interest of all parties, most particularly the consumers. We would like to engage in a dialogue. We think the FCC ruling is significant from the standpoint that it is very clear that there is discrimination. We would like to get that done either at the negotiating table, or if we’re forced, to go through the process with the judge.

RE: When the last negotiations took place with Comcast?

RG: I’ll have to get back to you on that.

RE: Issue of players being fined after the game on plays that did not draw a penalty

RG: It’s always been an issue. That’s not new or recent. We’ve had that over the years, and it happens. When you see something that’s an illegal technique or something that we think that’s not proper and it wasn’t called, we’ll take whatever actions are appropriate to make sure the player and the coach understands that’s not permissible.

Q: You don’t feel it weakens the officials’ calls?

RG: I don’t think so. I think they do a great job.

RE: The role the economy will play in the upcoming season for the league and the clubs

That’s a pretty broad question, but the reality is it’s going to impact us. The economy is impacting us directly, and our business partners and our fans. So we’re sensitive to that, and we’re looking at everything we do, whether it’s our facilities, our stadium financing, or our pricing at the club level. We’re looking at all of those issues to determine how to best work our way through this.

RE: Do you get a sense from the union that they are more sensitive to the risks the owners are taking on?

RG: I really believe the players recognize what’s going on out there. Our business isn’t immune. This is a very significant time with what’s happening with the economy. And I don’t believe our players would be insensitive to that either.

Q: Is that based on conversations with union executives or individual players?

RG: I have had discussions with union executives and with players.

RE: Is there a change? Previously, they ignored your complaints.  Has there been a change in emphasis?

RG: I wouldn’t agree that they ignored it. Obviously, the developments over the last couple weeks… We’ve seen this coming for quite some time. We’ve discussed this publicly and privately. There are risks in the marketplace. These risks are shifted to the owners and that’s a significant risk that usually results in difficult economic consequences. That’s what we’re seeing in the market. I think the players recognize that, certainly in the economy we’re in right now. 

RE: Priority on security for the Super Bowl

RG: People derive comfort from knowing that we’re taking significant steps to ensure their safety. People come to our stadiums and want to know they’re safe. This Sunday here in Tampa you saw a good example of that. We had the pat downs and want to be able to accomplish that. People seemed to be generally accepting of it. People recognize it’s part of an everyday reality. We have a significant initiative to improve the experience at the stadium, not only security but making sure people feel comfortable.

Q: What’s the priority for you in terms of ensuring that fan behavior is within these standards?

RG: The big issue to me is making sure that everyone who comes to our stadium enjoys the event and that nobody stays away from our stadiums because of others’ behavior. There was a point made in our presentation this morning that one individual’s actions can affect up to 20 people’s view of the experience at the stadium.  Most of the people who come to our stadiums come and enjoy them and have a great time. Unfortunately, somebody can behave in such a manner that can ruin it for a lot of other people. If they do, we are going to deal with it properly. First action is taken in the stadium, and the second is to revoke their ticket privileges.

Q: Is adding two more teams to the playoffs two total or two per conference?

RG: We haven’t gotten into the specifics of it. There have been proposals over the last 10 years or so of extending the playoffs.


RE: Those haven’t gotten much support. Do you sense more support?

RG: There was support last time. I think there was quite a bit of discussion when we realigned the league. It’s been a few years.

Q: Do you think there would be more support if it comes in conjunction with a longer season?

RG: I’m not certain whether there is a strong correlation between the two. They are two distinct decisions. I think in some people’s minds those might impact on their ultimate vote. But I think they are ultimately two distinct decisions at this point in time. As we evaluate it, we might draw that this is something that should be done as part of that, if we get to the conclusion that we should expand or restructure the season.

RE: Adding a potential regular season game to the back end of the season as opposed to the starting the season earlier

RG: That is how we discussed it this morning and that is how we’re analyzing it. On the other hand, there are people who want to discuss how fans perceive that if they are going to regular season games in January. That is something we have got to be sensitive to. We’re going to evaluate that and doing some studies on that to see what we can determine.

Q: So you’re still open to starting the season a little earlier?

RG: Yeah, I wouldn’t rule anything out.

Q: Are you looking at reintroducing the idea of reducing debt cap?

RG: Yes. In this kind of market every company is evaluating their debt levels and we’re not different from that. We have an obligation to do that on an annual basis. We’re all concerned about debt in this kind of environment. You can see what it can do. Companies that are over-leveraged – that is what this is – this is a massive de-leveraging on a global basis. It can have significant consequences for a business and that is what we want to avoid.

Q: Is it a concern that the Union will once again file a complaint if the NFL wants to lower its debt?

RG: They very well might, but we’re running our business. We have to be able to run our business just like everyone else and managing your debt is a big part of that, just as it is for everybody.

Q: You mentioned a spring preseason game. Is there an appetite for that?

RG: It is interesting. That was raised by a few clubs. It is more in the context of what colleges do with their spring game. It can be in the form of a scrimmage. It was an interesting concept that has been raised before and was discussed this morning by a number of people.

Q: Is it one team playing another?

RG: It could be. It was an interesting idea, which we’ll look at. It was raised by more than one club.

Q: Do you plan to look into the assault charge against Larry Johnson?

RG: Yes.

RE: Are stadium costs the fastest rising costs you have?

RG: I’d have to look at it statistically. Either player costs or stadium costs, yes. Our costs continue to rise and revenues are under pressure right now.

RE: Backlash regarding the NFL going overboard on cracking down on over the top touchdown celebrations.

RG: It is a fine line between an emotion and enthusiastic response that is natural versus something that is predetermined that is nothing more than to affect the other team or reflect poorly on the game. We always try to find that balance.

Q: So you are not trying to discourage it when it is spontaneous?

RG: No. It is a passionate part of our game, it is a big part of our game so we don’t discourage that, but it can cross the line where it becomes staged and inciting to the other team, and that is a problem.

# # #

Pacman Returns-for now...

From NFLMedia.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

6/2/08



NFL STATEMENT ON LIMITED REINSTATEMENT OF ADAM JONES:



Commissioner Roger Goodell notified Adam Jones today that, effective immediately, he may participate in organized team activities with the Dallas Cowboys, including training camp and preseason games. In a letter to Jones, Commissioner Goodell wrote that a final determination on his reinstatement for the 2008 regular season will be made by September 1. Commissioner Goodell told Jones that his continued participation in the NFL depends on demonstrating that he can conduct himself in a lawful and reliable manner. Jones will be expected to continue the personal conduct program established for him by the NFL and the Cowboys and to avoid further adverse involvement with law enforcement.


My Take: That Means No more Topless Bars Pacman!! If you really want to Play in the NFL it's time to show you mean it and keep your Nose clean!

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell Q & A At NFL Spring Meeting

COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL AT SPRING MEETING
Atlanta, GA – May 20, 2008

News / Release - Source: NFLMedia.com

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell Q & A At NFL Spring Meeting

ROGER GOODELL: We had a four-hour meeting this morning and covered a lot of subjects, including labor. We talked a lot about other related issues with respect to our stadiums, what we’re doing to improve the experience for our fans in the stadium. We spent a great deal of time on financial matters and the labor matter. I know you want to speak about the labor matter so I’d be happy to take your questions. I will be back later this afternoon and I can take questions on other matters. But we’ve got sort of a short timetable before we start this afternoon. The Super Bowl voting is this afternoon at 1:00 PM.

What signal does opting out send in terms of league’s position?
RG: It’s a very clear signal that the ownership does not believe that this deal is working. And it’s important for us all to sit down at the table and to try to address the matters that aren’t working for the ownership. There’s a very strong opinion in the ownership and the vote reflects that.

What has changed in the past two years to make this deal not work when it was agreed upon in 2006?
RG: Anytime you make a deal you don’t know how it’s going to work until you experience it. We’ve had two years now of operating under the new deal. Clearly, the economics are not working for the owners. Clearly, we have been investing more in stadiums and the costs of generating that revenue is become more significant. And it’s no secret what we’re going through from an economic standpoint that creates more risk in the marketplace.

Does making this decision now as opposed to the November deadline buy more time to negotiate with the players?
RG: It’s a fair point. There’s no question. We don’t need further time to analyze whether this is working or not working. It’s not working. It was the ownership’s view. It’s not a failure of negotiations. It’s a failure of the deal. So let’s get to the negotiations. It is a fair comment to say that this does give us an opportunity to sit with the players and understand the issues and get them to understand the issues and try to come up with some greater solutions.

Do you think the issues between high revenue franchises and low revenue franchises still exist and that’s the reason they are opting out?
RG: I don’t. As you know we share more revenue than any other sports league. This is about the issue of labor costs not about revenue sharing.

It’s been suggested that if the league proves that it is in dire financial straights, the union will listen and will look differently at the situation. Is that a realistic solution?
RG: We are not in dire financial straights. We’ve never indicated that. We’ve never stated that. What we’re looking for is a fair deal for both sides -- the players and the management. We had a meeting with the union roughly a week ago. We offered to show them more financial data and they attached a number of conditions to that that we found were unreasonable. So we didn’t get to that point. We are willing to make our case of why the deal isn’t working for us but it has to be done properly.

The union says that it was the league that attached conditions to the disclosure of the financial situation. What were they?
RG: I don’t remember right now. We’ll get it for you.

Can you attach a metric of financial distress in terms of higher cost? We know how much the salary cap is, but can you state the average player salary, player payroll, or how much the teams’ profit margins are down?
RG: Clearly more money is going to the players, both in salary and in benefits. That adds additional stress with respect to the economics of running a league and it leaves you less margins to operate within. When you have bumps in the road, which none of us can forecast, that has a significant impact on what we hope will be the economics of running an NFL team.

What is the message to fans who don’t pay attention to all the financial details and who just want to know about their football?
RG: We have guaranteed three more years of NFL football. It is our responsibility to work out these matters and that is our job and that’s what we’re going to get focused on immediately. We recognize how important it is to have NFL football. We’ve had labor peace for several years and we hope to continue that.

When are the next scheduled meetings with the union?
RG: We don’t have anything scheduled at this point in time. I’m sure I will speak with Gene in the near future and we’ll decide how to proceed on that level.

Will this come down to the deadline? What are the hopes it will get done prior to the deadline?
RG: It’s like most issues. Deadlines always are helpful. I think anytime you have a deadline it forces people to understand the consequences of not reaching an agreement. That’s what we all have to understand and hopefully cooler heads will prevail here.

Has there been any talk that having a 17th regular-season game in place of the fourth preseason game will create a bigger revenue pot?
RG: We actually are looking at that as one alternative. We are going to report to ownership today on our preseason and what we can do to improve the quality of our preseason. We think that may impact on some of the things that we want to talk to players about.

What would a 17th game do in terms of creating more room to get a settlement with the players?
RG: It will create new revenue. The thought process was that we might reduce the preseason by a game in return for that. The players will still play the same number of games, but it may give us an opportunity to put higher quality football out there. We are not satisfied with the quality of the preseason right now. We’d like to improve on that and that’s what we’re looking at.

In the league’s statement you mention the issue of recouping signing bonuses. How has that escalated as an issue?
RG: It’s probably highlighted in a large part by the Michael Vick issue. There are other cases such as Ashley Lelie and others. In the Michael Vick case, he’s not able to play football and as such he got a significant signing bonus and we are not able to recover that. That’s money that could be going to players who are playing the game right now. So we think that there are some adjustments there that need to be made that are beneficial to the veteran players, frankly.

If there is a lockout in 2011, have you talked to the three owners bidding on the 2012 Super Bowl and how it might impact that Super Bowl?
RG: There’s been some initial discussion on that. But we’re not that far down the road. Our thought process is: how do we get an agreement that works? We recognize how it could impact people, groups or communities who want to host Super Bowls. But, I don’t think we’re at a point now to really be focused on that.

What happens to the rookie class coming in at the 2010 Draft?
RG: The Draft is negotiated through, I think, 2011. We would have the Draft through 2011.

But the 2010 rookie class would be uncapped as well?
RG: Yes.

What is it about the preseason that is lacking?
RG: That’s one of the things we’re analyzing. It used to be that we had six preseason games. In today’s NFL, it’s become more of a year-round business. Athletes come in and they probably are better prepared for the season, both physically and mentally. Is it necessary to have four preseason games to get the players prepared to play in the regular season? There’s an evaluation of talent. Who should make the team? Who shouldn’t make the team? Of course, the big significant issue for us is the quality of it and what our fans are seeing. Is it the best way to promote the upcoming season?

If there is an odd number of regular-season games, is there a way to balance out home games?
RG: You play it by conference and you flip-flop it each year. So, the AFC would play nine home games in your scenario and next year the NFC would play nine.

During the fourth preseason game, often starters don’t even play. Would you expand rosters to compensate for more competitive games?
RG: We would look at that. That’s a reasonable point to look at. It’s a long season for the players. We want to make sure that the quality of the product is unmatched. So we would look at that.

Is there any indication that coaches wouldn’t just do the same thing in the third preseason game that they now do in the fourth and not play their starters?
RG: Maybe we’ll look at two [games].

The union argues that a lot of money comes out of the players’ share to help fund stadiums. How valid is that as an argument?
RG: It’s valid that they’ve given us a cap credit. But all of the risk falls on the NFL owners. They have to take the risk that if the project comes in they can finance it and sell against it. The players are just agreeing that they will give a credit on the basis of a certain amount of revenue going forward. It’s helpful. I don’t think it addresses sufficiently enough the concerns that we have as you’re building $2 billion stadiums.

What’s your biggest concern as you get to 2010?
RG: Getting an agreement. From our standpoint, we are just looking for an agreement. We will reach an agreement at some point. We would like to reach an agreement with the least amount of pain and turmoil. We hope we can do it at the negotiating table and in an appropriate fashion within the right timetable. We are not concerned about an uncapped year. With the kind of dollars we’re paying right now that doesn’t necessarily concern us. What we would like to do is keep a system that works for us and both parties.

If you get to an uncapped year, how difficult will it be to reestablish a system with a cap?
RG: In 1993 we did not have a cap system and we got one. I’m sure there will be a lot of rhetoric about no cap system if there isn’t one at that point in time. But we were able to make that transition before and I’m sure we can do it again if necessary.

Is it fair to say the agreement that started in 2006 was not a wise agreement?
RG: I don’t really look back at it that way. We all were making an effort to try to keep labor peace. We reached an agreement that we knew was going to be pushing the envelope. After two years of living within that system, we recognized it does not work long-term for us. That’s the way it goes.

With today’s vote to opt out, how will that affect any LA initiative with this degree of uncertainty?
RG: Uncertainty is never a great thing. So you have that and it could affect the potential for us to get a team in Los Angeles. It could affect the potential for additional revenue streams through television. It can have that impact. I hope it won’t. I hope that we’ll be able to reach that agreement. But there is that potential.

With the credits given by the union, what are some of the ways they would bear risk?
RG: They don’t bear the risk.

What would be some of the ways?
RG: I’m not going to negotiate with them publicly. The cost of generating revenue is becoming more and more expensive. They share in revenue. They don’t share in cost.

Will the discussion of having a 17th regular-season game be included in the labor discussions or is it possible that it can be moved faster through separate discussions?
RG: I guess it’s possible but I don’t know. We haven’t had extensive discussions with the union. Most of our analysis has been internal. Does it work? Is it something we want to pursue? Before we propose something we would want to think through all the issues that some of the people have raised here. How would you work 17 weeks by conference? We need to do more analysis. We would talk to the union at the appropriate time and see what their reaction is.

What is the status on the Marvin Harrison situation?
RG: We are just keeping very close to all of the investigators and making sure we understand the facts as soon as they become available to us. That’s all we can do until we have more facts.

Are you concerned?
RG: I’m always concerned when our players are involved with things. It’s premature for us to say anything because we really do not know enough of the facts.

Did you consider making a proposal to the union before opting out?
RG: We had a meeting with them. We felt that this deal was not working. That was the most clear message to send them. It’s really to get to the table and to start negotiating. Whether we make a proposal or they make a proposal first, the reality is we just have to get to an agreement. We didn’t feel the deal was working. We needed to make that clear so that we could start the negotiation.

How much has the increased costs of stadium financing exacerbated the issue of rising player costs?
RG: When you’re building $2 billion facilities, you can understand the stress that brings on a system. Generating the kind of revenue to pay down that $2 billion is significant. And you have the obligations to pay the players as part of that. So, that’s been a big issue. That’s one of the things that none of us could have foreseen. But, when you see what’s happened in the marketplace with respect to financing particularly the auction rate securities. That’s a big impact that the owners have to bear, not the players. That’s what I mean by about risk in the marketplace.


Welcome Zenophon!
Home Teams Releases Game Day Resources My Page
My Profile
Help
Log Out



NFL Media > Releases > News Story




News / Release

Commissioner Goodell -- Spring Meeting In Atlanta (Part 2 of 2)
05/21/2008
COMMISSIONER GOODELL PRESS CONFERENCE
NFL SPRING MEETING
Atlanta, GA – May 20, 2008, 5:00 PM

Commissioner Goodell: Regarding the Competition Committee agenda, we picked up many of the matters that we had tabled from the March meetings.

One of them was the coach-to-defense implementation of the communication system.

The second was the integrity of the game. The rules and the policy that we adopted in March, we went through the details of how that will work – specifically the certification, the duty to report, the spot checks and some of the technology we’ll be using.

Third point, the Competition Committee discussed what has been called ‘the hair rule.’ We have tabled that on the basis – it was my view – that there was further work to be done. As you know, in March I tabled it because I felt it was out of respect to the players – Alex (Marvez) is over here shaking his head, the Alex rule (laughter) – I thought it was important for us to hear directly from the players. We had a Player Advisory Committee meeting in April. There are some additional items that need to be followed up on, so I felt out of respect for the players that we should continue to work with them and address this to see if there is a reasonable compromise, which of course doesn’t include cutting their hair. That has been tabled.

One other issue is that we have expanded our international practice squad to 16 teams for the season.

Preseason. We had a pretty lengthy presentation at the end of today on how we would approach the preseason. It was innovative. It was discussing more of how we look at our offseason and the start of our offseason from Senior Bowl to Combine to The Draft to training camps and minicamps. How a player goes through the process of making a team is a very compelling story, and we call it “the journey”. It is something we’re going to do more work on as it relates to how we can create greater content for the NFL and present our players and the game at a time when there is more desire for NFL content.

We spent a quite a bit of time today on fan conduct. We look at the issue of our in-stadium experience as something that is critically important. We think that the experience can be improved. We are going to be working with our clubs to improve that. We want everyone to be able to come to our stadiums and behave properly. So we’ll be focusing on that, including the implementation of an NFL fan conduct policy which we will have out prior to the season. It was generally agreed among all of our clubs that we should be able to do better here and make sure all fans can come in and enjoy the experience.

Personal conduct was raised and discussed again at length. This is an ongoing issue as I told you one year ago. We are adding some additional aspects to our policy. The most specific one and the one of greatest interest will be implementing club fines. Clubs that have incidents, players, coaches, anybody involved with an incident, there will be a league fine attached to that, and it will escalate with the more incidents that you might have.

We spent a little bit of time also talking about our public service promotional platform. The discussion there was what the NFL should stand for and where we can make the greatest difference. I think our focus is on youth health and fitness and it’s something that we are going to be more focused on as we go into this season and clearly beyond that.

Then we spent a little bit of time on two significant anniversaries. This year, as you know, is the 50th anniversary of the ’58 Championship Game. We will be doing something special around that. Details are yet to be announced, but we went through some ideas with our clubs today. Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the AFL, and we started to advise our clubs of some plans we’re going to have to celebrate that significant time.

You know about the labor issue, of course.

Q: Personal conduct policy and if there is a set schedule for fining teams?
No, it’s part of our personal conduct policy. There will be a fine against the club if a player is suspended under the personal conduct policy. That will be paid to the league to help cover the costs of some of the resources and some of the things we’re doing to help support our players. It will escalate with the number of incidents that you have at any particular club, so if you have more incidents the percentage will go up, and it will be based off of the player’s salary.

Q: Is that for suspensions or arrests?
Suspensions. Any discipline under the personal conduct policy. In this case, specifically, the example I was giving you of personal conduct was suspensions.

Q: This is not until you’ve adjudicated it?
Yes, that’s correct.

Q: Whether the policy will include other penalties besides money, such as draft picks?
It could. I think, to start with, we didn’t outline that but there’s potential that it could grow into that at some point.

Q: The amount of the fine is not tied into the severity of the infraction but rather the player’s salary?
The way we’ve outlined it to date, and we’ve just outlined a draft, but that is something we’re considering. That’s a reasonable issue – depending on the severity of the issue – we might consider that.

Q: Any discussion of expanding rosters or playoff re-seeding?
We did not discuss that.

Q: Proposal by Competition Committee regarding anti-tampering rule?
We did discuss that. The Competition Committee has met on that a couple of times. We’ll continue to discuss that. As you know, that’s really not an issue in the next several months. We’ll raise it again by October. We need to do some additional work on that.

Q: Fan conduct?
First of all, it’s very possible, and likely, that people can come to a game and enjoy alcoholic beverages or beer and do it very responsibly. What we don’t want is there to be abusive behavior. That includes foul language; that includes disrupting other people who are there to enjoy the game. We’re just saying, come and enjoy yourself, but don’t ruin it for others.

Q: Can you police that without having security everywhere?
We think we can, and we think some clubs are doing some very creative things here to get help to specific areas and to let our fans know that we expect when you come here you act civilized and allow everyone to enjoy the game. Have fun, scream as much as you want, but do it in a way that’s appropriate. I think I’ve told you in the past that I went to a game last year as a fan. I went through the gates and went through the whole experience, and it was a terrific experience. But that varies from stadium to stadium and probably game to game, and probably time to time. There’s no question that we probably have a more difficult time in the evening games. In some cases that’s because the normal season ticket-holder isn’t at that game and they give it to somebody else. That’s not a license to be unruly. In our opinion, you have a responsibility to whoever you give those tickets to, and you’re responsible for their behavior. It’ll be discipline, enforcement, and making sure that we communicate our message effectively.

Q: Any indication that there’s been an increase in bad behavior?
What’s precipitated it is hearing from fans. I hear a lot from fans and our teams hear from their fans, people who have had a bad experience. I think it’s something that we believe should be addressed effectively by the NFL, and so we’re going to take the positive step to do it and do it in a responsible fashion. I think it’ll be good for all of us to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to make sure this experience is a good one.

Q: Which teams are doing a good job?
I’m not going to go there. I think we can all improve. I think all of us are going to learn from one another about what’s working in some stadiums. The situation is going to vary, and there are some new factors coming in. The secondary ticket market is a new factor and we have to figure out how to handle that. There’s not a one size fits all solution.

Q: Teams will get fined for personal conduct rather than drug policy violations?
That’s correct.

Q: Termination of contracts and the new rules that go into place today?
We’ll be happy to get them all for you. There is an acceleration of some of the rules and we’ll get them for you.

Q: Having the NFL Draft in Los Angeles – criteria?
I also got a letter from the mayor that indicated interest, saying that they think this would be a great spot for the draft. We are looking at that – that’s one of the cities that’s indicated an interest in doing that. We have an interest also. I think it goes in with all of the changes that we’re thinking about with the draft – whether we move it to prime time, which rounds go on which day, and including rotating the site. That’s one of the things that we’ll continue to look at.

Q: Time frame?
It could be as early as 2009.

Q: When will the decision be made?
I would guess sometime in the fall just because of the plans necessary.

Q: If a player gets fined but not suspended for a personal conduct policy violation, will the team get fined?
That’s something we’re still working out. We haven’t made a final determination on that. We have not implemented the policy; we discussed how we were going to proceed on this. We gave them some broad outlines, but that’s one of the issues we’re still addressing.

Q: Fan behavior issue and not having enough security manpower?
Certainly if that’s required, and they need more manpower to address their issues, then yes, we would seek to make sure that they have those resources available to them. Somebody made a comment earlier when we were discussing this issue about statistics. One of the things we want to do is get standardized information so we understand exactly what we are dealing with and, more importantly, understand what’s effective. So as we implement changes and we have various programs to address this issue, we know what’s working and what’s not working so we can focus on what’s working.

Q: Are there legal issues surrounding that?
I have yet to find something where there wasn’t a legal aspect.

Q: The game he attended as a fan and his opinion on the perfect model of an ideal game for fans?
I went with my 13-year-old niece and I sat in two locations. I sat all the way at the top on about the 40 and I sat in the end zone, and they were two different experiences, to be honest with you. I was actually quite surprised at how different they were. I think the model is, from the time somebody goes to a stadium, and that includes getting into the stadium, going through the parking experience, going through the gates, sitting there, concessions, restrooms, the whole experience – making sure that they feel safe, that they’re comfortable and that they can enjoy the game without being interfered with. I think people have a right to do that, so I think that’s the experience. We want them to go home safely, and when they arrive home, feel good about what they just did that day.

Q: 26 players being arrested or cited since the Super Bowl this year vs. 27 players at the same time last year, and how much he feels the personal conduct policy is working when the numbers show that it’s not?
I don’t agree with that. If you look at any particular window, it might not look like there’s been significant progress, but I think there’s a greater recognition of the issue. We’ve showed that there was a significant reduction in numbers. I recognize there have been incidents in the recent few weeks which concern me, and that’s one of the reasons we’ve raised it again. We will continue to address this issue; it is still a priority for us. As I said last year, this is not going to get resolved simply by issuing a new personal conduct policy. It’s going to be continuing reinforcement of the message: you’re expected to act a particular way if you’re going to be involved with the NFL, period.

Q: Pacman Jones and a possible partial reinstatement so he can work out with the team?
I really wanted to get through today’s meeting, but I will meet with Adam. I will see what his progress is. Depending on his progress, I will make a determination on whether it’s appropriate to have him work out at the team facility or work out with the team. As you know, I gave him that right at the end of last season to use the facilities, and then he lost it. So, I’ll have to make a judgment about whether I think he understands his responsibilities as an NFL player and we’ll go from there.

Q: Has Adam made any attempt to meet with you to get this issue resolved while you are here in Atlanta?
I have not heard from him here.

Q: It sounds like that meeting could take place very soon?
Yes, it could.

Q: With regard to the CBA, could you say something to the fans about whether or not they should be worried at this point? What is your level of confidence about reaching a new agreement with the players before the deadline?
I think our fans should focus on enjoying NFL football. They have got that for the next three seasons at a minimum. It is our job to be able to address these issues off-the-field with the players, not through the media, but directly with the players and do it responsibly so that we reach an agreement that is good for the players, good for the NFL, and, most importantly, good for our fans.

Q: Any level of confidence?
I don’t go around making projections. It’s our job to reach something that is fair and appropriate. I’m sure I will be held accountable to that.

Q: Can you talk about the plan to have rookies tour the Hall of Fame and talk about the importance of this connection between rookies and players in the Hall?
It’s actually an idea that Michael Irvin gave me at the Hall of Fame last year and as you know he made what I thought was one of the most emotional and powerful speeches when he was inducted. We talked about the power of the Hall of the Fame. We talked about the power of the players who played the game and the coaches that coached the game. The players coming into the league should have an understanding of that history, that tradition, and the people that came before them. We actually looked at the possibility of moving the entire Rookie Symposium to Canton. That could not be done, at least in the short term, because of facilities. So, this was an alternative that we thought was appropriate, bringing the rookies to the Hall of Fame and letting them go through. Many of the clubs will be sending their own Hall of Fame players with them to give them an experience. I hope they’ll understand that they’re walking in some pretty big shoes and that they have a responsibility to the NFL and that they will someday hope to be in that Hall themselves as inductees.

Q: What evidence did you look at as far as the preseason?
We didn’t get specific. This was really more of a broader concept. We really talked about the journey that starts with the college players by going through the process of being selected in the NFL, making the NFL, and how compelling that story really is. We should really look at the preseason not as the beginning of the season, but actually as the end of the process where they learn how to become an NFL player. They either make it or they don’t, and that’s really very compelling content to us. We compared that to some of the other entertainment that is going on and how we thought that there is a place for this.

Q: Is this content for the NFL Network?
I think it would go beyond the NFL Network, but clearly it is why we believe a 24 hour, 7 days a week, 365 days a year channel talking about the NFL is a very compelling proposition because there are great stories. Other networks have other programming and they have other interests. We think talking football 365 days a year is good because there a lot people who want to talk about it and that’s good for us and it’s good for our fans.

Q: With the hair rule being tabled again, will players be able to wear their hair the way they have been for at least this season?
Yes, I think that is safe to say. We’re going to be meeting with the players again. We’re going to be discussing alternatives. We will be at least looking at some of those alternatives and maybe even trying some of those alternatives out if players are willing to do so in hopes we would have some sort of solution for this in the future. I would assume that it wouldn’t come in on a broad level for the 2008 season.

Q: Are there any updates on the Patriots scalping Super Bowl tickets or them allowing a player to practice while on injured reserve?
No.

Q: Was anything decided on the helmet communications system for the defense?
We passed it in March. Now it is just a question of implementing the actual communications system and making sure that it is in place and effective. We have done it within the policy we have passed in March.

Q: Have any teams experimented with it yet?
Not that I am aware of.

Q: Could there be fines levied against teams if there are too many rowdy fan incidents in their stadiums?
I never mentioned fines in that context. At some point that may be something that we entertain, but at this stage right now all the clubs believe that this is something we can do better at and we are going to be focused on how we can improve the experience. It is not a defining matter at this stage.

Q: Have you had any contact with Senator Specter since he called for an independent investigation last week?
No, I have not.

Q: Do you have any plans for that?
Nope.

###
Related Links:

MATT WALSH | STATEMENT BY THE NFL ON MATT WALSH -NFLMedia.com

MATT WALSH | STATEMENT BY THE NFL ON MATT WALSH -NFLMedia.com

Statement By The NFL On Matt Walsh
04/23/2008
STATEMENT BY THE NFL ON MATT WALSH



An agreement has been completed between the NFL and Matt Walsh that will allow Mr. Walsh, a former videotape operator with the New England Patriots, to share with the NFL information about activities occurring during his employment with the club from 1997-2003.



Commissioner Goodell will meet with Mr. Walsh in the commissioner’s office on Tuesday, May 13, the earliest date that Mr. Walsh, who lives in Hawaii, will be available on the east coast.



The agreement also requires Mr. Walsh to return any tapes and other items in his possession that belong to the Patriots. In return, the NFL and the Patriots have promised not to sue Mr. Walsh. They also will indemnify him for any expenses, including legal fees that he incurs in connection with the interview.



Commissioner Goodell determined last September that the Patriots had violated league rules by videotaping opposing coaches' defensive signals during Patriots games throughout Bill Belichick’s tenure as head coach. Coach Belichick admitted to his use of the taping practice on a regular basis as a result of what he said was his misinterpretation of the rule. Commissioner Goodell imposed substantial discipline on Coach Belichick and the club as a result of that practice. The interview with Mr. Walsh will seek to determine whether he has any new information about that videotaping practice or other possible violations of league rules.



Following the meeting with Mr. Walsh on May 13, there will be a news media briefing later that day in New York that will be attended by Commissioner Goodell (specific time and location to be provided at a later date).



# # #