As a CR contributor I am dismayed when an attack article is published that, for all intents and purposes, presents not only an extremely distorted view, but a one-sided view at that. And essentially you have taken the easy way here and essentially printed verbatim a series of one-sided press releases coming from and about Mike Ditka and his associates. I've watched this controversy develop over the past year--and while there is reason for concern that some former players have faced significant troubles, Ditka and his Gridiron Greats is operating more as (1) either a sham—as shown by the paucity of funds actually going to former players—or (2) a tool by remaining hard-line owners—and they are still out there—seeking to weaken the National Football League Players Association's significant gains in terms of both salary levels and benefits over the last 15 years. For example, during their fabled NFL careers, neither Ditka himself or none of Ditka’s superstars were involved with the union or did anything personally to further player rights. And before I continue, let me emphasize that I "speak" with some authority since I was a union staff member when these so-called limits on retirees took place. Given the past history of savaging Gene Upshaw by the likes of Ditka and Joe DeLamielleure, I understand why Gene may have felt any congressional hearing would fare better without his being in the room. And so I'm writing to provide you with a more balanced overview--and one far different that posed in the Gridiron Greats press releases. Even if you had a writer attempt to get Upshaw’s detailed point of view, after having been an NFLPA staff member for nearly 25 years, I know that Gene steadfastly believes he is only responsible to one group and one group alone—currently active and potentially active players, the members of the union’s bargaining unit and those are the only ones to which he will answer. Your article and its love affair with Gridiron Great are much too one-sided. And since I am retired from the union since 2005, I don’t feel reticent about filling in blanks. First, however, my credentials: I spent nearly a decade working in the U.S. Congress, first as a Research Economist for the Joint Economic Committee, then as Legislative Assistant for the late Representative George E. Brown, Jr. of California and then as Legislative Analyst for Representative Ronald V. Dellums of California. And from 1981 until I retired in 2005 I was the Director of Research for the NFLPA. When I joined the union staff in 1981—and Gene at that time was the president of the association—players were receiving approximately thirty cents out of every dollar they generated in revenues and owners were taking approximately seventy cents. That, of course, was a legacy from the Ditka era when so-called Superstars like Ditka made what in that period could be termed “high” salaries while the vast majority of players—the “grunts” in the trenches earned a pittance. The stars such as Ditka may have been big names on the playing field, but off it, they were afraid to challenge the owners over any issue—be it measly pensions or a lousy disability system. Enmity between players and owners was bitter and hostile. And the more that articles featuring only what Ditka and his buddies say, it portrays division among current players, the more remaining hard-line owners laugh all the way to the bank; for them, a weakened Upshaw is the best of all possible worlds. By 2005 when I retired, players now are receiving well over 60% of all revenues and owners are making over 30%--and those unsettling labor/management battles between the parties of the 1960’s through the 1980’s was replaced by a constructive partnership (although I personally would call it more of a “shotgun marriage”). Current NFL players have the best post-career program of any professional sport and important steps have been taken in critical health coverage and injury issues. All of this occurred under the leadership of Gene and the elected player representatives. Looking back at my service within the Congress, which wasted valuable time holding a series of hearings on this subject, I am hard-pressed to remember when an dispute—if, indeed, there was one at stake here, or anything else involved here which touches on public policy or even the need for congressional oversight—of this narrow a nature was ever accorded such exposure. Why? Pro sports and pro players—active or retired—are sexy on the Hill, an attraction for members of Congress. So, having failed to gain traction with active players—indeed, the small group of malcontents have never attempted to build a positive coalition so that the distance between themselves and active players keeps widening—the dissidents have now turned to the political arena and to the media, personally, to air their complaints. Here’s what the Gridiron Greats press releases and Ditka's empty rhetoric featured in your article conveniently overlook: (1) All decisions relating to union policies are decided by a vote of the elected Player Representatives; when it is imperative to take a quick vote—whenever it is impossible to bring together the entire Board of Player Representatives—votes are made by the elected Executive Committee. Gene, as Executive Director, does not have the power to vote in any situation. I have witnessed many instances when votes have gone against what Gene has favored; (2) Throughout every period when there has been a Collective Bargaining Agreement, the current recognized bargaining unit under the National Labor Relations Act limits membership in the NFLPA only to active and potentially active players. See if you can find any other union where retired members continue as part of the bargaining unit; so when Gene is quoted in the media as rebuffing former players because they are “not his boss”, he may seem gruff but he’s technically and totally correct; even so, every annual meeting of the Board of Player Representatives has had one or more former players attending—and no one, Dikta included, had he ever asked, was turned away; (3)Instead of stacking the deck only with outspoken critics of the union and therefore listening only to dissidents, Congress should have invited not only the current union president, Troy Vincent, but also other past presidents, such as Jeff Van Note, Tom Condon (both of whom served as player-appointed trustees on the pension board), and Michael Kenn, and Trace Armstrong, former NFLPA presidents who constitute a procession starting in the 1960’s and running through the turn of the century and they certainly could have testified under oath that any attempts to discriminate against older retired players didn’t happen; (4)Investigating only the role of the union—and Gene in particular—is disingenuous in terms of players receiving disability payments from a joint pension board. There are three player trustees and three owner trustees which means, in practical terms, only those cases that receive unanimous votes can proceed. Once again, Gene does not have a vote on the board. No matter what he personally—or any of the player-appointed trustees favors and how thorough the due diligence performed by the NFLPA staff and its consultants—the owners’ three representatives always vote as a group. I am not aware of any instance over the near quarter century I worked for the union when an owners’ trustee broke ranks and therefore I am puzzled by charges hurled at Gene for his alleged inability to grant disability payments; (5)No one is more interested in extending post-career health coverage than Gene and such insurance coverage has been expanded greatly since 1993. However, research conducted by the NFLPA’s Director of Benefits, Miki Yaras-Davis, uncovered that the cost of total post-career health benefits just for active players would be more than entire amount of funds going for all salaries and benefits—and to add coverage for the thousands of retired players would be literally astronomical. You don’t have to take just my word; the following article lays it all out:
As a CR contributor I am
As a CR contributor I am dismayed when an attack article is published that, for all intents and purposes, presents not only an extremely distorted view, but a one-sided view at that. And essentially you have taken the easy way here and essentially printed verbatim a series of one-sided press releases coming from and about Mike Ditka and his associates. I've watched this controversy develop over the past year--and while there is reason for concern that some former players have faced significant troubles, Ditka and his Gridiron Greats is operating more as (1) either a sham—as shown by the paucity of funds actually going to former players—or (2) a tool by remaining hard-line owners—and they are still out there—seeking to weaken the National Football League Players Association's significant gains in terms of both salary levels and benefits over the last 15 years. For example, during their fabled NFL careers, neither Ditka himself or none of Ditka’s superstars were involved with the union or did anything personally to further player rights. And before I continue, let me emphasize that I "speak" with some authority since I was a union staff member when these so-called limits on retirees took place. Given the past history of savaging Gene Upshaw by the likes of Ditka and Joe DeLamielleure, I understand why Gene may have felt any congressional hearing would fare better without his being in the room. And so I'm writing to provide you with a more balanced overview--and one far different that posed in the Gridiron Greats press releases. Even if you had a writer attempt to get Upshaw’s detailed point of view, after having been an NFLPA staff member for nearly 25 years, I know that Gene steadfastly believes he is only responsible to one group and one group alone—currently active and potentially active players, the members of the union’s bargaining unit and those are the only ones to which he will answer. Your article and its love affair with Gridiron Great are much too one-sided. And since I am retired from the union since 2005, I don’t feel reticent about filling in blanks. First, however, my credentials: I spent nearly a decade working in the U.S. Congress, first as a Research Economist for the Joint Economic Committee, then as Legislative Assistant for the late Representative George E. Brown, Jr. of California and then as Legislative Analyst for Representative Ronald V. Dellums of California. And from 1981 until I retired in 2005 I was the Director of Research for the NFLPA. When I joined the union staff in 1981—and Gene at that time was the president of the association—players were receiving approximately thirty cents out of every dollar they generated in revenues and owners were taking approximately seventy cents. That, of course, was a legacy from the Ditka era when so-called Superstars like Ditka made what in that period could be termed “high” salaries while the vast majority of players—the “grunts” in the trenches earned a pittance. The stars such as Ditka may have been big names on the playing field, but off it, they were afraid to challenge the owners over any issue—be it measly pensions or a lousy disability system. Enmity between players and owners was bitter and hostile. And the more that articles featuring only what Ditka and his buddies say, it portrays division among current players, the more remaining hard-line owners laugh all the way to the bank; for them, a weakened Upshaw is the best of all possible worlds. By 2005 when I retired, players now are receiving well over 60% of all revenues and owners are making over 30%--and those unsettling labor/management battles between the parties of the 1960’s through the 1980’s was replaced by a constructive partnership (although I personally would call it more of a “shotgun marriage”). Current NFL players have the best post-career program of any professional sport and important steps have been taken in critical health coverage and injury issues. All of this occurred under the leadership of Gene and the elected player representatives. Looking back at my service within the Congress, which wasted valuable time holding a series of hearings on this subject, I am hard-pressed to remember when an dispute—if, indeed, there was one at stake here, or anything else involved here which touches on public policy or even the need for congressional oversight—of this narrow a nature was ever accorded such exposure. Why? Pro sports and pro players—active or retired—are sexy on the Hill, an attraction for members of Congress. So, having failed to gain traction with active players—indeed, the small group of malcontents have never attempted to build a positive coalition so that the distance between themselves and active players keeps widening—the dissidents have now turned to the political arena and to the media, personally, to air their complaints. Here’s what the Gridiron Greats press releases and Ditka's empty rhetoric featured in your article conveniently overlook: (1) All decisions relating to union policies are decided by a vote of the elected Player Representatives; when it is imperative to take a quick vote—whenever it is impossible to bring together the entire Board of Player Representatives—votes are made by the elected Executive Committee. Gene, as Executive Director, does not have the power to vote in any situation. I have witnessed many instances when votes have gone against what Gene has favored; (2) Throughout every period when there has been a Collective Bargaining Agreement, the current recognized bargaining unit under the National Labor Relations Act limits membership in the NFLPA only to active and potentially active players. See if you can find any other union where retired members continue as part of the bargaining unit; so when Gene is quoted in the media as rebuffing former players because they are “not his boss”, he may seem gruff but he’s technically and totally correct; even so, every annual meeting of the Board of Player Representatives has had one or more former players attending—and no one, Dikta included, had he ever asked, was turned away; (3)Instead of stacking the deck only with outspoken critics of the union and therefore listening only to dissidents, Congress should have invited not only the current union president, Troy Vincent, but also other past presidents, such as Jeff Van Note, Tom Condon (both of whom served as player-appointed trustees on the pension board), and Michael Kenn, and Trace Armstrong, former NFLPA presidents who constitute a procession starting in the 1960’s and running through the turn of the century and they certainly could have testified under oath that any attempts to discriminate against older retired players didn’t happen; (4)Investigating only the role of the union—and Gene in particular—is disingenuous in terms of players receiving disability payments from a joint pension board. There are three player trustees and three owner trustees which means, in practical terms, only those cases that receive unanimous votes can proceed. Once again, Gene does not have a vote on the board. No matter what he personally—or any of the player-appointed trustees favors and how thorough the due diligence performed by the NFLPA staff and its consultants—the owners’ three representatives always vote as a group. I am not aware of any instance over the near quarter century I worked for the union when an owners’ trustee broke ranks and therefore I am puzzled by charges hurled at Gene for his alleged inability to grant disability payments; (5)No one is more interested in extending post-career health coverage than Gene and such insurance coverage has been expanded greatly since 1993. However, research conducted by the NFLPA’s Director of Benefits, Miki Yaras-Davis, uncovered that the cost of total post-career health benefits just for active players would be more than entire amount of funds going for all salaries and benefits—and to add coverage for the thousands of retired players would be literally astronomical. You don’t have to take just my word; the following article lays it all out:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-lifetimeinsurance092607&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
M. J. Duberstein Kihei, HI