Written by Jeff Nixon and posted on July, 16, 2010
On June 1, 2010 Fourth and Goal posted an open letter to the Chairman of the NFLPA Former Player’s Board of Directors, Cornelius Bennett.
Here is his response:
July 15, 2010
Gentlemen:
I want to take this time to say hello to all Former Players and I sincerely hope everyone is doing the best they can.
This is a critical time for all Former Players. Solidarity should be the order of the day. We have an opportunity, now more than ever, to be a part of the conversation when it comes to deciding what we need as Former Players.
On the issue of transparency DeMaurice Smith has done a wonderful job educating the Former Players as to what goes on at the NFLPA and sharing information as it relates to bargaining and today’s players. The fact that the NFL has not opened its books should be a point of concern for those of us who helped build the game. The NFL should honor the history that so many players contributed to and made special, and furthermore compensate players for that legacy. As players we deserve more.
On teamwork, as a member of the NFL/ NFLPA Alliance assembled to discuss former player concerns, I’ve always advocated for improved benefits and programs for players, both vested and non- vested. As Former Players we are all fighting for the same things. My support for the NFLPA is nothing new. I’ve been a member of the Steering Committee /Former Players Board of Directors since 2003. I served two terms. Now as I return to the Former Players Board for a third term as Chairman I, more than anyone, would like to see players do well and get the things they need to insure a better quality of life.
The NFL and NFLPA have done a better job communicating. I will continue to push the NFLPA to get the players more information and to get it to them faster. Our game plan should be to continue to make our concerns known to the NFL and NFLPA, and support the active players in this round of negotiations and their pursuit of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.
It is time for the owners to make a commitment to improving the lives of Former Players.
Sincerely,
Cornelius Bennett
_______________________________________________________________
Although we are pleased to see that Mr. Bennett has responded to the letter, he failed to address some of the key questions and concerns we raised, most notably the issues surrounding the “Legacy Fund” and the Resolution that was passed.
Regarding the resolution, we asked the question: “Was it intentionally stated that the only players that would receive a $2,000 pension increase had to have a credited season before 1993 AND currently be receiving a pension? If that is the case, then what happens to players that have a credited season before 1993 but haven’t taken their pension? Under the proposed resolution these players would receive no increase.”
All retired players would still like to know the answer to those questions and we hope that Mr. Bennett and the NFLPA Former Player’s Board of Directors would address this as soon as possible.
Why is this important to former players? As we pointed out in our open letter:
“The resolution would punish those players that have deferred receiving their pension until age 65 and it would reward players that took early pensions.”
“The resolution could have the effect of prompting hundreds of players into taking an early retirement benefit in order to qualify for the $2,000 increase.”
“The resolution, in its present form, would deny the $2,000 increase for many of the men that were involved in the player Strikes of 1982 and 1987.”
As we mentioned in our open letter, we would still like the Former Player Board Members to keep the Rookie Wage Scale on the table. There is no good reason why it should not be implemented as a way of generating additional money to increase pre-1993 former player pensions.
The “Legacy Fund” could also have some potential if the NFLPA would only agree to contribute to the fund.
In an interview with SB Nation DeMaurice Smith said “I’ve said every team should make a contribution of at least a million dollars a year for a total of $32 million a year for what I would call the legacy fund. That legacy fund should go to all the player’s pensions who played prior to 1993 and that would increase all their pensions by, get this, $1,000 per month.
(What happened to the $2,000 increase that was proposed in the resolution?)
Smith, has written letters to the league about the “Legacy Fund” and also pitched it to Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.). He told SB Nation that the NFL has outright rejected his Legacy Fund idea, telling him “No, just no.”
That is not true.
The idea of a Legacy Fund was addressed by NFL Executive Vice President of Labor and League Counsel, Jeff Pash on February 4, 2010 when he said:
“We, as far back as last summer, proposed enhancing the pension plan with respect to players that have retired prior to 1993. We proposed the Legacy Fund concept on a couple of occasions. One suggestion we made was that management and the union would each contribute an equal amount. The union has very substantial business operations through Players, Inc. and their whole commercial arm. We suggested that we each contribute something to that.”
The League did not say “No, just no” as DeMaurice Smith claims. The League has asked the NFLPA for an equal contribution.
Kevin Mawae said this at last years Superbowl “ I really and truly in my heart believe we’ll get a deal done, but there’s going to have to be some give and some take and not just taking from one side all the way.”
We agree with you Kevin!
The NFLPA currently generates over One Hundred Million in licensing fees from companies that use active and retired players to market their products and services. This includes the NFL and its subsidiary NFL Ventures that paid almost 44 Million to the NFLPA in royalties.
Obviously the active players generate most of the revenue, but it seems that an equal contribution to the “Legacy Fund” would not be that difficult for the NFL Players Association to adopt, especially when you consider that the revenue that teams generate by selling our legacy is included in the 60% that the league shares with active players.
Even DeMaurice Smith acknowledged this when he said “if you’re a star running back for your local team and your local team continues to use your name and picture, put it on the wall and basically tells fans to buy tickets for that history, that legacy, that player.”
He says that owners don’t pay former players directly for their legacy.
The owners may not be paying former players directly, but the fact is, the owners have been paying indirectly for our “Legacy” because under the CBA most revenue the teams make from selling tickets and other items that attract fans is included in TR – Total Revenues when the Salary Cap is calculated.
The active players have been getting anywhere from 50 to 60 percent of the owner revenue via the Salary Cap over the past 17 years. During that time, the owners have been doing a pretty good job of marketing the NFL and our “legacy” and that is one of the big reasons why the Salary Cap has gone up every year since it was first estbilished in 1993.
The sad truth is that our “legacy” revenue goes to the active players. The active players then make decisions on where that revenue – and all other owner revenue is spent. Since 1993 we have seen a majority of the revenue being redirected from the Pension Plan and put into other “retirement type” benefits such as the Second Career Savings Plan and the Annuity Plan.
So the question could be asked “Why aren’t the active players paying former players for their “Legacy” out of the 60% of revenues they receive from the owners?
Both the NFL and the NFLPA need to equally share in the cost of implementing the “Legacy Fund”.
They both need to say “Yes, just yes!”
Jeff, A question I have is about the NFL Players Pension Plan which is a Defined Benefit Plan. Was it over funded thru the 90′s and if so that should be addressed and a statement as to why Pre-93 players should be getting higher pension benefits from the Plan that was over funded years ago.
Thanks, Larry Hand
Jeff,
Throughout history the folks with the money and power have used a tactic which gets the have-nots (we retired players) diverted towards lesser goals. In this case the NFLPA and the NFL have thrown out a puny $2,000 increase in the pension to divert us from a truly deserved right to AT LEAST receive the level of pension that major league baseball enjoys (basically 10 times the measly $785.00 that my wife, Cindy and I receive) and that covers EVERYONE THAT EVER PLAYED THE GAME from one year on.
So the owners and the co-opted NFLPA throw out the bone of $2,000 per month and we are supposed to jump for joy (which by even considering it we appear to be doing sending a weakling’s message). The obvious question is how do we get the true pension level (add a zero to our current levels), a truly legal and fair disability plan under ERISA, and medical and dental plans to care for us all (and our families).
The answer lies with history…name a vital conflict (for that’s what we have been locked in for over 50 years regarding retired player benefits) where the haves have voluntarily rolled over and agreed to be fair. The answer is never, and given the make-up of the present owner/player incentives it will not happen without true leverage. Fortunately we have a couple of large fissures developing in our favor. Bob Stein along with the Zimmerman-Read law firm in Federal court with the Dwyer case have gotten past the key issue of free or “protected speech” and the judge has appeared to recommend that the parties settle. I am urging that the settlement be upwards of 10% of the league’s present value. Owners (and many needy players) reading comments like this can be predicted to say that’s a pipe dream hoping that we will buy their rationale and go for the $2,000 being offered (or maybe not even that little as you have noted).
Well owners, we have a big new card to play (along with John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Linda Sanchez and others in Congress) and that is ANTI-TRUST thanks to the Supreme Court American needle UNANIMOUS decision. If the owners and the NFLPA think that we will not lever those and other legal issues ALL GOING OUR WAY they are making a bad bet. Bernie Parrish, Bob Stein, Dave Pear, Jeff Nixon, Joe Delmeillure and the others in the headlines are backed up hundreds of others they have never heard of who are working tirelessly to get us bennefits that we HAVE ALREADY EARNED.
Time to settle up NFL and NFLPA. If keeping your books closed to the public is nessessary in your minds, it will be part of the negotiations and may or may not happen. What will happen, however is that we NFL vets will end up receiving a FAIR SETTLEMENT not just once, but going forward that grows with the pie. AND THAT IS A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN $2,000 PER MONTH.
Thanks, Bruce Jarvis
And how is that to be done Bruce?
David Meggyesy
IF it is true that if you retired before ’93 AND are not taking benefits yet (correct me if I am wrong but I believe I could have taken lesser benefits at age 45 – I am 51 now) I hope we get some sort of time-frame to consider taking the benefits early, instead of being ‘in the dark’ about our options. eg. I had a career ending foot-injury but did not know I could apply for some sort of compensation when I ‘retired in ’91.
I never knew what was going on as far as retirement and obviously should have seeked council, but was uninformed. This website is a God-send. Thank you. Keep up the great work.
Why take money from the union to fund the Legacy Fund or whatever it will be called. The money the NFLPA has in the bank or coming to it via Players Inc. is to be able to fight the fight in the coming years. Remember the owners opted out of the deal to radically change the relationship with the NFLPA and pay the players less, INCLUDING FORMER PLAYERS. Why would DE Smith by lying about what the owners have said in negotiatins. Jeff Pash is not to be believed!
Money to increase benefits to former players could be taken out of the gross revenues the League generates, a percentage or fixed amout per year. This is exactly how pension benefits for former players have been increased in the past.
Suggest you get off the Roookie wage scale idea, it is a bad one and the owners want it, why?????
David Meggyesy