Union head says rookie wages a non-issue for vets

DAVIE, Fla. – A day before having a mass meet-and-greet with NFL owners in Fort Lauderdale, new NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith took a couple of verbal jabs at the party he hopes to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement with sometime in the next two years.

Specifically, Smith said that the popular issue of controlling salaries for top draft picks wasn't even an issue of concern for the union.

"It might be an issue to drive a wedge between rookies and vets. But I know one thing, it's not a player issue," Smith said Monday.

He also continued to push for owners to open their books to help speed a new agreement.

All of this came on the eve of Smith's scheduled stop Tuesday at the owners meetings, which will last through Wednesday. The owners are expected to discuss the rookie wage scale and award the 2013 Super Bowl to either South Florida, Arizona or New Orleans during the meetings.

Stafford's contract generated some post-draft discussion.

(Carlos Osorio/AP Photo)

Smith's comments came in the midst of his aggressive NFL tour. Smith, who was elected in March, said he has already met with nine teams since the final week of April and plans to meet with players from a total of 28 teams this spring in an effort to show his face to the constituency.

As for his adversaries, Smith used some clever logic to hoist the issue of rookie pay back on the owners. To this point, the NFL had put the rookie pay issue out front as an example of something the players and management must fix. In April, No. 1 overall pick Matthew Stafford(notes) received $41.7 million guaranteed as part of six-year, $72 million contract from the Detroit Lions. That is the most money ever guaranteed to a player – veteran or rookie.

While the vast majority of rookie contracts are far more controlled, Stafford's contract caused the usual consternation among fans, executives, coaches and even players about rookies making too much.

On Monday, Smith countered that contention saying that veterans he has spoken with consider it a non-issue for them.

"You know what every veteran has said to me? When we talk about that issue, what they say is that [they] understand the business of football," Smith said. "The one thing that becomes apparent is they know who signed the checks … they know who picked the players and they know who was involved in selecting what player for what team.

"So at the end of the day, when I talk to them about this issue of a rookie wage scale, the one core thing that underlies every part of that issue is, what player is involved in setting a salary for [another] player? None of them. Absolutely none of them. So if the owners don't want to pay that price for that player, guess what? Don't."

Furthermore, Smith attempted to debunk the notion that inflated rookie contracts take away from veterans. Smith pointed out that many teams are well below the $129 million salary cap for next year (17 of 32 teams have at least $10 million of room). As a result, many teams will have room to add veterans even after factoring in the rookie salary pool.

"Some people might say it's a player issue because if you saved money on the rookies it would go to veterans. Well, guess what, if you take a look at how many teams spend their entire fund amount on veterans, what do you find out? They're not even close [to spending it all]," Smith said. "So we know the underlying assumption that if you cut rookie pay it would go to veterans, you know that underlying assumption is false. So all I know is that on this issue is that the only person who signs that check is an owner and few of them, if any of them, spend their full allotment on vets anyway."

In addition, Smith reiterated his desire for owners to open their books in an effort to push negotiations forward. He also said that players he has talked to are both extremely aware and prepared for a possible lockout by owners. In contrast, when NFL players went on two failed strikes in the 1980s, lack of preparation ultimately undermined them.

"Can you imagine buying a house without knowing what the comps were? If you didn't know what the house sold for before? If you didn't know what the market price was?" Smith said, rhetorically, in referring to the owners opening their books.

The league has consistently said it won't do that and league counsel Dennis Curran said over the weekend at a sports lawyers conference that owners were under no legal obligation to open their books.

"Whether someone is under a legal obligation is one thing," Smith countered. "But if you are the party that has decided to opt out of an agreement that has generated $8 billion in revenue and now you're forcing the other side to come to the negotiating table with the threat of a lockout on the horizon and the players ask a simple question of why do we have to renegotiate this deal, what the financial issues are that cause you to opt out and the answer you get back is, 'I'm under no legal obligation to tell you'; well, it may not be the best way to reach a compromise, but it makes it very difficult to begin a negotiation. Don't you think?"

Ultimately though, Smith said he remained optimistic about getting a deal done before a possible lockout of NFL players in 2011. The lockout is a worst-case scenario which would lead to tremendous legal wrangling.

As for the players being aware of many complex issues heading into the uncapped 2010 season, Smith said many of them are getting up to speed quickly. Among many changes, players do not become unrestricted free agents until after six years in an uncapped year and teams no longer have to pay many benefits, such as retirement funds and medical coverage for spouses.

Smith said the owners' recent decision to allow teams to opt out of paying benefits for 401K and pension plans for coaches was a clear message of what to expect.

"Our guys are acutely aware of the differences," Smith said. "The first level of preparation for any of these issues is being aware of them. For example, the players are also acutely aware of what's happening with the coaches, their 401K and pension plans. So, the one thing that came out of that decision by the league was to remind the players and to make them acutely aware of how quickly actions by the league can impact their financial wherewithal."