The Money or the Power?

By J.D. Reed

When the N.F.L. strike created its first hole in the air waves last Thursday night, ABC-TV offered instead The Cheap Detective, a comedy film about a befuddled gumshoe. Not such an inappropriate choice, perhaps. Though there is nothing cheap about this conflict, a dogged investigator may indeed be needed to wade through the welter of plans, positions and proposals to figure out whodunit. Who is responsible for the strike and what exactly is the fight about?

Is it not true that the N.F.L. Players Association is asking for $1.6 billion in salary and bonus money? And that the owners are offering $1.6 billion? If the two parties agree almost to the penny, why did everyone drop the ball and walk away from the negotiating table a week ago? The usual investigative byword--follow the money--is not all there is to this case, however. The issue, explains Sam Huff, a former New York Giants star and now a hotel executive, "is power and who will control pro football. Is it going to be Pete Rozelle, or is it going to be Ed Garvey?"

The lines are well dug in on both sides. For the players, Garvey, the executive director of the N.F.L.P.A., argues that they are not proposing gridiron socialism as charged; they are trying to respond to a well-oiled socialist industry, unprecedented in American business. The N.F.L.'s new fiveyear, $2.1 billion television package, for example, is to be divided equally among its franchises. Whether Super Bowl winner or cellar inhabitant, whether smoothly or badly run, each team is to get the same $11.8 million share of this year's TV income. The result is a $600 million-a-year growth industry with no risks, no hassles, no losers. At least not for N.F.L. owners.

But while the franchises share and share alike, say the players, the athletes are treated to a skimpy slice of the pie. Despite the fact that their average salary of $90,000 is not exactly K rations, football players are the worst paid of major professional athletes (see chart). Three baseball players, New York Yankee Dave Winfield, Philadelphia Phillie Mike Schmidt and California Angel Reggie Jackson, together make more than the entire 45-man roster of the Dallas Cowboys.

As for free agency, and its promised million-dollar pot of gold at the end of the option year, it does not work in football. When the game's stellar running back, Chicago's Walter Payton, offered his services to other N.F.L. teams last year, there were no takers. Why would a franchise pay a premium for Payton (and give up two draft choices) when its profits scarcely change, win or lost? In fact, a team may fatten its bottom line by not making the playoffs. All 28 teams split the postseason television money even for the Super Bowl, and not participating saves expenses.

The owners respond to all of these points with some reasonableness. The men in the helmets do deserve a generous raise, say their bosses, but Garvey and the players' representatives want to undermine critical management prerogatives. When the talks began last February, the union demanded 55% of the league's gross income, to be taken off the top and divvied up among the players according to the union's formula. Two weeks ago, Garvey came off the 55% proposal to demand 50% of the N.F.L.'s TV income, plus considerable other monies. But more important, the union's proposed salary structure is unchanged.

The controversial formula calls for replacing individual player contracts with a union-administered scale based mainly on seniority; a second-year player, for instance, would receive a base $109,000 salary. Performance bonuses would be added, strictly by the numbers. Each Pro Bowl appearance would be worth $11,000, for example, and more would go to 272 player-selected "stars" in 18 categories. There would also be team performance extras calculated on statistics like total rushing yardage and most field goals blocked. These units could get up to $186,000, to be divided "in proportion to downs played with that unit or team."

Such complexities might threaten to cause a computer overload, but even worse, say the owners, is that the plan amounts to paying players like pieceworkers in a ball-bearing factory. Says the N.F.L.'s chief negotiator, Jack Donlan: "The idea of the union distributing wages, becoming in effect partners of the owners', is alien to American business." It is certainly alien to the way the N.F.L. has done business. The owners propose to continue their pattern of negotiating individual contracts, but promise that a lot more money will be paid out when all those contracts are added up. They have offered a sweetener: retroactive individual bonuses for every year played since 1977, up to $60,000. And by the end of the proposed five-year contract, the owners figure they would have spent $1.6 billion. What could be more equitable and generous?

Quite a lot, Garvey thinks. Says the former Army intelligence officer: "I'm convinced they're offering $1.6 billion about as much as I'm convinced there's a tooth fairy." Indeed, before the walkout the league had been unwilling to guarantee flatly that it would spend the funds. Even if it were to offer a guarantee--and some believe it eventually will--the conflict would be far from resolved. There are, of course, such secondary issues as medical plans, pensions and drug testing (the owners want tests for everyone; the union favors a more limited approach). These matters could be hammered out, though, if the two sides would negotiate on the big issue. But while the union would doubtless be willing to dicker over the details of its proposed wage scale, and management would likewise consider adjustments to its proposed package of individual contracts, neither is willing to talk in terms of the other's structure. And so far there does not seem to be any prospect of a middle ground. One N.F.L. team president, remaining anonymous to avoid a $250,000 gag-rule fine imposed by Commissioner Rozelle, sees little hope for a quick settlement. Says he: "The way the two sides are now, there is nothing for an arbitrator to arbitrate. The outlook is bleak." --By J.D. Reed

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.