I was listening to the press conference of Miami Heat coach Erik Spoelstra Sunday night after the team’s humiliating loss to the Dallas Mavericks in the National Basketball Association finals.
I knew of the media’s perverse obsession not only with the dismal play of LeBron James but also with James himself. I still thought the first question at least would have something to do with the Mavericks and how well they had played.
The first question was about James. The second question was about James. The third question was about James, all of them in the same vein of what went wrong with him and why had he been so lousy in the Heat’s six-game losing effort. The Mavericks? The who?
It was like that all through the finals for James, constant and withering criticism of his play, constant dissection of every comment and every body movement. Anthony Weiner’s sexting? James made him do it. The crumbling economy? Bankers were only taking James’ advice. Rick Santorum running for president? It came to him in a dream where James said, “You’re the chosen one, Rick. Not me.”
Starvation. Drought. War.
James. James. James.
He truly is the most hated athlete in all of sports.
Which is absurd.
In the 24-hour news cycle that brings out the starving rats feasting on instant analysis, everything James did was a portent of his being an arrogant assoholic.
Did you see that smile? What about the way he bent down to tie his shoelace? And how about guzzling from the water bottle during a timeout as if he was the only one who was thirsty? What a selfish bastard.
The rats ate up every crumb, regardless of the significance. The goal was to maliciously condemn him, and to that extent the media rats got their wish:
He is Public Enemy No. 1 of the tear-down culture in which human foible, unintentional mistakes, and boneheaded stupidity are not allowed. There used to be a period of grace. But not anymore. One gutter ball and you’re out.
It is absolutely accurate to say he was awful in the finals (conveniently ignoring his stellar play in the previous two rounds against the Boston Celtics and the Chicago Bulls). But the vitriol, the spewing hatred spit out with such gleeful self-satisfaction by commentator after commentator, has sunk to a new level of nuclear negativity.
Why is he hated more than Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who was accused of sexual assault and is considered a stone-cold jerk by most players in the National Football League? Why is he hated more than recently resigned Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel, who under the cloak of being a good Christian did nothing about his players breaking rules as long as his team won? Why is he hated more than Chris Webber, who pleaded guilty to criminal contempt amid a payoff scandal at the University of Michigan and whose conduct was instrumental in the Wolverines forfeiting 112 basketball games in the 1990s? (Ironically Webber, doing commentary for NBA TV, joyfully nailed James during the finals.)
Yes, we all know that James left Cleveland without grace or class. Yes, we know that the Heat, in some ridiculous version of a Las Vegas floor show, had the big three of James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh greeting Miami fans in a raucous pep rally as if they had already won the championship before the season had even started.
Yes, millions of fans, including myself, were upset by the arrogance and self-centeredness with which James handled it all. On the other hand, James wanted to go to the place where he thought he had the best chance of winning. Where should he have gone? The Golden State Warriors? Why stay in Cleveland?
In baseball, players do that all the time in free agency, and no one makes a peep about disloyalty. Has there been any sustained criticism of Albert Pujols for not signing with the St. Louis Cardinals, where he has played his entire career? Should pitcher C.C. Sabathia have stayed with the Cleveland Indians because it would have been a really nice thing to do for the city? James went for less money than he could have gotten elsewhere. Baseball free agents are almost always looking for millions more.
The book I co-wrote with James, Shooting Stars, did not do particularly well. Maybe the fault was in the execution. Maybe the theme, about James and the four friends he befriended who all played together at St. Vincent-St. Mary high school in Akron, just wasn’t sexy enough. But I also believe that readers were hoping James would come off as a spoiled idiot in high school when, as far as I could tell by spending hundreds of hours with both him and his closest friends, that was not the case.
He did some stupid things at St. Vincent-St. Mary. He showed up to school in a decked-out Hummer that he obviously was not able to afford, as he and his mother barely had any income. (Gloria James bought it from a dealer on the correct assumption that her son would soon be coming into a lot of money.) He was offered some throwback jerseys worth a couple hundred bucks—a violation of Ohio high school athletic rules on amateurism—and then promptly gave them back.
He wasn’t the one who called himself “The Chosen One.” The moniker was bestowed on him by Sports Illustrated when the magazine did a cover story on him as a junior in high school. (The first thing he should do in the off-season is get rid of the damn tattoo on his back.) He wasn’t the one who forced ESPN to show several of his games live on national television his senior year. He wasn’t the one who created a constant media circus.
He was the one who, after he signed a mega-million deal with Nike while still in high school, turned to teammate Willie McGee and said he would pay the tuition for McGee to go to Howard University.
But the image was cast. Fans were lying in wait for James to come into the NBA with the patina of being the greatest ever when he had not played a single game. Instead James pleasantly surprised everybody with the Cleveland Cavaliers. He was approachable and humble while proud as any successful person in life must be. He never got into trouble—until the disaster of his free agency, when fans were able to say, “See! See! I knew he was an a--hole all along!”
Maybe he has gone hog wild in South Beach. He is a 26-year-old superstar athlete with testosterone who has sufficient money to party. But I think that the fundamentally decent essence of LeBron James is still there. Is he more guarded? Who wouldn’t be, given the avalanche of negative publicity he has gotten this season? Did it affect his play during the finals? Of course. Shutting out the constant noise of hatred is impossible.
But the most hated athlete in sports?
In the tear-down culture in which we engorge ourselves like ticks bloated on blood, I guess he truly is the King.
Buzz Bissinger, a sports columnist for The Daily Beast
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Meet The Blackjack Player Who Took Atlantic City For $15 Million
Over the past six-months, wearing sweatshirts, free baseball caps and jeans, Wyoming executive Don Johnson, has taken Atlantic City blackjack tables for $15.1 million dollars.
The Press of Atlantic City reports that Johnson won about $5 million from the Borgata, $4 million from Caesars in December, and $5.8 million in a 12-hour run at the Tropicana in April.
Johnson denies counting cards or having any type of system.
"I'll take luck over any other skill," Johnson said. "There's no magic to this. Eventually, someone would whack them. I'm just glad it was me."
Johnson is the CEO of Heritage Development LLC, a Wyoming-based company that uses computer-assisted wagering programs for horseracing and his wins may re-shape a bit of how Atlantic City does business.
Tropicana chief Mark Giannantonio has been fired following April's big loss that put the casino in the red. Giannontino authorized Johnson's $100,000 a hand blackjack games.
"That's the highest I've ever heard of," [Johnson] said.
Another option that was offered Johnson and then taken away was the 20 percent discount on his losses. An incentive to get him to play, and allow the casinos to win back some money, Johnson would get back 20 percent of what he lost. So, if he lost $1 million, he'd get back $200,000.
"The best thing is, they offer you discounts on your losses," he said.
Johnson has been banned from gambling in many Las Vegas casinos and expects Atlantic City to follow suit.
"I don't think they will let me play anymore," he said of the Atlantic City casinos. "But it's not going to change my life. If I don't play blackjack, I'll just go to the horse races."
Over the past six-months, wearing sweatshirts, free baseball caps and jeans, Wyoming executive Don Johnson, has taken Atlantic City blackjack tables for $15.1 million dollars.
The Press of Atlantic City reports that Johnson won about $5 million from the Borgata, $4 million from Caesars in December, and $5.8 million in a 12-hour run at the Tropicana in April.
Johnson denies counting cards or having any type of system.
"I'll take luck over any other skill," Johnson said. "There's no magic to this. Eventually, someone would whack them. I'm just glad it was me."
Johnson is the CEO of Heritage Development LLC, a Wyoming-based company that uses computer-assisted wagering programs for horseracing and his wins may re-shape a bit of how Atlantic City does business.
Tropicana chief Mark Giannantonio has been fired following April's big loss that put the casino in the red. Giannontino authorized Johnson's $100,000 a hand blackjack games.
"That's the highest I've ever heard of," [Johnson] said.
Another option that was offered Johnson and then taken away was the 20 percent discount on his losses. An incentive to get him to play, and allow the casinos to win back some money, Johnson would get back 20 percent of what he lost. So, if he lost $1 million, he'd get back $200,000.
"The best thing is, they offer you discounts on your losses," he said.
Johnson has been banned from gambling in many Las Vegas casinos and expects Atlantic City to follow suit.
"I don't think they will let me play anymore," he said of the Atlantic City casinos. "But it's not going to change my life. If I don't play blackjack, I'll just go to the horse races."
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Justice to NCAA: Why no college football playoff?
DOJ says there are "serious" questions about whether current format to determine champion complies with antitrust laws
(AP) WASHINGTON - The Justice Department wants to know why the NCAA doesn't have a college football playoff system and says there are "serious questions" about whether the current format to determine a national champion complies with antitrust laws.
Critics who have urged the department to investigate the Bowl Championship Series contend it unfairly gives some schools preferential access to the title championship game and top-tier end-of-the-season bowl contents.
In a letter this week, the department's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, asked NCAA President Mark Emmert why a playoff system isn't used in football, unlike in other sports; what steps the NCAA has taken to create one; and whether Emmert thinks there are aspects of the BCS system that don't serve the interest of fans, schools and players.
"Your views would be relevant in helping us to determine the best course of action with regard to the BCS," she wrote.
"Serious questions continue to arise suggesting the current Bowl Championship Series system may not be conducted consistent with the competition principles expressed in the federal antitrust laws," Varney said.
Varney noted that the attorney general of Utah, Mark Shurtleff, has said he plans an antitrust lawsuit against the BCS, and that 21 professors recently wrote the department requesting an investigation.
Shurtleff, who met with department officials last fall to discuss a possible federal probe, said at the time that such an investigation was critical to the effort to get a playoff system.
The NCAA said Wednesday it would respond to the government's questions when it receives the letter.
Spokesman Bob Williams said Emmert consistently has said the NCAA is willing to move to a playoff format if schools with the nation's major football programs want to go that route.
Bill Hancock, the BCS executive director, was confident the current system complies with the law.
"Goodness gracious, with all that's going on in the world right now and with national and state budgets being what they are, it seems like a waste of taxpayers' money to have the government looking into how college football games are played," he said.
Under the BCS, the champions of six conferences have automatic bids to play in top-tier bowl games; other conferences don't. Those six conferences also receive more money than the other conferences.
Attorney General Eric Holder referenced Varney's letter at a Senate hearing Wednesday, in response to a statement from Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and BCS critic. Hatch called the BCS a "mess" and said that "privileged conferences" have tremendous advantages over the unprivileged.
"And I just hope that you'll continue to follow up on that particular issue," he said. "It's an important one, I think."
"I don't disagree with you," Holder responded. "You and I have talked about this issue, and I think I'm free to say that we have sent a letter to the NCAA about this issue and will be following up."
Before he was sworn in as president, Barack Obama said in 2008 that he was going to "to throw my weight around a little bit" to nudge college football toward a playoff system.
(AP) WASHINGTON - The Justice Department wants to know why the NCAA doesn't have a college football playoff system and says there are "serious questions" about whether the current format to determine a national champion complies with antitrust laws.
Critics who have urged the department to investigate the Bowl Championship Series contend it unfairly gives some schools preferential access to the title championship game and top-tier end-of-the-season bowl contents.
In a letter this week, the department's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, asked NCAA President Mark Emmert why a playoff system isn't used in football, unlike in other sports; what steps the NCAA has taken to create one; and whether Emmert thinks there are aspects of the BCS system that don't serve the interest of fans, schools and players.
"Your views would be relevant in helping us to determine the best course of action with regard to the BCS," she wrote.
"Serious questions continue to arise suggesting the current Bowl Championship Series system may not be conducted consistent with the competition principles expressed in the federal antitrust laws," Varney said.
Varney noted that the attorney general of Utah, Mark Shurtleff, has said he plans an antitrust lawsuit against the BCS, and that 21 professors recently wrote the department requesting an investigation.
Shurtleff, who met with department officials last fall to discuss a possible federal probe, said at the time that such an investigation was critical to the effort to get a playoff system.
The NCAA said Wednesday it would respond to the government's questions when it receives the letter.
Spokesman Bob Williams said Emmert consistently has said the NCAA is willing to move to a playoff format if schools with the nation's major football programs want to go that route.
Bill Hancock, the BCS executive director, was confident the current system complies with the law.
"Goodness gracious, with all that's going on in the world right now and with national and state budgets being what they are, it seems like a waste of taxpayers' money to have the government looking into how college football games are played," he said.
Under the BCS, the champions of six conferences have automatic bids to play in top-tier bowl games; other conferences don't. Those six conferences also receive more money than the other conferences.
Attorney General Eric Holder referenced Varney's letter at a Senate hearing Wednesday, in response to a statement from Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and BCS critic. Hatch called the BCS a "mess" and said that "privileged conferences" have tremendous advantages over the unprivileged.
"And I just hope that you'll continue to follow up on that particular issue," he said. "It's an important one, I think."
"I don't disagree with you," Holder responded. "You and I have talked about this issue, and I think I'm free to say that we have sent a letter to the NCAA about this issue and will be following up."
Before he was sworn in as president, Barack Obama said in 2008 that he was going to "to throw my weight around a little bit" to nudge college football toward a playoff system.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
NFL gets expedited hearing for appeal
Lester Munson on the 8th U.S. Circuit of Appeals granting the NFL's request for an expedited hearing
MINNEAPOLIS -- A federal appeals court agreed Tuesday to fast track the NFL's request to put its labor lockout in place until a new deal is finally worked out.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis set a June 3 hearing, with 30 minutes of oral argument for each side, before Judges Duane Benton, Kermit Bye and Steven Colloton.
8th Circuit Ruling On Expedited Hearing
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis on Tuesday granted the NFL's request for an expedited hearing of their appeal of the lockout injunction. Read it here. Report (PDF)
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued her injunction stopping the lockout on April 25 and denied the NFL's appeal two days later. The league appealed to the 8th Circuit, and the same three-judge panel issued a temporary stay of Nelson's order on Friday.
The lockout was put back in place by the owners a few hours later. The 8th Circuit is still deciding whether to make the stay more permanent, until the appeals process can play out.
Under the appeals schedule set up Tuesday, the league's opening brief is due May 9 and the players must file their response brief by May 20. The NFL's reply to the response is due May 26.
The league's arguments on June 3 will be led by David Boies, while Theodore Olsen will represent the players. The attorneys are two of America's most famous lawyers, having argued against each other in the 2000 case of George W. Bush vs. Al Gore. The duo also worked together in fighting California's ban on same-sex marriage.
The appeals court's approval of an expedited hearing gave the NFL at least some relief from the stern rebuke Nelson delivered.
In denying the NFL's request for a stay, Nelson wrote last week that the league "offered little, if any, evidence to directly rebut" evidence from the players they're being irreparably damaged by the lockout, the key requirement for a decision to lift it.
Nelson also wrote that, without a motion for an expedited appeal, the NFL's argument assuming the 8th Circuit will rule before the 2011 season begins "seems unlikely."
Now the league has just that, theoretically allowing more time this summer after the appeals process is completed for talks to resume on a new collective bargaining agreement.
Court-ordered mediation between the two sides is set to resume before U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan on May 16, after four days of talks last month and 16 days of federally mediated negotiations earlier this year. Little progress has been reported.
The old CBA expired on March 11, when the players broke up their union to file a federal antitrust lawsuit and the league enacted the lockout that lasted 45 days until Nelson's order.
The lawsuit against the NFL is still pending before Nelson, but the legality of the lockout has essentially become the fight for now, with both sides arguing over whether Nelson has jurisdiction in the case and over the notion of irreparable harm. That claim has been prominent in nearly every court filing of the last two bizarre, bitter months as the NFL has stumbled through its first work stoppage since the 1987 strike.
Commissioner Roger Goodell, speaking Monday on a conference call with Atlanta Falcons season ticket holders, said the NFL "doesn't need this uncertainty and clearly the fans don't need this uncertainty."
"Hopefully, we can get to the core of the issues, sit down and resolve them," Goodell said.
He added: "We shouldn't be where we are right now. We should address these issues far enough in advance and gotten an agreement that makes sense that can address the issues that I think both sides want to get done."
The first preseason game is scheduled for Aug. 8. Goodell said the NFL does not have a "drop-dead date" for reaching an agreement to avoid missing games.
"Whether they're training camps, minicamps, signing of players, all of that needs to get done sooner rather than later," he said.
A day after Goodell spoke to ticket holders, New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees led about 40 players through a workout at Tulane in an effort to stay sharp while the lockout prevents the Saints from training on team property or contacting coaches.
Information from The Associated Press contributed to this report.
MINNEAPOLIS -- A federal appeals court agreed Tuesday to fast track the NFL's request to put its labor lockout in place until a new deal is finally worked out.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis set a June 3 hearing, with 30 minutes of oral argument for each side, before Judges Duane Benton, Kermit Bye and Steven Colloton.
8th Circuit Ruling On Expedited Hearing
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis on Tuesday granted the NFL's request for an expedited hearing of their appeal of the lockout injunction. Read it here. Report (PDF)
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued her injunction stopping the lockout on April 25 and denied the NFL's appeal two days later. The league appealed to the 8th Circuit, and the same three-judge panel issued a temporary stay of Nelson's order on Friday.
The lockout was put back in place by the owners a few hours later. The 8th Circuit is still deciding whether to make the stay more permanent, until the appeals process can play out.
Under the appeals schedule set up Tuesday, the league's opening brief is due May 9 and the players must file their response brief by May 20. The NFL's reply to the response is due May 26.
The league's arguments on June 3 will be led by David Boies, while Theodore Olsen will represent the players. The attorneys are two of America's most famous lawyers, having argued against each other in the 2000 case of George W. Bush vs. Al Gore. The duo also worked together in fighting California's ban on same-sex marriage.
The appeals court's approval of an expedited hearing gave the NFL at least some relief from the stern rebuke Nelson delivered.
In denying the NFL's request for a stay, Nelson wrote last week that the league "offered little, if any, evidence to directly rebut" evidence from the players they're being irreparably damaged by the lockout, the key requirement for a decision to lift it.
Nelson also wrote that, without a motion for an expedited appeal, the NFL's argument assuming the 8th Circuit will rule before the 2011 season begins "seems unlikely."
Now the league has just that, theoretically allowing more time this summer after the appeals process is completed for talks to resume on a new collective bargaining agreement.
Court-ordered mediation between the two sides is set to resume before U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan on May 16, after four days of talks last month and 16 days of federally mediated negotiations earlier this year. Little progress has been reported.
The old CBA expired on March 11, when the players broke up their union to file a federal antitrust lawsuit and the league enacted the lockout that lasted 45 days until Nelson's order.
The lawsuit against the NFL is still pending before Nelson, but the legality of the lockout has essentially become the fight for now, with both sides arguing over whether Nelson has jurisdiction in the case and over the notion of irreparable harm. That claim has been prominent in nearly every court filing of the last two bizarre, bitter months as the NFL has stumbled through its first work stoppage since the 1987 strike.
Commissioner Roger Goodell, speaking Monday on a conference call with Atlanta Falcons season ticket holders, said the NFL "doesn't need this uncertainty and clearly the fans don't need this uncertainty."
"Hopefully, we can get to the core of the issues, sit down and resolve them," Goodell said.
He added: "We shouldn't be where we are right now. We should address these issues far enough in advance and gotten an agreement that makes sense that can address the issues that I think both sides want to get done."
The first preseason game is scheduled for Aug. 8. Goodell said the NFL does not have a "drop-dead date" for reaching an agreement to avoid missing games.
"Whether they're training camps, minicamps, signing of players, all of that needs to get done sooner rather than later," he said.
A day after Goodell spoke to ticket holders, New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees led about 40 players through a workout at Tulane in an effort to stay sharp while the lockout prevents the Saints from training on team property or contacting coaches.
Information from The Associated Press contributed to this report.
NBA Players unhappy with owners' new offer
NEW YORK -- NBA players are not happy with the latest formal collective bargaining proposal from the league's owners, saying the new offer of a 10-year deal is only marginally different from the original one the owners made.
"Unfortunately, the proposal is very similar to the proposal the league submitted over a year ago," union president Derek Fisher told ESPN.com. "This last proposal doesn't look close to what we were expecting."
NBA spokesman Tim Frank said the league delivered its offer to the union last week.
It is the second formal offer made by the owners, who are seeking significant rollbacks in existing contracts, a hard salary cap and a larger share of basketball related income -- 57 percent of which is guaranteed to the players under terms of the existing labor agreement, which expires June 30.
Union director Billy Hunter has previously said the players are willing to give up their 57 percent guarantee, but he wants to keep most other elements of the existing deal.
But the owners have taken a hard-line stance in arguing that a new economic operating system is needed to give all 30 NBA teams an equal chance to be profitable and to contend for a championship.
In their initial proposal, the owners sought a reduction of nearly $800 million in salaries for the 2011-12 season.
Players were paid a total of approximately $2.1 billion this season, and Stern said last month that the league is projecting a $300 million loss for the current season.
The union has disputed that number, saying a majority of those costs are attributable to depreciation, along with interest payments on loans used to finance the purchase of teams.
The owners' new proposal still seeks a similar financial cutback, though it would be phased in over the first two seasons.
"We are taking a close look at each piece of the proposal, and I along with my players and executive committee will be determining what next steps best move this process forward," Fisher said. "I continue to work on this daily, take this very seriously, and have a responsibility to my players to try and get a deal done."
Hunter, who has said publicly in recent months that there is a 99 percent chance of the lockout if the owners insist on sticking to the terms of their original proposal, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
The NBA has not had a work stoppage since 1998, when the league lost games because of a labor dispute for the first time in its history. But the owners emerged from that fight with two significant cost control mechanisms
the luxury tax paid by the highest spending teams, and the escrow tax withheld from players paychecks to ensure that the owners do not pay out more than 57 percent of designated revenues
in lieu of getting a "hard" salary cap to replace the existing "soft" cap system in which teams can exceed the salary cap through several means, including the Larry Bird exception (which allows teams to exceed the cap to retain their own free agents) and the mid-level exception (which allows over-the-cap teams to acquire an additional free agent at a price equal to the league's median salary).
The union made its only formal proposal to the owners last summer, and the sides have engaged in numerous informal meetings since then. Currently, both sides are keeping a close eye on developments in the NFL labor stalemate, where the players union has decertified and successfully sued in federal court to have the lockout lifted, although an appeals court has issued a temporary stay that has effectively re-imposed the lockout until the matter is further reviewed.
"With the recent news that Round 1 ratings are at an all time high, the popularity of the game globally has never been higher, we have to work to keep this going in the right direction," Fisher said. "I will continue to urge our players to be prepared in the event of a lockout, but will remain steadfast in my efforts to drive this process forward."
Chris Broussard covers the NBA for ESPN The Magazine. Chris Sheridan is a senior NBA writer for ESPN.com.
"Unfortunately, the proposal is very similar to the proposal the league submitted over a year ago," union president Derek Fisher told ESPN.com. "This last proposal doesn't look close to what we were expecting."
NBA spokesman Tim Frank said the league delivered its offer to the union last week.
It is the second formal offer made by the owners, who are seeking significant rollbacks in existing contracts, a hard salary cap and a larger share of basketball related income -- 57 percent of which is guaranteed to the players under terms of the existing labor agreement, which expires June 30.
Union director Billy Hunter has previously said the players are willing to give up their 57 percent guarantee, but he wants to keep most other elements of the existing deal.
But the owners have taken a hard-line stance in arguing that a new economic operating system is needed to give all 30 NBA teams an equal chance to be profitable and to contend for a championship.
In their initial proposal, the owners sought a reduction of nearly $800 million in salaries for the 2011-12 season.
Players were paid a total of approximately $2.1 billion this season, and Stern said last month that the league is projecting a $300 million loss for the current season.
The union has disputed that number, saying a majority of those costs are attributable to depreciation, along with interest payments on loans used to finance the purchase of teams.
The owners' new proposal still seeks a similar financial cutback, though it would be phased in over the first two seasons.
"We are taking a close look at each piece of the proposal, and I along with my players and executive committee will be determining what next steps best move this process forward," Fisher said. "I continue to work on this daily, take this very seriously, and have a responsibility to my players to try and get a deal done."
Hunter, who has said publicly in recent months that there is a 99 percent chance of the lockout if the owners insist on sticking to the terms of their original proposal, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
The NBA has not had a work stoppage since 1998, when the league lost games because of a labor dispute for the first time in its history. But the owners emerged from that fight with two significant cost control mechanisms
the luxury tax paid by the highest spending teams, and the escrow tax withheld from players paychecks to ensure that the owners do not pay out more than 57 percent of designated revenues
in lieu of getting a "hard" salary cap to replace the existing "soft" cap system in which teams can exceed the salary cap through several means, including the Larry Bird exception (which allows teams to exceed the cap to retain their own free agents) and the mid-level exception (which allows over-the-cap teams to acquire an additional free agent at a price equal to the league's median salary).
The union made its only formal proposal to the owners last summer, and the sides have engaged in numerous informal meetings since then. Currently, both sides are keeping a close eye on developments in the NFL labor stalemate, where the players union has decertified and successfully sued in federal court to have the lockout lifted, although an appeals court has issued a temporary stay that has effectively re-imposed the lockout until the matter is further reviewed.
"With the recent news that Round 1 ratings are at an all time high, the popularity of the game globally has never been higher, we have to work to keep this going in the right direction," Fisher said. "I will continue to urge our players to be prepared in the event of a lockout, but will remain steadfast in my efforts to drive this process forward."
Chris Broussard covers the NBA for ESPN The Magazine. Chris Sheridan is a senior NBA writer for ESPN.com.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Football's Future If the Players Win
There would be no draft. Incoming players would sell their services to the richest teams
By ROGER GOODELL
Late Monday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued a ruling that may significantly alter professional football as we know it.
For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.
What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.
For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.
For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.
Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer.
View Full Image
Getty Images
Small-market teams like the Buffalo Bills would suffer.
.Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.
In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.
Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue—on his own behalf or representing a class—to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.
Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:
• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."
• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.
• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.
• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.
• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.
• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.
• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.
• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.
Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.
In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil.
Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players—those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars—play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?
Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.
Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance—close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests—are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?
These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. Goodell is commissioner of the National Football League.
There would be no draft. Incoming players would sell their services to the richest teams
By ROGER GOODELL
Late Monday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued a ruling that may significantly alter professional football as we know it.
For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.
What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.
For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.
For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.
Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer.
View Full Image
Getty Images
Small-market teams like the Buffalo Bills would suffer.
.Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.
In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.
Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue—on his own behalf or representing a class—to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.
Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:
• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."
• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.
• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.
• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.
• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.
• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.
• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.
• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.
Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.
In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil.
Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players—those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars—play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?
Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.
Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance—close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests—are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?
These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. Goodell is commissioner of the National Football League.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Online poker firms, U.S. government agree on refund plan for players
Two of three firms targeted in a federal crackdown on online poker have reached agreements with prosecutors to "facilitate" the return of money from their accounts to U.S. players, a U.S. attorney announced Wednesday.
Former World Series of Poker champion, Greg "Fossilman" Raymer,has been vocal about the federal crackdown on online gambling.
Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced agreements with PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker.
The indictment last week, which seeks at least $3 billion in civil money laundering penalties and forfeitures, came with restraining orders against about 75 bank accounts used by the firms and their payment processors in 14 countries.
The announcement comes was timely for players contemplating withdrawing funds from their online accounts to participate in the 2011 World Series of Poker, a series of 58 tournaments that begins May 31 in Las Vegas. The Main Event at the WSOP, which last year drew 7,319 entrants at a buy-in of $10,000 each, is set to begin July 7.
Bharara said the firms had already been free to return money.
"No individual player accounts were ever frozen or restrained, and each implicated poker company has at all times been free to reimburse any player's deposited funds," Bharara said in a press release.
But the nature of the agreements announced Wednesday was to allow PokerStars and Full Tilt to use their pokerstars.com and fulltiltpoker.com domain names to facilitate the withdrawals.
Last week's restraining orders were also issued against the Internet domain names used by the firms. Wednesday's agreement stipulated that the Internet sites will not be allowed to use the domain names for "real money" online poker.
"In fact, this office expects the companies to return the money that U.S. players entrusted to them, and we will work with the poker companies to facilitate the return of funds to players," said Bharara.
No such agreement was announced with the third online company involved in the indictments, Absolute Poker.
Wednesday's announcement was welcomed by the Poker Players Alliance, a players' advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.
The group said that in recent days more than 65,000 emails, letters and phone calls had been addressed to the Department of Justice, Congress and the White House urging access to the players' money in online accounts.
"The poker players have spoken, and it seems the U.S. government has heard their cries," John Pappas, executive director of the alliance said in a press release.
"But players are still in pain. While today's action allows players on two of the three online poker sites to access their funds, this is just a small victory in the ongoing fight to protect Americans' rights to player poker online."
The indictment were made under the 2006 federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.
The indictments named 11 individuals involved in the three firms. All were charged with conspiracy to violate and violation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which prohibits firms from knowingly accepting U.S. payments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling.
Nine were charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud. Ten were charged with money laundering conspiracy.
Each count of the indictments carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and three years of supervised release, plus monetary penalties.
The Poker Players Alliance wants government to license and tax online poker.
"At a time of such economic weakness in the U.S., citizens expect their government to be wholly focused on improving their way of life through job and revenue creation, not attacking their personal activities," said Pappas.
"Congress needs to recognize the benefit of licensing and regulating online poker to protect players' rights while adding thousands of jobs and billions in revenue to the U.S. market."
Some of the fallout so far from the federal crackdown:
? Full Tilt has been a major sponsor in mixed martial arts. It was on the verge of returning to the Ultimate Fighting Championship. But Caren Bell, a spokeswoman for UFC's parent company Zuffa, confirmed in an email to USA TODAY the deal has been shelved.
? ESPN2, which was to begin taped coverage of the North American Poker Tour Monday night, said the shows will not air in light of PokerStars being the sponsor.
"Plans have not changed" for the WSOP, said spokesman Mike Soltys of ESPN, which aired WSOP shows from July 27 through Nov. 9 last year.
The World Series of Poker, operated by Caesars Entertainment, declined comment on possible effects on the World Series.
Entries took a hit after the 2006 enactment of the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which prohibits gambling businesses from knowingly accepting U.S. payments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling.
There were a record 8,773 entries in the Main Event in 2006. The next year, after the WSOP prohibited third parties such as online gaming firms from directly paying the $10,000 entry feed for participants, entries fell to 6,358.
But despite the WSOP ban on third-party entries, online companies still offered tournaments in which winners could earn the equivalent of the Main Event entry fee. It was up to them whether they played.
Entries rebounded steadily in recent years. Last year's total (7,319) was second most ever.
But the recent indictments raised questions about whether they would result in diminished entries for this year's WSOP and Main Event. Those questions were tied to uncertainty about whether players would be able to access their online accounts to get money to play in the World Series.
Wednesday's announcement in New York addressed that.
But the indictments remain.
"The government shouldn't have anything to do with morality in general," says Greg Raymer, who won the $5 million top prize at the 2004 Main Event after winning his seat in a PokerStars tournament that cost $160 to enter.
"The government should be protecting us here. That's why they should be creating a law to license and regulate online poker, the same way they protect us from bad food. … These people (in online poker) are saying, 'Please, pass the law, give us a license and then we'll be happy to pay taxes.' "
Two of three firms targeted in a federal crackdown on online poker have reached agreements with prosecutors to "facilitate" the return of money from their accounts to U.S. players, a U.S. attorney announced Wednesday.
Former World Series of Poker champion, Greg "Fossilman" Raymer,has been vocal about the federal crackdown on online gambling.
Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced agreements with PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker.
The indictment last week, which seeks at least $3 billion in civil money laundering penalties and forfeitures, came with restraining orders against about 75 bank accounts used by the firms and their payment processors in 14 countries.
The announcement comes was timely for players contemplating withdrawing funds from their online accounts to participate in the 2011 World Series of Poker, a series of 58 tournaments that begins May 31 in Las Vegas. The Main Event at the WSOP, which last year drew 7,319 entrants at a buy-in of $10,000 each, is set to begin July 7.
Bharara said the firms had already been free to return money.
"No individual player accounts were ever frozen or restrained, and each implicated poker company has at all times been free to reimburse any player's deposited funds," Bharara said in a press release.
But the nature of the agreements announced Wednesday was to allow PokerStars and Full Tilt to use their pokerstars.com and fulltiltpoker.com domain names to facilitate the withdrawals.
Last week's restraining orders were also issued against the Internet domain names used by the firms. Wednesday's agreement stipulated that the Internet sites will not be allowed to use the domain names for "real money" online poker.
"In fact, this office expects the companies to return the money that U.S. players entrusted to them, and we will work with the poker companies to facilitate the return of funds to players," said Bharara.
No such agreement was announced with the third online company involved in the indictments, Absolute Poker.
Wednesday's announcement was welcomed by the Poker Players Alliance, a players' advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.
The group said that in recent days more than 65,000 emails, letters and phone calls had been addressed to the Department of Justice, Congress and the White House urging access to the players' money in online accounts.
"The poker players have spoken, and it seems the U.S. government has heard their cries," John Pappas, executive director of the alliance said in a press release.
"But players are still in pain. While today's action allows players on two of the three online poker sites to access their funds, this is just a small victory in the ongoing fight to protect Americans' rights to player poker online."
The indictment were made under the 2006 federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.
The indictments named 11 individuals involved in the three firms. All were charged with conspiracy to violate and violation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which prohibits firms from knowingly accepting U.S. payments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling.
Nine were charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud. Ten were charged with money laundering conspiracy.
Each count of the indictments carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and three years of supervised release, plus monetary penalties.
The Poker Players Alliance wants government to license and tax online poker.
"At a time of such economic weakness in the U.S., citizens expect their government to be wholly focused on improving their way of life through job and revenue creation, not attacking their personal activities," said Pappas.
"Congress needs to recognize the benefit of licensing and regulating online poker to protect players' rights while adding thousands of jobs and billions in revenue to the U.S. market."
Some of the fallout so far from the federal crackdown:
? Full Tilt has been a major sponsor in mixed martial arts. It was on the verge of returning to the Ultimate Fighting Championship. But Caren Bell, a spokeswoman for UFC's parent company Zuffa, confirmed in an email to USA TODAY the deal has been shelved.
? ESPN2, which was to begin taped coverage of the North American Poker Tour Monday night, said the shows will not air in light of PokerStars being the sponsor.
"Plans have not changed" for the WSOP, said spokesman Mike Soltys of ESPN, which aired WSOP shows from July 27 through Nov. 9 last year.
The World Series of Poker, operated by Caesars Entertainment, declined comment on possible effects on the World Series.
Entries took a hit after the 2006 enactment of the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which prohibits gambling businesses from knowingly accepting U.S. payments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling.
There were a record 8,773 entries in the Main Event in 2006. The next year, after the WSOP prohibited third parties such as online gaming firms from directly paying the $10,000 entry feed for participants, entries fell to 6,358.
But despite the WSOP ban on third-party entries, online companies still offered tournaments in which winners could earn the equivalent of the Main Event entry fee. It was up to them whether they played.
Entries rebounded steadily in recent years. Last year's total (7,319) was second most ever.
But the recent indictments raised questions about whether they would result in diminished entries for this year's WSOP and Main Event. Those questions were tied to uncertainty about whether players would be able to access their online accounts to get money to play in the World Series.
Wednesday's announcement in New York addressed that.
But the indictments remain.
"The government shouldn't have anything to do with morality in general," says Greg Raymer, who won the $5 million top prize at the 2004 Main Event after winning his seat in a PokerStars tournament that cost $160 to enter.
"The government should be protecting us here. That's why they should be creating a law to license and regulate online poker, the same way they protect us from bad food. … These people (in online poker) are saying, 'Please, pass the law, give us a license and then we'll be happy to pay taxes.' "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)