| In the 1970s and ’80s, I
supported NFL players in their drive for free agency. It seemed unfair for teams to have
so much control, deciding where they play and what they were paid, and even forcing them
to play injured at times, potentially putting their careers at risk. The football world
has changed since then. Now, players have free agency, and player movement has
accelerated. In general, it is a good thing. Players get paid based on production, not
what their team wants to pay them. But there have been downsides for players. Three
examples of the downsides were apparent during the offseason in my backyard, the San
Francisco Bay Area.
The most serious case is that of Raiders DT Darrell Russell, who has been accused of
videotaping two friends alleged to have raped a woman. Prosecutors also claim Russell
slipped her a "date-rape drug."
The case is ongoing and there has been conflicting testimony. No drugs showed up in a
urinalysis of the woman, but one of Russell’s co-defendants admitted that she
appeared drugged when the videotape was played in the courtroom.
There was no record of Russell getting into trouble when he played collegiate ball at
USC. Those close to him don’t believe he is a bad person. But Russell is easily led,
and he has attracted an entourage of young men who have introduced him to a nightlife he
cannot handle.
This is often what happens to athletes when they find big money at an early age
(Russell is now 26). There will always be those who want to separate young athletes from
their money with flim-flam schemes, and stories of athletes who have made millions but are
bankrupt because they have been fleeced out of their money are commonplace.
Russell’s friends apparently have not tried to take his money, but they were
attracted to him because of his fame. It’s not clear whether his friends introduced
him to drugs or he found them on his own. What is clear is that he ended last season
suspended because he had failed another NFL drug test.
Now, Russell faces a much more serious danger — he’s in jeopardy of serving
time in prison. At the very least, a football career in which his salary had escalated to
$9 million last season, and would have gone to $10 and then $11 million in the next two
seasons, appears over.
Another example, though a much less serious one, involves 49ers C Jeremy Newberry.
While preparing for a boat ride on a Bay Area lake, Newberry and his sister got into a
dispute with a young woman. The woman charged that Newberry had assaulted her. Newberry
claimed the woman and his sister were fighting and he was merely trying to break up the
dispute.
No criminal charges were filed because, without eyewitnesses, police had only the
conflicting testimony of Newberry and the alleged victim. (There was no dispute that
somebody had hit the woman, who had bruises on her arms.)
Newberry claimed that the woman had made her charge because she thought she could get
money from him. Whether a jury in a civil case would agree with his position or that of
the woman, it is certainly true that athletes are targets because of their money.
Even as late as the ’60s, an NFL career was seen by most players primarily as a
way to get a leg up in the business careers they would have after finishing in the NFL.
Rarely did athletes live solely on NFL earnings in their lives after football. The money
wasn’t significant enough for others to consider taking it in court or with financial
scams. There is now.
The Raiders teams I covered in the late ’60s, were brawling, heavy-drinking gangs.
Those players were seen as just part of the football landscape of the time. There was
almost no publicity about their various activities, only word-of-mouth on the football
grapevine.
Now, athletes are very much conspicuous figures. Newberry should learn a lesson from
this experience. When he’s in public, he must be like Caesar’s wife, avoiding
even the hint of misbehavior.
The final example is a financial one — QB Rich Gannon’s contract dispute with
the Raiders.
Gannon, who was regarded by most as no more than a journeyman quarterback when he came
to the Raiders but has since developed into a star, is under contract this season for
about $2 million. His contract is supposed to jump to around $5 million for the next two
years, but those years are "voidable" by either side.
One of the hardest workers in football, Gannon stayed away from the Raiders’
practice facility in the offseason until the final minicamp in June. He had hoped to
renegotiate his contract to make the next two years firm.
Gannon, 37, is fearful that the Raiders will simply void the last two years of his
contract, putting him on the open market where Gannon probably won’t be a hot item.
He fits the Raiders’ system because he throws short- and medium-range passes
accurately, makes great decisions and scrambles out of trouble and for gains when he needs
to. He wouldn’t be as valuable to a team that wanted to throw the ball downfield.
Gannon’s concern is legitimate. The Raiders are facing a serious cap problem
(estimates have them as much as $30 million over) following the 2002 season. Like others
to encounter cap woes, Oakland has been able to ease its cap problems so far by
restructuring contracts. That won’t be enough next year. They’ll have to cut
some players, and Gannon’s contract would be a logical start.
In general, free agency has been a real positive for the players. But, as these
examples show, there also have been downsides.
Glenn Dickey is a columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle and has covered pro
football since 1967. He can be reached via e-mail at Gdickey@sfchronicle.com. |
