home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=92TT2087>
- <title>
- Sep. 21, 1992: Play of the Week
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992
- Sep. 21, 1992 Hollywood & Politics
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- THE WEEK
- SOCIETY, Page 21
- Play of the Week
- </hdr><body>
- <p>A jury leaves N.F.L. players licking their chops, owners their
- wounds
- </p>
- <p> In the relentless struggle between athletes and team owners for
- a bigger slice of professional sports' financial pie, control of
- free agency has been the utensil of choice. Last week,
- following a 36-day trial, a federal court dropped the owners'
- favorite fork on the floor, ruling that the National Football
- League's limited free-agency plan was illegal and awarding four
- players $1.6 million in damages. The decision will probably lead
- to a less restrictive agreement and higher salaries.
- </p>
- <p> Players contended that the existing plan kept salaries low
- and curtailed their ability to move freely to higher-paying
- teams; the owners argued that fewer restrictions would unleash
- uncontrolled salary escalation. On this last point, both sides
- might agree; in the National Basketball Association and
- major-league baseball, free agency is looser. Annual player
- salaries average $1.1 million and $1.08 million, respectively.
- In the N.F.L., the average is about $400,000. Probably not for
- long.
- </p>
- <p> The plaintiff's suit included a total of eight athletes,
- but according to Tom Condon, a sports agent and former head of
- the N.F.L. Player's Association, some 1,000 of the N.F.L.'s
- 1,500 players have been affected by the old free-agency rule,
- which has been in effect since 1989. The players' attorney,
- Jeffrey Kessler, called the decision a "total victory." The
- N.F.L. said it would appeal.
- </p>
-
- </body></article>
- </text>
-
-