Closing Arguments Become Contentious In NFL Retirees Trial
By Daniel Kaplan, Staff Writer, SportsBusiness Journal
The attorney summing up the case for a class of 2,062 retired players suing the NFLPA for allegedly not paying them licensing royalties spared no shots, accusing the union Friday of having a slush fund, and the chief endorsement negotiator for Electronic Arts of being in the labor group’s hip pocket. Peter Parcher argued vehemently that language in the group licensing agreement (GLA) his clients signed, as well as in the licensing agreement 95 licensees signed with the union, entitled his side to at least $32M in damages, and punitive damages as well. The central issue is whether those agreements trigger sharing licensing with retired players that currently only goes to current players. But Jeff Kessler, arguing the NFLPA’s side after a 13-day trial, said the union was only guilty of trying to help the retired players when no other sports union had ever undertaken anything like it. The language in the licensee contracts referring to retired players was only put in there, he said, to notify the companies that in addition to the active players they were paying for, there were former players the union could deliver. “Even my grandmother, if she were here today, would be shocked at the vindictive attack of deceit, name calling, requests for punitive damages, that came out of this effort to try to help these retired players,” Kessler said.
 |
Starr One Of Retired Players In
Court For Closing Arguments |
MANY PLAYERS DID NOT SIGN A GLA: Referencing Pro Football HOFer Bart Starr, who was in the courtroom, Kessler pointed out it was impossible to group license the class because so many famous retired players like Starr did not sign the GLAs. But Parcher asked why when EA asked if it could use retired players images in video games, did the union respond no, but instead instructed the company to scramble their images. He accused Joel Linzner, the EA exec who testified that the company never saw its license as including retired players, as being in the union’s sway. And similarly, he said former NFLPA President Trace Armstrong, an NFLPA witness, defended the union because he wants to becomes the group’s next leader. “The fellow was a former ball player who came in out of central casting from Hollywood, you know?” Parcher told the jury.
PARCHER CALLS MONEY SLUSH FUND: The damages, he said, could come out of a $68M fund that the union designates as unallocated. Parcher referred to the fund twice in his closing arguments as a slush fund, though there was no evidence during the trial to suggest the union was illicitly using this money. And Kessler pointed out none of the plaintiffs complained about not receiving a share of active player licensing money, which was $215M between ’04-07, until after the lawsuit was signed. If signing a retired player GLA entitled the ex-athlete to a share of that money, Kessler asked, then why did only 2,000 out of 13,000 retired players sign the GLA? But Parcher said the union was trying to create a critical mass with licensees by having as many names as possible. And for good measure he blasted the NFLPA for going into the licensing business in ‘94, saying it created conflicts of interests and was not the proper industry for a labor group.
UNDER DELIBERATIONS: The jury began deliberations Friday and will continue until a verdict, unless it is a hung jury. The jurors must reach a unanimous decision. There are two charges, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.
|
