The Volokh Conspiracy

Too Bad for T.O.

Earlier today, NFL arbitrator Richard Bloch rejected Terrell Owens' greivance against the Philadelphia Eagles in its entirety. After enduring months of Owens' antics, the Eagles suspended Owens for four games without pay (the maximum allowed under the league's collective bargaining agreement) for "conduct detrimental to the team," and stated their intention to deactivate him for the remainder of the season. Owens and the NFL Players Association challenged the suspension and planned deactivation, claiming that the suspension was too harsh and that the Eagles had an obligation to release Owens if they had no intention to play him.

Most observers expected Bloch to reduce the suspension and Owens to file a second complaint when the Eagles deactivated him. Instead, Bloch (coincidentally a Washington Redskins fan) completely rejected Owens' greivance, finding Owens conduct was a "destructive and continuing threat" to the team. Bloch found the suspension warranted, and validated the planned deactivation, finding "no violation of the labor agreement inherent in the club's decision to pay Mr. Owens, but not to permit him to play or practice due to the nature of his conduct and its destructive and continuing threat to the team." Owens will be paid for the remainder of the season, but his misconduct will not be rewarded with a release or a reactivation. Rather, he'll have to sit at home and watch football on TV.

Owens is a great player — perhaps the most talented wide receiver in the game. He's also shown himself to be the most selfish (and that's saying something). Some team will surely pick him up next season, but that team will also insist that his contract include numerous disciplinary clauses, authorizing severe sanctions should he misbehave. Bloch's decision makes clear that such clauses will be upheld, and spoiled selfish players will not be permitted to disrupt their teams for personal gain. T.O.'s loss is a win for the game.

UPDATE: The full text of arbitrator's ruling is here.

Joel B.:
Yeah yeah, sure you aren't in a Fantasy Football league and someone else has T.O.?

I hardly feel sorry for the Eagles here, it's not like they didn't know what they were buying into when they made the deal with T.O., the Eagles should have prepared for it better when they signed him on. The arbitrator now is just letting the Eagles get away with their own foolish General Manager practices.

Gotta disagree with you on this one JNOV.
11.23.2005 4:00pm
Mark F. (mail):
How is it "selfish" to risk your professional career? Owens is self-destructive, not selfish.
11.23.2005 4:25pm
Owen Hutchins (mail):
From an Eagles fan-
most of us prefer losing to having him on the team.
11.23.2005 4:54pm
Joel B.:
From a 49ers fan-
Most of us prefer having him on the team than losing.
11.23.2005 4:58pm
Bread and Circuses (www):
A while ago Steve Young speculated about T.O.'s evolution from relatively humble guy to, er, what he is today. I blogged a bit about it here.

Personally, I'm not in a fantasy league, and I agree with the decision. You can't have that kind of disruption on the sidelines and in the locker room.
11.23.2005 5:01pm
SuperChimp:
Merely because the Eagles ignored Owens' prior issues doesn't give Owens a free pass to continue his absurd behavior. Every team has a right to suspend a player for conduct detrimental to the team. Owens conduct went above and beyond detrimental.
11.23.2005 5:14pm
MassRepUnsure (mail):
T.O. is not a selfish football player. He had to sign a waiver releasing the Eagles from any obligation to pay him if he were hurt in the Super Bowl. He returned before anyone thought he would and was the best player on the Eagles offense. He always plays hard, runs his routes, and blocks, unlike Randy Moss, the one receiver who had more talent than T.O.
11.23.2005 5:37pm
Teddy_KGB:
One question - some of the speculation I heard regarding the arbitrator's ruling was that perhaps T.O. would insist on using the weight room and coming to games to be a disruption and force the Eagle's hand in releasing him.

I'm assuming from the news coverage that T.O. isn't allowed in to the weightroom and lockerroom after his deactivation in four weeks. But is there any reason why T.O. can't come to the games and sit in the stands? Would this cause Buck/Bradshaw/Simms to absolutely self-destruct in the broadcast booth? I can't wait.
11.23.2005 7:44pm
Henry Woodbury (mail):
It seems to me that the Eagles management's position is practically self-proving. If a professional sports team kicks its best and most well-known player off the team, it's just about impossible to conceive that it doesn't have reason.

One problem for T.O. is that he's in the wrong sport. I don't think that this would happen in professional baseball or basketball. In the NFL, television revenue is divided among the teams and is completely predictable. A team can bench its best, most well known player, lose games as a result, and that won't affect the team's television revenue a dime.

In MLB or the NBA, if a team's local television ratings go down, the team is going to take a revenue hit.
11.23.2005 8:01pm
ArtD0dger (mail):
Owens conduct was a "destructive and continuing threat"

Wow. We're now being repeatedly assured that even Saddam was not a "destructive and continuing threat," he was just a jerk.

Nice going, T.O.
11.23.2005 9:01pm
The Drill SGT:
I think that Bloch made the right decision. I found the Players Union response to be troubling in the extreme:

"The players' association responded by saying it intended to dismiss Bloch, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported.

"One thing I can control is that he will no longer be an arbitrator in any more of our cases," NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw told Mortensen. "Under the CBA, either side has a right between Dec. 1 and Dec. 10 to dismiss an arbitrator and we are going to dismiss this one.""
11.23.2005 9:44pm
NYU Jew (mail):
Drill Sarge wrote:

The players' association responded by saying it intended to dismiss Bloch, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported.


That's why federal judges have life tenure.
11.23.2005 10:22pm
CalDevil (mail):
This might well prove much bigger than TO. The NFL has has had labor peace for nearly 2 decades. The players have prospered, but the owners have grown insanely rich.

This decision could be a wake-up call to players who have grown increasingly weary of the perilous nature of their livelihoods, as NFL contracts are not guaranteed and they are, by far, the most expendable athletic commodity in pro sports. Bonuses, while lucrative for some, are based more on the market and relative leverage than player perfomance.

Couple this with a divided group of owners - split over how to split all the cash, and we could well be looking at significant labor strife in the next couple of years.

With all those billions in revenues, isn't this just foolishness by both sides? Sure. But, when has that ever stopped a group of workers and managers from cutting their own throats?

Not saying that TO is the impetus for labor upheaval (he's certainly no Curt Flood), but the NFL ought to be careful about the win it wished for.
11.23.2005 10:39pm
SP:
No, it actually isn't a win for the game, because it's such a singular example. Though I have to confess, this plus the Kurt Busch incident in NASCAR has set the precedent for ownership to dismiss the star if they know the star won't be back next year. Busch had his season ended because he got in an argument with a cop. TO's distraction consisted primarily of badmouthing his QB and getting into a fight in the locker room with someone who isn't even officially with the team.

Several Philly players have said they wanted TO back. The team wins more with him than without him. And when it was all said and done, the issues TO weren't with the "team" but with 1) Lurie, 2) McNabb, 3) Reid 4) the OC and 5) Hugh Douglas of all people. The team picked its checkbook and McNabb in the fight, but, guess what? They needed TO to win as much as McNabb. Maybe more - TO was right; Favre IS better, despite the INTs, if only because he never huffed down the field during a Super Bowl in the worst excuse of a two minute drill in history. I'm not an Eagles fan, or an NFC East fan - I'm just amazed at how the Eagles couldn't just ignore TO, instead fueling the drama (with the help of Sal Palantonio, who took the ownership side from the start in exchange for access). And if Jevon Kearse is worth the massive paycheck he got, TO certainly could argue he was worth more, too. I'd be interested to find out what exactly was revealed - it seems to me, TO was a world class jerk, but he's not a felon, and I can live with a world class jerk if he catches the ball. Hope the Eagles get some moral satisfaction out of finishing in the cellar.
11.23.2005 10:47pm
Juan Non-Volokh (mail) (www):
MassRepUnsure --

The Eagles did not require T.O. to sign a waiver to play in the Super Bowl. He made that claim, but it was false. Indeed, based on some press reports, this was one of the many public claims made by T.O. that was rejected in the greivance.

JNoV

JNoV
11.24.2005 12:11am
DNL (mail):
JNoV is right about the waiver. But the waiver is a non-issue with one exception: the fact that TO's claim about a waiver keeps getting repeated shows just how awful the media coverage has been. Certainly, before returning, TO signed a number of documents, and it is certainly reasonable of him to think one was a waiver. Fine, drop it, leave it at that.

Let's address the big issues:

1) TO's current contract sucks, and it's not really his fault. The NFL tried to unilaterally change a clause in his contract two years ago — the free agency filing deadline. His date was unique because it was an independently bargained-for term. That's why the union was so against TO agreeing to the settlement that landed him in Philly; that is also why the Ravens were so willing to take virtually nothing for their time and trouble; all were rightfully sure that the arbitrator would grant him free agency.

So, why did TO sign the deal? Because he — not the union, not the Ravens — shouldered all the risk in case the arbitrator came out in favor of the league. This was a good solution. Not the best, but a good one.

2) TO's hold-out was nothing unusual. Even if you disagree with the above, players can hold out. Happens all the time with little fanfare, and yes, the team has remedies. It can refuse to negotiate. It can fine the player. It can even suspend the player. This year, Antonio Gates was suspended for a season. Last year, Keenan McCardell was traded at the deadline from Tampa Bay to San Diego.

3) TO was rightfully suspended for refusing the instruction of his coaches. Done, but certainly a major strike against him.

4) The fight with Hugh Douglas was apparently instigated by Douglas, started by Douglas (he threw the first punch), and yet, TO was the one blamed.

5) The ESPN interview in which TO says Brett Favre >>> McNabb is taken grossly out of context. See this page

Here are the four questions preceding and including the Favre one:

GB: What do you make of the Eagles' 4-3 start this season?

TO: I think a lot of the injuries have played a big part in some of our losses. I just feel that if Donovan wasn't hurt as he was, our record probably would indicate we were better.

GB: Donovan has obviously had trouble throwing, especially deep. He didn't complete any of his first 12 passes vs. Denver. How has that affected the team?

TO: Well, obviously I think our wins and losses are really predicated on how he plays. I just feel like, you know, everybody can point fingers at our defense, but it doesn't matter. Even when we were 28 (points) down, I still had in the back of my mind that we could come back — had our offense gotten in sync. I just honestly feel with playmakers like myself, LJ (Smith), and obviously Brian Westbrook, that we could have gotten back in the game. And that we did. You know, like I said, it's hard to win ballgames when you have turnovers, and we had a turnover right when we were about to go into probably tie the game. That killed our momentum, and it killed our drive.

GB: Your friend Michael Irvin recently said that if Brett Favre was the starting quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, they'd be undefeated right now. What do you think of that comment?

TO: I mean, that's a good assessment, I would agree with that.

GB: How so?

TO: I just feel like just what he brings to the table ... I mean he's the guy. Obviously, a number of commentators will say he's a warrior. He has played with injuries. I just feel like (with) him being knowledgeable about the quarterback position, I just feel like we'd be in a better situation.

-end topic-

So, TO believes that the Eagles would be better if McNabb wasn't injured, and believes that Favre plays better through injury than McNabb has. That's not a slight on McNabb at all.

The whole thing is overblown. TO has been a problem, but it's not anywhere near that bad.
11.24.2005 7:22am
DNL (mail):
Oh, one other point. The 100th TD catch? It appears all he wanted was his name on the JumboTron:

GB: You just recently scored your 100th career receiving touchdown, which puts you in remarkably elite company with only you and Marvin Harrison as the two active players to have accomplished the feat. What does it mean for you?

TO: I didn't really think too much of it. Obviously, it's a great accomplishment. I guess if I look down the road some time, I'll look back on it and and see how special it is. But to me, it was just another touchdown. You know, I expect to score every week ..

GB: Obviously, it's not necessary, but everybody likes to be complimented, everyone likes to be congratulated for accomplishing something. And you did something that only five players in the history of the NFL have done. So, how surprised were you then when the Eagles just made no public acknowledgement of it?

TO: Probably just like the statement that I said a while ago: If you align expectations with reality, you will never be disappointed. You know, their reaction shows you the type of class and integrity of an organization that they claim not to be. You know, they claim to be first class and the best organization. I just felt like it was an embarrassment. It just shows the lack of class that they had. My publicist talked to the head PR guy, and he made an excuse about (how) they didn't recognize it, or they didn't realize that it was coming up. But I know that was a blatant lie. If it would have been somebody else, they probably would have popped fireworks around the stadium. ...

---

But ESPN highlights this twice!
1) A block quote: "I just felt like it was an embarrassment. It just shows the lack of class that they had."
2) A picture caption: "Owens says it was an "embarrassment" when the Eagles failed to recognize his 100th career TD catch."
11.24.2005 7:31am
Adam (mail) (www):
The actual arbitrator's ruling makes clear that there was no "secret waiver" involved at all, nor any special contractual clauses. Just, mostly, this boilerplate language, combined with numerous letters from Coach Reid detailing to Owens how he was failing this clause:
(Player) agrees to give his best effort and loyalty to the Club, and to conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game.
11.24.2005 9:42am
jgshapiro (mail):
DNL:

TO believes that . . . Favre plays better through injury than McNabb has. That's not a slight on McNabb at all.

Huh? What universe do you live in where saying your QB can't or won't play through injury is not a slight on him? Interesting that you believe it was reasonable for TO to talk about a waiver that did not exist because he thought it did, but not for McNabb to think this was a slight on him. And presumably, that it was not unreasonable for TO to refuse to make peace with McNabb and the rest of the team even after being told that it was necessary to repair team morale.

TO's current contract sucks, and it's not really his fault.

If TO's contract was badly written, the bad writing was in his favor. What Philly should have negotiated was a clause that made almost all of TO's salary contingent on him not being suspended -- say, payable at the end of the year. Sort of a reverse signing bonus. Give him $X per game and a 'bonus' of $5M if he is not suspended during the season, $4M if he is suspended one game, $3M if he is suspended two games, etc. That way, he would have been incented to behave rather than thinking he could force his release through maximum disruption. You can bet the next team to take him on won't make this mistake.
11.24.2005 1:33pm
Siona Sthrunch (mail):
The arbitrator's ruling is notable for the incompetency of its writing, not to mention its sophomoric logical gaps.

Here are some quotations, taken from one paragraph of the ruling, at http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2234819 (the writing throughout is at about the same level) :

"Owens, by that time, had actively inspired a red hot [sic] media storm. He and the team were living in a media fishbowl . . . the import of this, and similar remarks, has not so much to do with its actual content as it does with the potential . . . impact . . . it ignores the ongoing impact of a fire, the flames of which were fueled by untenable behavior . . ."

Such mixed metaphors tell us not only that Bloch has not mastered undergraduate-level writing skills. They suggest that he does not think clearly and logically. He does not think about the meaning of his words - a fishbowl surrounded by flames creating a red-hot storm. Indeed, Bloch's point is just unfair - Owens should not be held to account for others' misinterpretations of his comments.

It's actually quite interesting how often an inability to follow the rules of grammar and rhetoric, as Bloch demonstrates with his quadruply inconsistent metaphors, go along with substantive irrationality. It's as if inability to write is a sign of a deeper inability to reason.
11.24.2005 1:48pm
Igglephan:
jgshapiro, his contract actually is not far off from what you suggest. For one, puting most of the money in the back end -- the root of T.O.'s objection -- in theory gave Owens an incentive to behave. (His salary was down this year from last, because he didn't have as substantial a bonus, and the payements escalate over 7 years.) And wouldn't you do this, given his behavior in San Fran? Also, directly because of the suspension, they can recoup a $1.8m roster bonus through payroll deductions.

What's clear from the ruling is the bad behavior of Rosenhaus, since it appeared that Mr. Bloch found the conduct deliberate, not just authentic expression of a not-that-nice personality. One local journalist said it best: "What have you done for Terrell, besides getting him kicked off the Eagles?"

Owens is a great player, it was worth "the boys in blue" (as 93.3's Pierre Robert calls them) taking the risk last year, but the team did the right thing, as did Bloch. I think they can finish 8-8. NEXT QUESTION!
11.24.2005 9:46pm
A Guest (mail):
You know, I really hate to take Owens' side, given his idiotic conduct to date, but how much of his bad attitude do you think is attributable to his quarterback being an overrated hack who can't complete a pass to anyone BUT Owens, yet feels the need to bad mouth his WR and proclaim his own supremacy? Watch McNabb's QB rating drop over the next few games like a Philly offensive lineman.

(Eagles rant over.)
11.25.2005 8:39am
jp (mail):
THe ruling is really ridiculous. In essence it says a person can go to work, and if they do some thing wrong, instead of sticking to any "written guidelines" for discipline; they can make up their own. This ruling would support if your boss said you could no longer park in the parking lot, or read any relevant reports, or attned any meetings after any type of suspension.

I expectthe next CBA will be extremely detailed in the type of punishment that can be handed down. Because to allow any party to hand some vindictive punishment especially in a unnionized, contract environment is just stupid.

Bloch definitely deserves the boot.
11.25.2005 10:27am
jp (mail):
Also, TO has not been wrong. He talked about the Niners O-line. Well it's sucked for a very long time. He talked about Mooch. Well hes on his way out AGAIN. Mooch is strictly a college coach. He talked about Jeff Garcia. The guy can barely out play Harrington; who himself is a hack. He AGREED that Farve is better than Mcnabb. No-brainer, the numbers say Farve has always been better...except last year when Mcnabb had TO to throw to. And last put yourself in his position...You are making ..$60K at a job and it is well known you are the BEST in the country at your job compared to anyone, and everyone knows it, and its indisputable....But there are at least 6 others making $120k, and your job says it wont give you a raise ...because they don't have to.

We all know there a lot of things we are not legally obligated to do, but the there is doing what's right.
11.25.2005 10:35am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
How is it "right" to hurt your team by voluntarily giving a player a raise in a salary cap system? Spotting hidden talent and getting it on the cheap is how teams WIN in the NFL.

As a Packers fan, I blame Drew Rosenhaus. What is he telling his clients? I hope the owners agree to blackball these whiney players.
11.25.2005 2:16pm
jp (mail):
I agree completely that it Drew has a huge part of the blame, and he is the reason most players are holding out. But look at the systme. T.O. the best WR in the league 7 year 49 million...none of it guaranteed...Alex Smith rookie...isn't even starting anymore 50 million...24 million guaranteed..and he complained about receiving that amount. Charles Rogers who came out as a junior got a14 million guaranteed. THe owners of the NFL are feeling the sting of the system they developed. THe owners are the ones paying, Rogers, Smith, Harrington, Carr, and other ridculous amounts of money for nothing. Wouldn't you be upset if someone was being paid twice as much as you, and haven't proved a thing. Plus their money is guaranteed, your isn't. The moment you become subpar, your out with none of the money. The owners are reaping what they sowed.
11.25.2005 8:01pm
jp (mail):
Plus, I keep hearing about "loyalty" and "hurting the team". Who was loyal to Jerry Rice. The Eagles weren't worried about hurting the team by keeping TO inactive for the remainder of the season. Who was loyal to Emmit Smith. Who was loyal to Drew Bledsoe..Randy Moss?.....Understand from an owner's perspective loyalty goes as far as performance. So why shouldn't loyalty goes as far pay for the players. Jamal Lewis will be out of Baltimore by the end of the season....think of how much of the offense he has carried over the past years, but with his age, and subpar perfomance this year, you will see loyalty from the club out of the window.
11.25.2005 8:07pm
b.trotter (mail) (www):
I personally agree with the decision, even though it's a shame to see the best W.R. in the league watching the games from home, T.O. has a long long habit of conduct detrimental to a team.

Somebody made a comparison to work in the "real world"...

I would imagine, that if I got on the news and told the media that my immediate supervisor simply wasn't as good as the supervisor at a competing plastic plant... and how my company just couldn't make plastic without a Q.A. as good as me... and then proceeded to get in a fight with somebody in the plant break room... Well... let's just say I wouldn't even be entitled to an arbitrator...

If Bloch would have ruled in favor of T.O. then any player who didn't like where he was playing could 'remedy' the situation by behaving like a child.

The NFL (and all professional sports) have an image to maintain. Image is important. When I was a Dominos employee years ago, that was hammered into my head. One Dominos driver speeding through a red light to make a delivery reflects horribly on the image that 100 other drivers are trying to achieve driving safely. The same applies in Pro Sports. In Pro Sports, everybody's watching you. Anything you do is exaggerated 10 times beyond reality for good or for ill. 20 years from now, who will be remembered as the best 49'ers receiver? Jerry Rice or TO? TO was good for the score, but Rice was good for the score AND the image.

It is true that in the NFL, history is nothing compared to how you perform this week. I personally think salaries in general are so out of hand that they can't even be expressed in terms that real people understand. Eventually, the money will catch up to the bottom line, and the NFL will find itself in the same boat as the NHL last year. It's very hard for me to pity a guy who's going to make more money sitting at home watching the game for 8 weeks than I could possibly expect to earn in my entire lifetime.
11.25.2005 9:31pm
Adam (mail) (www):
Watch McNabb's QB rating drop over the next few games like a Philly offensive lineman.


Troll. McNabb -- who led the team to three straight NFC championship games pre-TO -- is out of the rest of the season.
11.26.2005 6:55am
Go Skins (mail):
Heh. Would that be the stellar QB with the 85 rating and a "pulled groin"?

Assuming he has the guts to ever take the field again without crying about a sprained thumb or splinter in his toe (doubtful), McNabb will show himself to be the same useless scrambler he always was pre-T.O. Go back to Philly.
11.29.2005 12:25pm