NFL Live Streaming Online

Charlotte (N.C.) Observer
June 5, 2007
by MICHAEL PERSINGER

Sometimes people in the news say things that later make them uncomfortable, and Gene Upshaw is uncomfortable these days.

Upshaw, the NFL Players Association executive director, says comments from him in a Jan. 15, 2006, article about retired NFL players' concerns over pension and health benefits were taken out of context. Most recently, he discussed the comments for a story in the Philadelphia Daily News.

The Observer interviewed 13 NFL Hall of Famers for the original story, all of them pioneers in a league that now generates $7 billion in revenue annually. Some of those players described crippling health and financial difficulties and expressed disappointment at how Upshaw was handling those issues.

Upshaw responded sharply to the criticism, both to the Observer and to other sources.

"The bottom line is I don't work for (the retired players)," he said in that January 2006 interview. "They don't hire me and they can't fire me. They can complain about me all day long. They can have their opinion. But the active players have the vote. That's who pays my salary.

"They (retirees) say they don't have anybody in the (bargaining) room. Well, they don't and they never will. I'm the only one in that room. They're not in the bargaining unit. They don't even have a vote."

Those words created a firestorm among former NFL players that continues. That has made Upshaw uncomfortable, and he has fought to distance himself from the comments and discredit the Observer's story.

"The writer called me and said he had this quote from (Hall of Famer and Charlotte resident Joe) DeLamielleure, who says I don't do anything for retired players and every retired player ought to get up every day and try to get me fired," Upshaw told the Daily News for a story published Friday. "I said, `You can tell Joe DeLamielleure he didn't hire me, he can't fire me and I don't work for him.' But that's not the way it came out."

While DeLamielleure was among the 13 players the Observer interviewed, Upshaw's answers were in response to questions about retirees in general. He was quoted accurately. In fact, in the weeks before and after our story, Upshaw maintained the position reflected in our story in at least four instances:

� In a memo to retired players initialed by Upshaw and dated Dec. 2, 2005, before the publication of our article, Upshaw noted that "we help former players not because we have to, but because we want to, and perhaps most importantly, because the active players want us to. Like any other labor union, we represent only active employees. You are not union members and we do not represent you."

� In an e-mail to retired players dated Jan. 20, 2006, five days after publication, Upshaw said, "Much has been made of my recent comments to The Charlotte Observer. These comments were made in response to several retired players' criticism of me and the NFLPA. While my response was not meant to be offensive, I stand by what I said."

� An article in the New York Times on Feb. 2, 2006, said Upshaw "didn't back down" from comments in the Observer. In that story, he touted his record in improving benefits for retired players.

� At a Super Bowl news conference that same day, Upshaw addressed the plight of retired players and our story to the national media, but didn't mention concerns about how he was quoted or the context of our original story.

Also, he has never called the Observer to challenge our story or clarify his position.

So why did Upshaw wait more than a year to say he thought he was taken out of context? We tried to find out. Charles Chandler, the reporter on the original story, went to Atlanta Saturday, where Upshaw spoke to a gathering of retired NFL players. Chandler asked to speak with Upshaw.

Chandler outlined for NFLPA spokesman Carl Francis our reasons for being in Atlanta. Francis said Upshaw would have nothing to say and Upshaw was tired of "commenting on comments."

After initially being told Upshaw had left the meeting site, the Intercontinental Hotel in the Buckhead area, Chandler was told Upshaw had not left yet. Chandler, not a registered guest at the hotel, stayed.

Later, Upshaw twice ignored Chandler when he approached, once on his way from a meeting room to an elevator and once while he was on his way to a waiting car. Neither Upshaw nor Francis answered a follow-up e-mail seeking comment.

Chandler remained at the hotel, seeking to speak to others in the group of NFL retirees and NFLPA officials. A short time later, a hotel security guard asked Chandler to leave the premises at the behest of NFLPA officials.

Upshaw, whose annual salary is $4.5 million, and the league has made changes to the pension and health care packages for retirees since the Observer's story. Those changes, which include doubling older retirees' pensions from $100 to $200 per month per year of service, only begin to address the problem, some retirees say.

So, for now, questions remain about NFL retiree issues. And we intend to keep pursuing the answers.