U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

31–311 PDF 2007

ARBITRATION PROCESS OF THE NATIONAL

FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

DECEMBER 7, 2006

Serial No. 109–156

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

CHRIS CANNON, Utah Chairman

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

RAYMOND V. SMIETANKA, Chief Counsel 

SUSAN A. JENSEN, Counsel 

BRENDA HANKINS, Counsel 

MIKE LENN, Full Committee Counsel 

STEPHANIE MOORE, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 7, 2006

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Utah, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 1

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................................................ 2

WITNESSES 

Professor Richard Karcher, Director, Center for Law and Sports, Florida 

Coastal School of Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

Mr. LaVar Arrington, Linebacker, New York Giants 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23

Mr. Richard Berthelsen, General Counsel, National Football League Players 

Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29

Larry Friedman, Esquire, Managing Director, Friedman & Feiger, LLP, Dallas, TX 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 56

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Utah, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................ 1

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 85

Prepared Statement of Carl Poston ....................................................................... 90

Letter submitted by the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) ........ 102

Letter submitted by the National Hockey League Players’ Association 

(NHLPA) ............................................................................................................... 106

Item entitled, ‘‘NFLPA Regulations Governing Contract Advisors,’’Letter submitted by Richard Berthelsen, General Counsel, National Football League 

Players Association (NFLPA), Washington, DC ................................................ 108

Letter submitted by Bernard Parrish .................................................................... 159

(1)

ARBITRATION PROCESS OF THE NATIONAL 

FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL

AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in 

Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Chris 

Cannon (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CANNON. Given the constraints on time, I would like to call 

this hearing to order, and I intend to submit my opening statement 

for the record. I hope you will forgive me for that but I think all 

the witnesses know what we are doing here. 

So I would like to yield to Mr. Coble for 5 minutes and then we 

will come back, and I will introduce the witnesses and we will 

begin the testimony. 

Mr. Coble. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

I would like to begin with a brief explanation of the jurisdictional underpinnings 

of this hearing. 

As many of you know, the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law 

has jurisdiction over title 9 of the United States Code, which deals with arbitration. 

That title was adopted nearly 60 years ago in an effort to alleviate pressure on the 

federal courts by encouraging parties to arbitrate and settle differences before they 

reached the stage of active litigation. 

By facilitating settlements through arbitration, title 9 provides a strong presumption that courts will enforce determinations arrived at under this process. 

Various aspects of title 9 have been considered by the Subcommittee over the 

years. During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee considered the ‘‘Fairness and 

Voluntary Arbitration Act,’’ legislation dealing with the arbitration procedure utilized to resolve disputes between automobile manufacturers and their sales 

franchisees. The principal item of contention was that franchisees asserted that they 

were forced into contracts of adhesion that required them to agree to arbitrators 

who, because of their relationship to the manufacturers, were not perceived to be 

neutral. 

Ultimately, legislation was passed by the 107th Congress and signed into law. 

This measure provides a more even playing field between the manufacturers and 

the franchisees in resolving disputes through arbitration. 

The Subcommittee has on other occasions exercised its jurisdiction in this area. 

Also during the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee conducted an oversight hearing 

entitled on the fundamental relationship between franchisees and franchisors and 

whether there was any need for more regulation. No further action was taken by 

the Subcommittee with regard to that issue. 

2

With respect to today’s hearing, I approach this issue with a completely open 

mind. I also want to note that it is not my intention that this hearing be construed 

to influence any pending arbitration or litigation. Rather, my intention is to objectively consider such issues as whether the arbitration procedures employed by the 

National Football League Players Association adequately protect the rights of all interested parties and whether these procedures comport with the intent underlying 

the Federal Arbitration Act.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that and I will not 

take—Marty, I won’t take as long as it takes to replay a play on 

the NFL. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. 

At one time professional players had little, if any, ability to negotiate their salaries and contracts and now they benefit from the 

ability to unionize and negotiate the collective bargaining agreements which are supposed to serve the best interest of all involved. 

While I was not immediately concerned when I learned there 

were potential problems with the National Football League Players 

Association arbitration process, a close friend of mine thought very 

differently about the matter. He recently passed and I am saddened that he cannot be with us today to examine what will be 

forthcoming at today’s hearing. 

His name, Mr. Chairman, was known to many of us. His name 

was Jerris Leonard, a distinguished private attorney, elected to the 

Wisconsin Senate, where he served as the Senate leader and he 

then joined the Nixon administration to work in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Throughout Jerris’ legal practice 

and public service he spent a career furthering and promoting civil 

rights and speaking out against injustice. 

When Jerris said to me, on several times, that a flawed process 

is more harmful than no process at all, I think he was correct 

about that. Now, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I have not drawn 

a conclusion prior to today’s hearing, but I want all the members 

of our panel to know that if this process is indeed flawed it is a 

serious problem because it undermines all that has been done to 

protect the rights of professional football players, which should be 

no different than any other citizen or profession. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your patience and efforts in conducting today’s hearing. As you pointed out, the timing couldn’t be 

any worse in the waning hours of this session, but I thank you for 

that, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman. I am hoping there is something historic that comes out of this. This is great. 

For the record, I would like to ask unanimous consent that it be 

admitted into the record, a statement by Ms. Jackson Lee and a 

statement by Carl Poston with some addenda. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.] 

Mr. CANNON. We would also like to ask unanimous consent that 

Ms. Jackson Lee and Mr. Meehan be allowed to join us at the dais 

and be allowed to ask questions. Without objection, so ordered. 

Without objection, all Members may place their statements in 

the record at this point. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare recesses at this hearing at any point. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

3

I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 calendar days to 

submit written statements for inclusion in today’s hearing record. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Our first witness is Dr. Richard Karcher. He is the Director of 

the Center for Law and Sports at the Florida Coastal School of 

Law. Professor Karcher obtained his undergraduate degree from 

the University of Michigan, Dearborn, and his law degree from 

Michigan State University College of Law. Professor Karcher is an 

active commentator on sports law. He has contributed to a sports 

law blog and has written several law journal articles relating to 

athletes and sports agents. Professor Karcher himself was a professional athlete, and looks like one, by the way. Welcome. He spent 

4 years prior to college in the Atlanta Braves farm system. 

Our next witness is Mr. LaVar Arrington, who is a linebacker 

with the New York Giants. He is well known to the people of 

Washington as he was a star player for the Washington Redskins. 

Mr. Arrington was selected in the first round, second overall, by 

the Redskins in the 2000 NFL draft. In the summer of 2006, Mr. 

Arrington bought out his contract with the Washington Redskins 

and became a free agent. He then signed a contract with the New 

York Giants. 

Mr. Arrington graduated from Penn State University in 1999. 

During his last year at Penn State, Mr. Arrington earned the 

Chuck Bednarik Award as the Nation’s top defensive player and 

the Dick Butkus Award as college football’s premier linebacker. He 

is a very scary guy in his line of work, but we are pleased to have 

you. 

Mr. Arrington has also developed himself into an off-field NFL 

personality, starring in television shows, commercials and feature 

stars in non-NFL magazines, including GQ, Maxim and the Rolling 

Stone. Thank you for coming today. 

Our next witness is Richard Berthelsen, General Counsel for the 

NFLPA. Mr. Berthelsen has represented the NFLPA for 34 years. 

During his tenure at the NFLPA Mr. Berthelsen has also been involved with professional soccer. Throughout the 1980’s, he served 

as General Counsel for two soccer league players associations. 

Mr. Berthelsen received his undergraduate degree from the University of Wisconsin, and graduated in the top 10 from the University of Wisconsin Law School. He served on the Board of Directors 

of the Sports Lawyers Association since 1986 and was a cofounder 

of the Association of Representatives of Professional Athletes. He 

is also a member of the Board of Advisers of the National Sports 

Law Institute. 

Thank you for being here today. 

Larry Friedman is our final witness. He is an attorney with an 

extensive background in arbitration law. He currently represents a 

sports agent who has been suspended by the NFLPA and has filed 

a lawsuit in a Texas court against that organization. He received 

his undergraduate degree from Queens College, the City of New 

York, University of New York. He received his law degree with 

honors from the University of Minnesota. He is the managing partner of Friedman & Feiger, LLP, a Dallas law firm. 

I extend to our warmest regards and appreciation for you being 

here. 

4

You have 5 minutes. Please feel free to summarize. There is a 

lighting system in front of you. This is a room that needs to be revamped. Your lighting system is up here. We will tap the dais 

when the red light goes on. You should feel comfortable wrapping 

up at that point. 

Pursuant to the direction of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I ask you all stand and raise your hand and be sworn in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. CANNON. The record should show that the witnesses have all 

answered in the affirmative. 

Mr. Karcher, we would be pleased to hear your testimony now. 

Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR RICHARD KARCHER, DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR LAW AND SPORTS, FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL 

OF LAW 

Mr. KARCHER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee, good morning and thank you for inviting me today 

to give my testimony. 

The NFLPA, unlike unions in the other sports, have been aggressively disciplining agents over recent years. The NFLPA would 

claim that there’s an entire system of rules and regulations that 

protect the NFLPA’s disciplinary process as a shield, more or less, 

from claims of arbitrary enforcement and violations of due process. 

That system is made of the following points, briefly. 

The NFLPA is the exclusive representative of the players under 

the NLRA, but they have chosen a unique system in which third 

party agents represent the players in individual contract negotiations. As a condition to certification, agents must consent to the 

NFLPA’s agent regulations unilaterally created and amended by 

the union without any negotiation whatsoever. The NFLPA’s regulations have been upheld by the courts, allowing the union unfettered discretion in its creation of the regulations and amendments. 

The NFLPA’s regulations are drafted very broadly, leaving the 

NFLPA complete discretion to determine whether an agent’s conduct falls within its provisions regarding what constitutes prohibited conduct. As an example, they prohibit, quote, any activity 

which reflects adversely on his or her fitness as a contract adviser 

or jeopardizes his or her effective representation of players. 

CARD, which is a disciplinary committee of the NFLPA, has the 

power to immediately suspend or revoke an agent’s license without 

a hearing and without an opportunity to be heard in, quote, extraordinary circumstances, end quote. That definition is determined by CARD, so CARD’S authority is not limited to merely proposing discipline. If an agent appeals CARD’s suspension under 

such circumstances, the appeal shall not stay the disciplinary action. 

The same arbitrator has been both selected and paid for by the 

NFLPA for the past 13 years. There’s no right to discovery, no prehearing or post-hearing briefs. Arbitrators’ decisions are not readily 

available so there really is no precedent. The arbitrator is the last 

resort for the disciplined agent because courts will typically not review the arbitrator’s decision even if the court believes that there 

5

were factual errors made by the arbitrator or that the arbitrator 

applied the law wrongly. 

So the question worth exploring today is whether the NFLPA 

should be permitted to use this system as a shield and whether one 

or more of the points making up this system should be changed in 

a way that makes the disciplinary process more fair to agents but 

at the same time preserves the legitimate function of the union in 

looking after the best interest of the players. 

Under this system the NFLPA makes subjective assessments 

about particular agents over others and these decisions will naturally be affected by certain biases that the union may or may not 

have against certain agents. 

There are some recent suspensions that at least raise some questions regarding arbitrary enforcement and due process. 

Mr. Carl Poston’s case. At the beginning of this year CARD filed 

a complaint against Carl Poston for alleged malpractice, recommending a 2-year suspension. Thus CARD made a unilateral determination that Poston committed malpractice despite all of the factual issues in dispute in that matter. 

Poston then filed an appeal to the arbitrator and then simultaneously filed suit in Federal court alleging that the NFLPA violated its regulations in certain respects as well as to seek a neutral 

arbitrator. 

After Poston had to twice postpone the arbitration hearing for legitimate reasons, the NFLPA officially suspended him because according to them he, quote, used bad faith efforts to delay, frustrate 

and undermine the hearing. Executive Director Gene Upshaw criticized Poston publicly in the media for, quote, making a mockery of 

our system and that this is not about him, it’s about our authority 

as the exclusive bargaining agent for the players. They, the agents, 

work at our beck and call. 

So a few questions arise out of the Poston situation: Is this an 

extraordinary circumstance, as I referred to earlier, under section 

6B of the regulations that warrants immediate suspension without 

a stay pending the appeal to the arbitrator? What about the damage to Poston’s reputation when he hasn’t even had a fact finder 

decide many factual issues and consider his defenses? Is a 2-year 

suspension warranted under these circumstances, especially when 

his client is not upset? 

Upshaw’s comments seem to indicate at least in part that they 

are making decisions based upon emotion leading to—it just leads 

to questions regarding arbitrary enforcement and due process. 

That’s the point, I think today, to raise the questions about arbitrary enforcement and the due process of the agents. 

David Dunn is another situation in which he was suspended for 

soliciting clients. Soliciting clients in the agent business is very 

commonplace. However, the NFLPA singled out Dunn for soliciting 

clients after he left his partnership with Leigh Steinberg and suspended him for 2 years. 

First, there’s wide debate among lawyers, scholars, including this 

one sitting here at the table speaking, and judges whether soliciting clients is even misconduct. There’s a court decision that said 

that that’s perfectly fine in competition for client services. 

6

Second, is the suspension warranted for 2 years when the alleged 

solicitation involves clients that he used to represent when he was 

with his partner Leigh Steinberg? Again, is the 2-year suspension 

warranted when his own clients vehemently oppose any disciplinary action whatsoever, just as in the Poston case? 

Dunn—I’ll wrap this up. Dunn agreed to an 18-month suspension 

which was essentially the effect of the original 2-year suspension 

imposed upon him. 

In light of the foregoing I believe that further hearings on this 

issue are important and warranted, and I thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Karcher follows:]

7

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD T. KARCHER


RTK0001.eps
8


RTK0002.eps
9


RTK0003.eps
10


RTK0004.eps
11


RTK0005.eps
12


RTK0006.eps
13


RTK0007.eps
14


RTK0008.eps
15


RTK0009.eps
16


RTK0010.eps
17


RTK0011.eps
18


RTK0012.eps
19


RTK0013.eps
20


RTK0014.eps
21

Mr. COBLE. [Presiding]. I thank you, Professor. 

Mr. Arrington, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF LaVAR ARRINGTON, LINEBACKER,

NEW YORK GIANTS 

Mr. ARRINGTON. First let me start by saying thanks for having 

this hearing, Chairman Cannon. 

Mr. COBLE. Pull that mike closer, please. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. I usually don’t have a mike to speak into. Usually got to be loud. 

But like I said, to reiterate, I’d first like to thank you all for having this hearing. The Chairman isn’t available, Representative Lee 

isn’t here, but thank you all for being here to hear my testimony. 

I have my written statement and it’s been presented and rather 

than read it I’ll just, I guess, take a spin off of Mr. Karcher and 

what he basically said about the process of how things are conducted by the NFLPA, also as a current player in the NFL. No one 

in this situation with Carl Poston and myself, other than the representatives of the Washington Redskins, are intimate with the details of the situation like we are so I feel at liberty to be able to 

say that I have a firm understanding and a firm grasp on what 

transpired during the course of those contract negotiations. 

With that being said, speaking from the heart, not reading my 

statement, I just basically feel like in this situation as a player 

when the player shows that he has a firm understanding of what 

is transpiring, what is going on, and something happens, then in 

that process I feel like as an employee for the NFLPA, which is an 

association to help us and for us, that our opinions should be valid, 

they should be heard, and ultimately they should be respected. And 

I don’t think that a comment or comments being made about the 

player not understanding well enough or not being able to understand enough to represent himself enough to make a decision in 

terms of whether an agent or anything else that has to do with the 

player’s personal affairs should be made by other individuals. 

I think that once you take that from a player, it’s on the fence 

of what do you represent. Are you just somebody who puts on pads 

and goes out on the field and give people entertainment for a couple hours on Sunday, or are we legitimate people in this society 

that make decisions? And I think in this situation that comes into 

play because I definitely on numerous occasions made sure that I 

communicated to the NFLPA that I did not have anything inside 

of me that would warrant me to take action against Carl Poston 

and what happened in the contract negotiation process. 

Ultimately in that situation, I call it ordeal because now I’m a 

New York Giant I feel like as a result of it, and in that ordeal there 

was an agreement made between the Redskins and myself that 

there was no one at fault in this situation. And, to me, if there’s 

an agreement, a settlement that no one is at fault, then how, and 

maybe—I’m not a law scholar or anything like that, I’m not a lawyer, but I just think that using common sense, how does a disciplinary act toward Carl Poston come about when there was a compromise that was agreed to and it was a no-fault compromise, but 

yet still out of that situation there’s a disciplinary act being taken 

against Carl Poston. 

22

For me, I feel like that’s a violation of Carl Poston and his right 

to represent me as the athlete, but also it’s a violation to me as 

an NFL player. This is my seventh year in the NFL, it’s not my 

first or second, so I’d like to believe I understand a lot about what 

this game is about. I’m actually a well-versed historian on the 

game. I enjoy learning the game, I enjoy knowing about the players 

and different things like that. 

So taking that all into consideration, I am a professional, avid 

professional in this game. I’m not someone who has come in and 

gone just as quick as I came in. So I have been in this game quite 

a while. I would say 7 years is quite a while. I think the average 

is 3 minutes. 

Anyway, wrapping it up, I’d like to say hopefully you guys will 

take a look seriously as how what Mr. Karcher basically alluded to, 

is how this process is done, how the arbitration process is done 

within the NFL and with NFLPA and also present some rulemaking decisions that kind of puts everybody on an equal playing 

field. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Arrington follows:]

23

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAVAR ARRINGTON


LA0001.eps
24


LA0002.eps
25


LA0003.eps
26

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Arrington, thank you. You heard my comments 

about my late friend Mr. Leonard. I guess you knew him. For the 

record I want you all to know I come into this hearing with an 

open mind. Jerris Leonard was a very dear friend, and I know he 

felt very compassionately about this issue, but I am open-minded. 

Now let me go informal here a minute. I think you and I need 

to go vote. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I was going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that since 

you and I would probably cancel each other out, and that’s just 

speculation on my part, of course. And I don’t think it’s a matter 

of substance, I think it’s a procedural matter. 

Mr. COBLE. I hate to miss the vote. He’s on his way back now. 

So why don’t we suspend very briefly, gentlemen. As soon as Mr. 

Cannon comes back, we’ll resume. I’ll go vote. And often times, as 

my friends from Massachusetts says, often times we do cancel each 

other out but we do so harmoniously, right? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Absolutely. We’re pals. 

Mr. COBLE. You all suspend for a moment and we’ll resume as 

soon as he comes back. 

[Brief recess.] 

Mr. CANNON. [presiding.] We won’t reconvene until the people 

who have serious questions return. So at ease or whatever we do. 

Why don’t we come back to order. Life is tough when you’re big 

and handsome and done something worthy to be remembered. 

Thank you, Mr. Arrington, for your willingness to do those pictures. It’s very kind of you. When we shift majority there’s a lot 

of transition, especially on staff, and this may be the highlight of 

the week for some our folks here. 

My understanding is that Mr. Arrington has given his testimony 

but we’re still waiting to hear from Mr. Berthelsen. So we’ll just 

take a moment while people sit down and get some order here. 

Then we’ll proceed. 

I apologize. We had a vote. I ran over early to vote, so I apologize 

for missing your testimony, both Mr. Karcher and Mr. Arrington. 

Those who were here will be on their way back, and Ms. Jackson 

Lee was really one of the principal reasons why we’ve done this 

hearing and she’s here now. If others get back, fine; if not, we’ll 

give her some time to do questioning and go from there. 

Again, we appreciate your indulgence here. Our process is awkward, the day is awkward, but the issue is important. 

Mr. Berthelsen, would you like to—we recognize you for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD BERTHELSEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Subcommittee. I’m very fortunate to have the opportunity to speak 

with you this morning. I appreciate the invitation. I wish I would 

have a little bit more than 5 minutes, but I will try to be as brief 

as I can. 

Mr. CANNON. I’m sure you will have an opportunity to expound 

during the questioning period. 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Thank you very much. 

27

A bit about myself. I have been an attorney employed full time 

by the National Football League Players Association since 1972, so 

I have been with the organization for over 34 years. We were the 

first sports union to implement an agent regulation program, and 

as general counsel of the union at the time it became my job to research this area and to see what was done in other industries and 

what was legal and what was not legal, and I read among other 

things a Supreme Court case by the name of H.A. Artists, which 

established and is still good law that unions not only have the right 

but the obligation to regulate agents who do individual salary bargaining for their members, and in fact the agent really is the agent 

for the union under that approach and under the law. And so I 

have always followed that. 

It’s been suggested that we use the law as a shield. Quite the 

contrary. I looked at the law to begin with and saw what was allowed and proposed a more liberal system to the board of player 

reps, but they are our governing body. They are the ones who implemented these regulations with several changes which they desired. 

The format for the disciplinary nature of our program is first, 

last and always dependent on the actions of players like Mr. 

Arrington. Mr. Arrington is a player in a real sense. I’m here representing seven other players who happen to disagree with him 

about what happened in this case. We call it CARD, it’s the Committee on Agent Regulation and Discipline. It includes Troy Vincent, our current President who plays for the Redskins; Trace Armstrong, a past President; Robert Smith, who played for the Vikings; 

Tony Richardson, who now plays for the Vikings; Brian Dawkins 

with the Eagles, Robert Porcher, retired, and Larry Izzo, who’s 

with the Patriots. 

That committee met about every discipline case that we have 

had. They are the ones who decide whether to issue a complaint, 

which is the first step, they are the ones to decide after the agent 

answers that complaint whether discipline is appropriate, and if 

they do, they propose discipline. 

Unlike what Mr. Karcher said, they don’t dictate the discipline, 

they don’t determine it. They propose the discipline. And the next 

step in that process is that if the agent wishes to challenge the discipline as proposed by this committee of players, then it goes to arbitration. Our current arbitrator is Roger Kaplan. 

This system has worked extremely well. It’s worked for over 23 

years. We have not had any complaints from any of the agents who 

we meet with on a periodic annual basis. We have a committee 

known as the Agent Advisory Committee. We meet with them 

every year. And contrary to what Mr. Karcher represents, we do 

not act unilaterally. This committee of agents has input on everything we do in the regulations. An example of that is this past year 

where we met with the committee as our board of reps had proposed the reduction in agents’ fees and this group convinced our 

CARD committee not to do that and they carried the agents’ message to the meeting and that got defeated. 

But in this particular case, and it’s unfortunate the subject of 

pending cases has been brought up, I do have to address the situation with Mr. Arrington. His agent left 6.5 million dollars out of a 

28

contract that he negotiated for Mr. Arrington. He allowed Mr. 

Arrington to sign that contract without it being in it. 

When our committee looked at this situation one of the first 

things they did was to talk to Mr. Arrington. He spoke to them for 

over 45 minutes by telephone conference call in their meeting. But 

they also looked at some realities in the NFL because every contract in this league depends on every other contract. When a player 

who’s an all pro linebacker negotiates a deal, the next linebacker 

who’s up for a deal says to the club I want the deal that he got 

or I want a better deal than him because I’m better than him. And 

if the last relevant contract is missing $6.5 million, that has an effect on that player and several other players and on the whole system. That’s point number one. 

Point number two, we have in our agreement something called 

the franchise player. That’s a player who’s an exception to being a 

free agent. The club can say you are our franchise player and our 

agreement says that the consequence of that is that that player 

gets the average of the top 5 salaries at his position in the league 

guaranteed for 1 year. 

Mr. Arrington’s contract, had it contained the terms it should 

have contained, would have caused that top 5 average to go up the 

year that this occurred, but because it was missing that money it 

had impact on franchise players in that category. 

Thirdly, and just as importantly, it is true as Mr. Karcher says 

that we have been active in disciplining agents. Our committee has 

disciplined agents on frequent past occasions for gross negligence, 

and those agents in question have served their suspensions. If we 

say that in this case there’s not going to be any action, what we’re 

saying to the people who have been disciplined in the past and who 

went through the procedure is that we’re going to treat you differently than someone else, and to have disparate treatment within 

a system is something that you cannot do under any stretch of 

principle or law. 

So our committee as a group listened to Mr. Arrington but disagreed with him as to the appropriate action to be taken in this 

case. 

One final point, if I could. Mr. Karcher said that we act unilaterally; that Mr. Poston was suspended immediately without a hearing. The reality is quite the contrary. Mr. Poston had three hearings scheduled, one in May, one in June and one in July. On all 

three occasions at the very last minute he happened to find circumstances, create circumstances or incurred circumstances which 

caused him to request a postponement. 

Our committee looked very skeptically on what had happened because it appeared to them that he did not want to come to present 

his case or his defense. So it took this action, which it’s allowed to 

under the regulations, to say your suspension goes into effect immediately. But what wasn’t mentioned here was that in the same 

letter and in the same regulation that allows that it says the person affected is entitled to an expedited immediate hearing. 

That was offered to Mr. Poston if he wanted to challenge our action. He chose not to. Although he technically appealed the immediate action of suspending him, his counsel chose not to pursue 

that appeal, not to challenge the committee’s actions and its doubts 

29

about Mr. Poston’s constant postponements, and instead chose to 

go forward on the original appeal of the underlying case. 

So Mr. Poston, although he’s been offered since day one the right 

to come to Washington at his convenience to challenge what has 

been done, has deliberately chosen not to, and this is what our 

committee is having to deal with in this situation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berthelsen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. BERTHELSEN


RAB0001.eps
30


RAB0002.eps
31


RAB0003.eps
32


RAB0004.eps
33


RAB0005.eps
34


RAB0006.eps
35


RAB0007.eps
36


RAB0008.eps
37


RAB0009.eps
38


RAB0010.eps
39


RAB0011.eps
40


RAB0012.eps
41


RAB0013.eps
42


RAB0014.eps
43


RAB0015.eps
44


RAB0016.eps
45


RAB0017.eps
46


RAB0018.eps
47


RAB0019.eps
48


RAB0020.eps
49


RAB0021.eps
50


RAB0022.eps
51


RAB0023.eps
52


RAB0024.eps
53


RAB0025.eps
54


RAB0026.eps
55


RAB0027.eps
56

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Berthelsen. 

Mr. Friedman, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF LARRY FRIEDMAN, ESQUIRE, MANAGING 

DIRECTOR, FRIEDMAN & FEIGER, LLP, DALLAS, TX 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting 

me here today, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

Larry Friedman. I’m an attorney. I practice law in Dallas County, 

Texas, and I have practiced there for over 28 years. I’m here today 

on behalf of Steven Weinberg, who is here with me today, along 

with my partner Bart Higgins, and I am here representing Mr. 

Weinberg as well. 

I paid very close attention when Mr. Coble spoke and quoted his 

friend Jerris Leonard and said that ‘‘a flawed process is worse than 

no process at all.’’ Well, I am here to relate to you Mr. Weinberg’s 

story. He was a certified contract adviser and I am here to say that 

the NFLPA’s arbitration process is a flawed process and it is worse 

than no process at all. 

Let me relate that to modern terms. Mr. Cannon, Mr. Chairman, 

if you were Donald Trump and this was The Apprentice, and this 

was the show, The Apprentice, and you had assembled a team of 

tremendous talent, including Gene Upshaw, NFLPA Executive Director; Richard Berthelsen, General Counsel; Tom DePaso, Staff 

Counsel; Regional Director, Mark Levin, Director of Salary Caps 

and Agent Administration; Trace Armstrong, former President of 

CARD; and Roger Kaplan, the specially appointed arbitrator of 

NFLPA disciplinary actions—and you said to these people, with all 

your talent we want you to put together an arbitration process with 

all the proper procedural safeguards that you can put together. We 

want you to put together an arbitration process that would deter 

arbitrary and capricious decision making, we want you to put together an arbitration process that gives every participant proper 

notice and an opportunity to be heard, and we want you to allow 

disciplinary procedures to be heard by an impartial decision maker. 

And, if these people brought you the current arbitration process 

that’s in effect at the NFLPA, Mr. Chairman, you would look at 

these people spread out across your board room and you would 

have two words for them, you would say, ‘‘You’re fired.’’ Because 

the process that is in effect doesn’t allow the participants the procedural safeguards that we in this country allow people who are accused of a crime or accused of wrongdoing, and what you have here 

is a valuable property right, the right of a man or a woman to earn 

a living. 

With regard to my client, Steve Weinberg was a very successful 

player agent. He had 42 clients when he was decertified, including 

Stephen Davis on whose behalf Mr. Weinberg negotiated a $135 

million contract. Mr. Weinberg lost his right to earn a living because of the capricious and arbitrary nature of the arbitration process. 

Had there been standards, had there been safeguards, had he 

had the ability to participate in a process, had he had the ability 

to bring witnesses, to present evidence, to cross-examine his accusers, he would still be an agent today. He would still be earning a 

living today. 

57

Today, Mr. Weinberg doesn’t have a job. His wife is sick and her 

health is failing. He doesn’t have a job and he doesn’t have an opportunity to earn a living. The NFLPA agent certification says that 

the NFLPA agrees that it shall not delete any agent from its list 

until that agent has exhausted the opportunity to appeal the deletion to a neutral arbitrator pursuant to its agent regulation system. 

Well, that would be great if that’s what happened. It didn’t happen 

in this case. 

In Mr. Weinberg’s case his punishment took effect before his appeal was final. In fact, why was he decertified? He was decertified 

because he and his former partner were in a dispute over the distribution of partnership funds. Mr. Weinberg was told by someone 

employed by the NFLPA, hey, file a grievance against your former 

partner, will help you out. So he did. Mr. Weinberg’s former partner then filed a retaliatory grievance against him. 

Fifteen of Mr. Weinberg’s clients, player clients filed a grievance 

against Mr. Weinberg’s former partner. The NFLPA, Mr. 

Berthelsen, arbitrarily decided to pursue Mr. Weinberg’s former 

partner’s grievance against Mr. Weinberg and did not pursue the 

15 grievances against Mr. Weinberg’s former partner, did not pursue those grievances and did pursue the one grievance. That’s not 

fair. That matter should have been fully heard. 

Mr. Chairman, the process needs a thorough investigation. We 

would encourage this Committee to look into it, to hold more elaborate hearings, to get more information, to hear from the players 

themselves, to hear more from the agents who have been subject 

to the process and who are also part of the process now. 

I have read Mr. Carl Poston’s testimony that was submitted to 

the Committee, and Mr. Poston has some very good suggestions at 

the end of his testimony. He lists seven points. 

Mr. CANNON. We have that in the record. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I’m not going to repeat it. I’m just saying we endorse it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:]

58

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE J. FRIEDMAN


LJF0001.eps
59


LJF0002.eps
60


LJF0003.eps
61


LJF0004.eps
62


LJF0005.eps
63


LJF0006.eps
64


LJF0007.eps
65


LJF0008.eps
66


LJF0009.eps
67

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. Your time having run, I’m going to ask 

a couple of questions then we’ll turn the time to others who might 

have questions. 

You talked about the 15 complaints against Mr. Weinberg’s opponent; I would like to have something in the record on that. And Mr. 

Berthelsen, we would like to have something in the record, written 

in the record in response to that, and we will provide time for that 

to happen. 

But I actually want to ask a more theoretical question. We have 

Mr. Arrington here, who is a star, he is obviously a bright guy, he 

did well in college and can handle himself, and so I would like to 

go back to this $6.5 million that you are concerned about, that the 

Players Union is concerned about, and to balance that, would you 

tell us about that $6.5 million, whether you wanted it, whether it 

was a mistake, whether you thought you had a contractual right 

to work with your agent to get it, or whether you didn’t care, and 

if so, why not, because 6.5 million is enough to care about, I think. 

But secondly, why you wanted your agent, instead of another 

agent, given that $6.5 million? 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Restate the last part. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Berthelsen said that you were cheated essen- tially out of $6.5 million. I would like to know what that was and 

how you viewed that. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Well, in the situation, during the course of those 

contract negotiations, what Mr. Berthelsen felt that—discloses that 

during the course of those negotiations, NFLPA has a deadline on 

the time that you can get a contract done due to salary cap purposes—at least that is the way it is told to us. So during the course 

of this time, there were large discussions on getting the contract 

done before this deadline. And at the time that this contract was 

being negotiated, it came down to like the waning hour—I think it 

was about 2 hours or so before the deadline, the stated deadline 

time of getting the contract done to effect a salary cap of the team 

had passed. 

So in the last, I guess—not too long before the deadline, they—

my agent and the Redskins people, whoever were involved with the 

negotiations—came to an agreement. I then, at this point in time, 

went to a Redskins facility. He says that my agent was negligent 

for not being there with me at the time. I don’t think that anybody—any agent or anybody that represents an individual that has 

given and sacrificed as much as I did for the Washington Redskins 

organization would feel uncomfortable going behind closed doors 

and getting a deal done to make me a life-long Redskins. 

And I think a lot of times, with all of the technical talk that is 

used, that sounds good, but at the end of the day we are all people. 

And the bottom line is, when I went there, I was under the firm 

impression that I am signing an 8-year deal. I was definitely up on 

all the details of the contract. The 6.5 million of a roster bonus 

given in July when you go report in for camp, and it was I guess 

a multi-year deal, or whatever. 

But when those documents were being sent to my agent, while 

I was doing this contract, I had a game the next day against Philadelphia. I am more concerned about being a good employee, making 

sure that over a contract I am not, you know—things had been 

68

done, in my opinion, things had been done on a professional level 

on a professional scale thus up to that point. So once we got to that 

point, I felt like whatever—if there is anything wrong, which in 

anybody who goes into a business deal, if there is anything wrong 

with the language or anything that is, you know, I guess inaccurate, you mark those things, you go back and you fix them. 

Now, when that came about, the 6.5, yeah, when we found out 

that it was gone, or it was never put in there, then we went over 

our files. Once we went through the files and saw that the 6.5 million was not there, then that was when—well, they tried to contact 

me, but I was getting ready to go to a Pro Bowl, and I was a little 

younger, I think 2, 3 years ago, so I was having fun at the Super 

Bowl, so I wasn’t really paying too much attention to my cell 

phone. But once the situation was, you know, recognized, then we 

then went to NFLPA to have them act on it. 

Now, doing that in good faith—we did that in good faith; if something is wrong, just show in the evidence where, you know, that 

6.5 should have been on a certain page, and——

Mr. CANNON. Did you get that 6.5 ultimately? 

Mr. ARRINGTON. No, I did not. Not only did I not get the 6.5, I 

didn’t finish out the life of the contract either. 

Mr. CANNON. You are not unhappy with the Redskins or your 

agent. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. No. The situation was resolved. Like I said earlier, I alluded to earlier, there was a no fault resolution; so it was 

recognized that there was no fault by the Redskins and it was recognized that there was no fault by me or my agent. 

Mr. CANNON. I am going to try to stick closely to the rule. Unfortunately I couldn’t see the red light. I am over a minute, so I am 

going to ask my colleague’s permission—I am going to be strict 

with the gavel at 5 minutes so we can get through everybody who 

has questions. 

Since we have been back and forth, I think that Mr. Delahunt, 

you are the first on——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Whatever, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CANNON. We should recognize Mr. Watt has joined us. 

Do you have questions, Mr. Delahunt? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes. 

Mr. CANNON. Good. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I will direct this to Mr. Berthelsen. 

Did I hear you correctly, in terms of the arbitrator has served for 

a 13-year period? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Since 1994. We have had three arbitrators 

under the system. The first one was Kenneth Moffett, who is a 

former director at the FMCS. The second one was Senator John 

Culver, after he served as a senator, he served for several years. 

And Mr. Kaplan has served since 1994. Mr. Kaplan——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. I will tell you, I have a bit of a problem; 

you know, there is an assertion by some that the individual who 

is currently serving—and I know nothing about him—might not fit 

the definition of ‘‘neutral arbitrator.’’ Has the NFLPA considered, 

as these cases come individually, rotating arbitrators? In other 

words, I think common sense dictates that over a period of time, 

there becomes a comfort level with one individual serving as an arVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:57 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\COMM\120706\31311.000 HJUD1 PsN: 31311
69

bitrator. I am just posing the question to you: Has there ever been 

consideration by the Players Association to examine the possibility 

of having a pool of arbitrators to be selected by the opposing parties to ensure neutrality? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. I think you have to understand the system a 

little bit better, as it operates, for me to fully answer that question. 

The arbitrator under the system decides three different types of 

disputes. He decides disputes between players and agents, usually 

over fees. And this is a thing that the agents think is extremely 

good and they think it is working extremely well because in over 

80 percent of the cases, the arbitrator rules for the agent over the 

player. There are other cases where it is agent versus agent, and 

then there are disciplinary cases. Mr. Kaplan has done all of those 

things for all of these years——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I understand that, and I am sure he brings an 

expertise to it. But what I am suggesting is, in terms of—let’s call 

it due process. 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Yes, we have considered more than one arbitrator. And we may be near a time when we have to have an additional arbitrator because the case load is considerable. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And I appreciate that. And my point is, I am 

looking at it in a systemic way, to ensure that there is a random 

quality, if you will, to the process itself, to the process of arbitration, as opposed to reliance on a single individual over an extended 

period of time. Because clearly, after 13 years, you know, you can 

be Mother Teresa, but you are going to start to develop an attitude 

on different issues, I mean, that is just human nature. And I wonder if there is a better system in terms of ensuring that the individual selected is a neutral—underscore ‘‘neutral′′—arbitrator and 

doesn’t have a certain preordained view of individuals, whether 

they be players or arbitrators, because that does happen. 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. We have had arbitrators in the NFL serve 

much longer than 13 years; it is not at all unusual for that to happen. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I know, but what I am saying is I don’t know if 

that is a healthy component of the arbitration system if you want 

to ensure that you have a neutral—underscore, again—′′neutral’’ 

arbitrator. 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Well, Mr. Kaplan is a neutral arbitrator, he is 

a member of the National Academy——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am sure he is a great guy, Mr. Berthelsen, and 

I have no doubt about his expertise, but what I am saying is let’s 

step back and not think about the current system, but just in terms 

of this discrete issue, a rotation, you know, on an ad hoc basis, for 

example—whether it is Mr. Arrington or whatever the issue is—to 

ensure that there is confidence in the arbitration system. Someone 

whom could be selected by agreement among the parties I think is 

something that should be considered. 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Since I do slightly at least have the floor, I forgot something earlier. I do have letters from our counterparts in 

the National Hockey League Players Association, and the NBPA, 

the National Basketball Players Association; one letter from Billy 

Hunter, who is the Executive Director of the NBPA, another from 

70

Ted Saskin, who is the executive director of the NHLPA. And I 

would like, if I could, to make this part of the record. 

Mr. CANNON. Without objection, that will be made part of the 

record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.] 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. These organizations have the same system 

that ours does. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Does that make it correct? That is the question 

there. You are very accurate in what you are saying now. That is 

loyalty is what you are saying; 13-year-period of time the man is 

serving as your arbitrator, there is a loyalty there; whether he 

wants to acknowledge that or not, there is a loyalty. It doesn’t matter what his background is or not, it is loyalty. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think Mr. Friedman wants to respond, too, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Let’s look at the people who have been most successful in the arbitration business, in being neutral, the American 

Arbitration Association. Now I am not an expert on that, but I 

have arbitrated there many times. They offer a panel of arbitrators 

to select from. They offer you 10 choices. Those people give you a 

resume and those people disclose conflicts of interest. You get a 

chance to strike people who have biases, or relations, or know people, or know subject matters, so that you can comb them out to 

wind up with a panel of either one or three, as neutral an arbitrator as you can get. And then they have those panels in every 

city. It is a try-hard organization, and the most successful one I 

know. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Coble, the gentleman from North Carolina, is recognized 

from 5 minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, it is a privilege to have you all with us. 

Mr. Friedman, you have had considerable experience with arbitrations involving automobile dealers and manufacturers, et cetera. 

If you will—well, strike that. Let me say it a different way. 

Compare the procedures employed by NFLPA with other arbitration with which you are familiar. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir. As I mentioned just a moment ago, with 

the American Arbitration Association and with the dealer franchise 

organizations and with, not only in the automobile industry, but 

also in the food industry, McDonalds, Burger King, Church’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, it appears to be me that a greater effort is 

made in these other places to provide a process that has more procedural safeguards so that the truth gets to the top and impartiality governs, neutrality governs, so that both—there is a system 

of polite advocacy; one side provides documents, the other side provides documents, one side can ask questions, the other side can request questions. There is an opportunity for cross-examination, 

which is the greatest tool in American jurisprudence to discover the 

truth. And then you present that to as neutral an arbitrator as you 

can get. It is not a perfect system, but it is better than this one. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Berthelsen, speaking of neutrality, let me put 

this question to you; it would seem a symptom to some of the complaints that we have heard today is that the NFLPA procedures do 

71

not ensure that the arbitrator chosen to resolve the disciplinary action against the certified contract advisors are sufficiently neutral 

to render an impartial determination. Now, what say you to that? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. I didn’t understand about—sufficiently what? 

Mr. COBLE. Are sufficiently neutral to render an impartial determination. 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Well, I would disagree with that. And the previous witness said to you that procedures he knows involve things 

like cross-examination of witnesses and the ability to confront accusers and what have you; and our system has that and more. In 

every hearing that we have, there is cross-examination of witnesses, the opportunity to present any and all witnesses who have 

relevant testimony. There is even opportunity for briefing; there is 

opportunity for prehearing discoveries through the issuance of subpoenas, which are often done. But the tenor of your question is that 

the person that we have now is not neutral, and that is what I 

would disagree with. He has been an arbitrator in the public and 

private sector for over 25 years——

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Berthelsen, I did not mean that that was my 

opinion, I was saying consistent with some of the testimony that 

we have heard today is what I was basing my question on. 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Well, with all due respect, some of the testimony that you have heard—I am not sure what you are referring 

to—but a lot of it, with the exception of Mr. Arrington, who was 

describing his feelings to you, has not been factual. And the problem that I have is that with the limited time that I have, I cannot 

point out, for example, what he said about how we took up the 

grievance of Mr. Weinberg’s former partner, that is just not true, 

we didn’t take up anybody’s grievance. Our committee decided that 

there should be discipline for Mr. Weinberg. So I am sorry if I 

didn’t seem to answer your question, but that is the best I can do. 

Mr. COBLE. Before the Chairman gavels me down, Mr. Arrington, 

do you or the professor want to weigh in on either one of my questions? 

Mr. KARCHER. Yes, thank you. I guess I have to respond because 

I didn’t know that I actually made some false statements regarding 

the regulations. And I just—they are really not that long, I mean, 

I attached—I included them in the record. And it is not my purpose 

to, you know, pick a side here on anything, I am just looking at 

this thing for what it is. It is a system that they have chosen. 

And the system simply says that—basically it is a discretionary 

system. So when I said that CARD—I didn’t say that CARD unilaterally makes a suspension, what I said was that CARD basically 

has the discretion, if it wants to, to unilaterally impose a disciplinary action and stay that appeal to the neutral arbitrator, to the 

neutral one. 

What it says is, and I will read it to you, it is not that very long, 

in the extraordinary circumstance—that is what I referred to in my 

original testimony—where the Committee on Agent Regulation and 

Discipline’s investigation discloses that the contract advisor’s conduct is of such a serious nature as to justify immediately revoking 

or suspending his or her certification, the committee, or CARD, 

may immediately revoke or suspend that certification with the filing of a disciplinary complaint, or thereafter. That is clear to me 

72

that CARD has the discretion to do that. Now whether they do 

that, I don’t know. I am not part of the system. I don’t know 

whether they actually do that. 

I see what they did in Mr. Poston’s case, which is that they proposed—they didn’t initially exercise this clause, exercising discretion, they proposed a discipline, and Mr. Poston immediately filed 

his appeal within the time frame that he was supposed to to the 

arbitrator, simultaneously filed a complaint in Federal court. And 

then a few months later, CARD—which is a committee of the 

NFLPA, so they are really not—I mean, I look at it as the NFLPA, 

it is a committee of the NFLPA. The NFLPA basically then officially suspended him for 2 years, not a proposal, an official suspension. And my guess is, I am speculating, that they would rely on 

this clause and say that this was an extraordinary circumstance. 

Well, what was the extraordinary circumstance that did it? I don’t 

know——

Mr. COBLE. I am going to have to yield back because my time is 

expired. Thank you. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Coble. 

Mr. Berthelsen, I take it—first of all, Mr. Karcher, did you finish 

your statement? Because we are getting now I think pretty much 

to the core of this issue, and obviously there is a lot of concern by 

this Committee——

Mr. KARCHER. There is one other thing I would just add is that 

I want to make sure that I finish what the regulation says. In such 

event, under these extraordinary circumstances, which would be 

determined by NFLPA, the contract advisor would be entitled to an 

expedited appeal, as Mr. Berthelsen correctly noted, of that action 

pursuant to section 6(e), except that such appeal shall not stay a 

discipline. 

So you have a situation where they are disciplined immediately 

without any opportunity to be heard. And that is all I meant to 

say. If I misspoke earlier in my statement, you know, I apologize, 

but that is what I was referring to. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Berthelsen, you said a couple of times you 

don’t feel like you have enough time. Let me be clear that you can 

submit things for the record after this time. Obviously we are going 

to go with the flow of questions, but you seem to be pretty intent 

to respond to this. We are happy to have you do that, without objection. 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Just to finish the thought, and I think I said 

it before, we realize that there is a responsibility that goes with immediately taking action, it is only done under extraordinary circumstances, and I believe we only did it 3 or 4 times in our history; 

the responsibility is to grant that person an immediate hearing. 

And in Mr. Poston’s case, that is what we wanted to have, but that 

is what we weren’t getting because he had postponed three hearings in a row. But he chose not to avail himself of the opportunity 

to come to a hearing immediately. And we can’t force that, we can’t 

go forward without him. And that is what I wanted to point out 

in this. 

With Mr. Karcher, he says he doesn’t favor anyone’s position 

here and pretends to be neutral. I really would like the opportunity 

73

to point out about how his statement has a multitude of inaccuracies from the beginning to the end. 

Mr. CANNON. You should do that. And I am sure Mr. Karcher 

would respond to that. That is an appropriate thing to do. 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. CANNON. You want to say something here, but I suspect that 

you can do it by a written statement. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. 

I am not neutral, Mr. Chairman. By reading of the regulations, 

it appears to me that CARD does not allow cross-examination, and 

that the record will reflect that the arbitration is simply a rubber 

stamp for the discipline that CARD dishes out. In Steve Weinberg’s 

case, he had 15 players that were willing to testify—that were 

there to testify on his behalf. Two of them drove through a blizzard 

to get to a hearing and they were denied access to that hearing. 

The other 13 were available by speakerphone, they were denied access to that hearing. Steve Weinberg’s is a case that ought to be 

examined. 

Mr. CANNON. I am not going to go back to Mr. Berthelsen because we are not—but we do expect some information to go into the 

record to continue to consider this. This is not Republicans against 

Democrats here, this is going to be an ongoing issue, I think, and 

so we are anxious to have your input. It is not my time at this 

point, Mr. Arrington, so I what I am going to do is yield to Mr. 

Watt, the gentleman from North Carolina, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Just long enough to say my apologies to the Chair and 

to the witnesses for not being here, apologies in this sense; I mean, 

we come to various choices we have to make quite often in this institution, and sometimes we have committed to do things prior to 

the scheduling of a hearing. I was at that crossroads when this 

hearing was scheduled because I had already committed to do a 

speech over at the Naval Yard to a group of interns. So that doesn’t 

necessarily mean that I put a higher value on that than what you 

are here to talk about. I am sure this is valuable and important, 

although from the beginning I would have to say I have questioned 

how we get into it at this juncture. 

So having said that, I haven’t read all the testimony, haven’t 

heard the witnesses, so no sense in me starting to cross-examine 

or examine anybody. Perhaps I could yield 2 minutes of my time 

to Ms. Jackson Lee and 2 minutes of my time to Mr. Meehan, both 

of whom have been here and may have greater knowledge and 

have a greater interest. 

Mr. CANNON. Without objection. We actually have authorized 

them to take the balance of this——

Mr. WATT. So I shouldn’t give them 2 more minutes. 

Mr. CANNON. They already have five of their own. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. In that case, I will yield back my time and let 

them use their 5 minutes. I don’t want to advantage them over the 

Members of the Subcommittee. 

Mr. CANNON. I can assure you that with the discretion of the 

Chair, they will have as much opportunity to ask questions as they 

would like. 

And let me just add, Mr. Watt has been very gracious, he has 

said very gracious things here. He had his speech lined up I am 

74

absolutely certain before this hearing was called because it was 

called and cancelled and then called again as an attempt to let 

some of the Members of the Committee who are interested in this 

do the hearing, and we appreciate your being available and flexible 

on the part of the panel; but Mr. Watt is thoroughly appropriate, 

it was not a matter of priorities in his case, it was a matter of prior 

commitments. 

Mr. WATT. I guess I should, as a clarifying factor, say that I hope 

that whatever I said to those interns over there has more impact 

on them than what this hearing has on this, but I don’t know that 

either. 

Mr. CANNON. I will say, this has been a very interesting hearing——

Mr. WATT. They always are. 

Mr. CANNON. So with that, we would, by prior unanimous consent, we have allowed Members of the full Committee who are not 

Members of the Subcommittee the opportunity to participate. And 

so Ms. Jackson Lee, if you are interested, you are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you and Mr. 

Watt for your graciousness and your willingness to provide an opportunity and a forum for what I think is particularly instructive 

this morning. 

Allow me also to thank all of the witnesses, and to express my 

appreciation for the detail and the respect in which you are offering 

your testimony this morning. 

I believe that, short of this being a legislative hearing in the 

waning hours of the 109th Congress, frankly, we are looking at a 

situation that begs for legislative relief. 

Mr. Weinberg, let me acknowledge you and thank you for your 

presence here, and offer my concern and expression of concern for 

you and your wife. And to say that we are not in a mode of acrimonious one-upsmanship. Frankly, I believe that there are many 

of us who are on this panel who could battle anyone in our commitment to the existence of unions and your right to exist and the prerogatives that you have and the value that you have. 

We realize that the athletic unions have modelled after some of 

the more senior unions, and we are gratified for your existence, 

and I know that players in years past have been gratified as well. 

But if anyone thinks—and I am delighted that Ranking Member 

Watt raised the question of the nexus, and the nexus has to do 

with the overall jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee in ensuring, if you will, the separation, like the fingers on the hand, the 

whole issue of antitrust and monopolistic approaches. And unfortunately, athletic leagues have fallen into or could be compared to 

monopolies. You can’t go play football on the golf course, you might, 

but you would get thrown out I would imagine by some good 

golfers—and Mr. Arrington, you may be a good golfer, many football players are. But it is a situation of not being able to go anywhere else to, in essence, exercise your profession. 

And as I listen to you, Mr. Arrington, I see a budding lawyer 

coming up, so your attention to details is one that I appreciate. 

75

Mr. WATT. Would the gentlelady yield just for a clarification, and 

then I will ask unanimous consent to give her the time back that 

I take from her. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. CANNON. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. WATT. I just want to be clear that I never questioned the 

nexus, I question the timing. If the Judiciary Committee intervened in every case in which there was a nexus between what is 

going on in the courts or in the arbitration process, or otherwise, 

it wouldn’t be about nexus, it would be about timing. There are 

hundreds of people who are being denied Social Security benefits, 

this benefit, that benefit in a process that is out there. If we took 

time, as a Judiciary Committee, to intervene ourselves in each one 

of those cases, there wouldn’t be a nexus to any one of them. 

The timing of it is the question that I have questioned, and that 

I have raised. So I just wanted to clarify that. And I will ask that 

this time not be counted against her time, please. 

Mr. CANNON. Without objection, we will extend the gentlelady’s 

time by 2 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished Chairman and I 

thank the Ranking Member. And the Ranking Member makes a 

very, very good point, and I intend in my questioning to answer 

that. Because I don’t view this as a scattering of cases of which we 

might intervene, and he is absolutely right, we cannot use the resources for that. 

But let me briefly say a pointed point that Mr. Arrington made, 

and I would like to pose some questions very quickly. And that is 

that it was a flurry of the last minute negotiations as relates to 

your 6.5 million, and as I understand, Mr. Schaffer, who represented the Redskins, had made a commitment to Mr. Poston that 

that 6.5 million would ultimately be put in. And I think if there 

is an element of failure to you, it would certainly be that your 

agent was asleep and didn’t even raise the point. And I understand 

that you are comfortable that that did not happen. 

And I am going to pose a question, but I would like to pursue 

both Mr. Friedman and Mr. Berthelsen. What I believe the line of 

questioning of Mr. Delahunt was—and it doesn’t seem to be received—is that we are not commenting on the prowess, the excellence and the integrity of the existing arbitrator; but what we are 

saying is, is that as antitrust can get monopolistic, there is a hand 

in glove, and my fear is that there is a hand-in-glove relationship 

between the NFL and the NFLPA. My question is, would you not 

be comfortable with adhering to the American Arbitration Association rules and regulations in terms of establishing who would be 

an arbitrator in these situations? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Our regulations specify that those rules do 

apply to our arbitration hearings. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Friedman. 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Those rules also state that whoever the parties 

have agreed to select as the arbitrator by contract must be the arbitrator in the case, and that is what happens in our situation. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. My time is short. 

Mr. Friedman, how to you contravene that? How do you relate 

to the fact that maybe a more adherence to the American ArbitraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:57 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\COMM\120706\31311.000 HJUD1 PsN: 31311
76

tion Association which creates an atmosphere that is neutral and 

impartial and unbiased? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, that would solve the problem. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. He suggests that he is following the rule. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. They are not. The rule says that they have to follow the procedures for arbitration. It suggests that they have to follow the procedures at a particular hearing or at the particular 

process. It doesn’t say that they have to use the procedure to pick 

the arbitrator. In fact, the regulations say that the NFL will pick 

the neutral outside arbitrator, and the NFL continues to pick Roger 

Kaplan for every arbitration over the last 13 years. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And there lies the hand-in-glove scenario. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. That is the problem. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What you are saying is you adhere completely 

to the American Arbitration Association, which might be a legislative fix, which might then make it more transparent, neutral and 

fair. 

Let me ask Mr. Arrington. I am literally shocked at some of what 

you have said because you would expect you to be a completely—

an adversary in this instance; you lost $6.5 million. But I think you 

pointed out that you saw that everybody was trying to act in good 

faith, even you, you went to a table to sign a document when you 

went to a location or knew you were going to play a game. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. That is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you left Mr. Poston operating—and again, 

I don’t want to focus on one particular fact situation—Mr. 

Weinberg has a fact situation, but it points to the need for correcting this hand-in-glove relationship that this system has. You 

thought they were working on your behalf? 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then when we came to the point of trying to 

assess whether Mr. Poston or Mr. X or Mr. Y had been effective——

Mr. ARRINGTON. That is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You would have liked an opportunity where 

all can be heard in this arbitration process; is that right? 

Mr. ARRINGTON. That is correct. And also, Mr. Berthelsen referred to the fact that I am speaking purely off of feeling and not 

off of facts, it is inaccurate. That is not an accurate statement from 

Mr. Berthelsen. Because I firsthand experienced not being able to 

be able to be a part of a hearing that was held in Indianapolis. So 

there was no cross-examination. Carl Poston was not allowed to attend this hearing. So it is not strictly feeling that I am speaking 

on; there are some facts involved with the things that I am saying. 

With that being said, I am not saying that, you know, Carl 

Poston, you know, don’t go through the process with him. I didn’t 

have a problem and different things like that. I said merely as 

what is being stated today, that just make sure that the process 

is fair, because in that situation—you know, it is okay to say well, 

we do have that in our system, we do go through arbitration the 

way Mr. Berthelsen is saying. And if those things are in there, that 

is fine, but if they are not being exercised, then what good are 

they? 

Mr. CANNON. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

77

I ask unanimous consent to just ask one question to clarify the 

record. Hearing no objection. 

Mr. Berthelsen, do both parties have a right to object or to 

choose an arbitrator, or does the NFLPA choose the arbitrator and 

impose that on the negotiations? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. The regulations state that the NFLPA chooses 

the arbitrator. I think there is some confusion here because Mr. 

Arrington referred to a hearing, where he said he wasn’t allowed 

to attend. The hearing hasn’t taken place in this case yet. He is 

referring to a committee of people, players, fellow players who propose discipline in a meeting among themselves, discipline which, on 

the average, is reduced or vacated much more often by the arbitrator than it is upheld. The arbitrator is not a rubber stamp. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you for that distinction. But as to the question of the arbitrator, I thought you said earlier that the national 

rules of arbitration apply and therefore there is some choice, but 

I take it there is no choice as to the arbitrator—for the players, it 

is only the choice of the NFLPA; is that correct? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. I am referring to the rules of the American Arbitration Association, which is the subject of the question. The AAA 

has different sets of rules for different kinds of situations. We use 

the labor arbitration rules. Those rules state that if the parties in 

the case have agreed to a selection process for an arbitrator, that 

agreement is to be enforced. When an agent applies to become an 

agent of the NFLPA, which legally they are, this is a regulatory 

system, they agree that their application becomes an agreement 

with the NFLPA to the regulations as they state. And that is the 

agreement of the——

Mr. CANNON. I think there is some heavy handedness in the concerns raised by Mr. Delahunt, who is not here, but I appreciate 

that clarification and how that works. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Just one quick one on your clarification. 

Mr. CANNON. Certainly. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In that process that they sign onto, do they 

then commit themselves not to be able to subpoena or discover witnesses? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Absolutely not. There are subpoenas issued in 

virtually every case. For some unknown reason, Mr. Poston has 

chosen not to use that. But I get subpoenas signed by the arbitrator. Mr. Weinberg’s counsel, his prior counsel, who hasn’t pursued his appeal on his disciplinary case, sent me at least four subpoenas, one of which I filed a motion to limit, to quash. 

We provide documents all the time. And there is, again, it gets 

back to my frustration with the limited time we have that I am not 

able to correct what I think is a lot of inaccurate information. 

Mr. CANNON. We do hope that you note what is inaccurate and 

just inform us. This is not a heavy handed thing, we are just trying 

to figure out what is going on. 

Mr. Meehan, did you have some questions? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Yes. 

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

78

And I don’t know any of the parties involved, my interest is basically I follow the NFL, so I am interested in this. And I have to 

say, your testimony was excellent. 

When you were talking about the hustle and bustle of negotiating this contract, and you mentioned preparing for a game in 

Philadelphia——

Mr. ARRINGTON. It was at home, it was here. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Against Philadelphia. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Yes. 

Mr. MEEHAN. And then you mentioned other parts where you 

were at the Super Bowl orpreparing for the Pro Bowl——

Mr. ARRINGTON. That is correct. 

Mr. MEEHAN. And I couldn’t help but think that one of the reasons why agents have strict rules is because most players are in 

exactly your position. Preparing for an NFL game is a complicated 

thing, it requires full attention. Players are young, in some cases 

you—although I wouldn’t say you are inexperienced now, you do 

very well, and you should think about running for Congress 1 

day—but players really need to be protected, and that is one of the 

reasons that there are the regulations that there are. 

And I always worry about players being taken advantage of by 

agents, and I think that is one of the things that I always, as a 

fan, want to see is protected. There are times when players negotiate their own contracts, and usually they could have made more 

money if they had somebody else negotiating for them. But in any 

event, I admire your loyalty to your agent as well. 

And Mr. Berthelsen, it is interesting because in this other case, 

Mr. Steve Weinberg, there were 15 players that testified or wanted 

to testify on behalf of him. Should the fact that a player doesn’t 

blame his agent for negligence or malfeasance in representing a 

player affect whether or not there is a decision to discipline that 

player? And why or why not? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Any individual player who is a client of the 

agent, if he had a veto power, the only agents we could ever discipline would be those agents who have no clients. Players are very 

loyal people. I do arbitrations for players, that is what I spend 

most of my time at, and I do a good job for them, I think, but if 

I made a big mistake in a case, in an arbitration and I lost it, that 

player may well think that I am still the greatest guy in the world, 

but Gene Upshaw looks at the mistake I make, and if it is serious 

enough, he is going to say you are not going to do any more cases 

for the next year or somebody else is going to do them because he 

has a responsibility to the other players. 

And that is why we say we need a system where we have a committee of players who have no involvement in the particular situation to assess it. 

But one of the biggest misconceptions, inaccuracies of this case, 

what has been said today, what has been said otherwise, has been 

that there was a deadline that day for LaVar’s contract, that therefore there had to be a leap of faith taken and oral representations 

had to be accepted. If Mr. Poston had called us, if he would have 

looked at the collective bargaining agreement we had, he would 

have seen there was no deadline that day. Anybody in the NFL 

knows that day was not a deadline. The next day was a deadline 

79

of sorts because the rule in question said the contract had to be 

done before the last game of the season. The last game of the season for Mr. Arrington was more than 24 hours after these things 

were being said. 

Now, we never said that his agent had to be here in Washington 

with him; we recognize that this happens all the time, it is done 

by fax machine. But what the evidence in the case will show is that 

there was a 31⁄2 hour period, beginning with the supposed deadline 

of 4 o’clock that Friday and ending almost 7 p.m. That night, where 

there were numerous exchanges of faxes between the Redskins and 

Mr. Poston’s office, and on four separate occasions the very page 

in which the $6.5 million should have gone and the page where Mr. 

Poston said it should by putting something in the margin, he saw 

it 3 or 4 times——

Mr. MEEHAN. How does the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFL Players Association, how does that 

impact the rules that we are discussing? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. It has more impact on what an agent does 

than anything. 

Mr. MEEHAN. How though? You just negotiated a new contract 

with the NFL, how does that relate to rules? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Well, the basic elements of the deal are the 

players get a percentage of the gross revenues, about 60 percent of 

them. We take a very generous benefit package and we subtract it 

from that, and the rest of it is left over for salaries, and there is 

a cap. There are certain exceptions, a lot of complex rules. We have 

deadlines for contracts to be done. In this case, we have a rule that 

says that in order to renegotiate a contract by the end of the season, it must be done by the last regular season game. Literally that 

would mean they could be negotiating this contract in the fourth 

quarter. But an agent is expected to know that collective bargaining agreement; more than any other obligation, that is the one 

that is most paramount. And we have seminars with the agents 

every year where we emphasize the importance of the rules, and 

emphasize and reemphasize the importance of making sure that 

what you get for player negotiations is in the contract. 

Mr. MEEHAN. This will be the last question. Let me ask you, has 

this arbitration system that we are talking about been challenged 

in court? I mean, certainly there must be cases? Are there cases, 

how many are there? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. Yes. Mr. Poston challenged it twice and he lost 

on both occasions, once in the Southern District of New York. Mr. 

Karcher said there is a case still pending, well, Mr. Poston’s lawyer 

disagrees with him because he said that case went away when they 

lost their injunctive effort. The court in New York ruled against 

Mr. Poston. He tried to get an injunction based on the impartiality 

of the procedure, the judge rejected his claim saying that he had 

no likelihood of success on the merits. And that is a dispositive ruling of the court. 

He tried, when he was disciplined the last time, when the discipline was reduced by the arbitrator, Mr. Kaplan—in fact, it was 

reduced by 75 percent—he went into court before Judge Cacheris 

in Virginia, argued everything that he is arguing here today, and 

more, and Judge Cacheris ruled that our system was legal, that 

80

Mr. Kaplan as an arbitrator was someone that he had agreed to 

to arbitrate disputes, and he said in his decision that Mr. Kaplan 

was a regular arbitrator who had been accepted in other sports. 

But we have had a case in the District of Columbia that has 

blessed the system, one in Virginia, one in the Southern District 

of New York. We have had one in Los Angeles in the last year and 

a half, where Judge Lau in the Dave Dunn case said basically the 

same thing. 

We are batting a thousand when it comes to challenges in court. 

There haven’t been many of them. And they have basically been 

two by Mr. Poston, one by Tank Black and one by David Dunn, but 

all people who had been disciplined and lost on prior occasions. 

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentlelady from Texas would like to ask a couple more questions, and so I ask unanimous consent that she be granted 2 minutes for those questions. And before you start that, without objection, Mr. Meehan, did you have more questions? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Maybe afterwards. I mean, I could talk for an hour 

on this. This is fascinating. 

Mr. WATT. We hope you won’t. 

Mr. CANNON. Maybe you can submit those in writing or something like that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am with Marty Meehan, I could talk for 3 

hours on this. 

Mr. MEEHAN. The real question is whether Mr. Poston could 

have gotten Ty Lauder re-signed with New England. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I hope when we leave this hearing—and I 

thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, my good 

friend, for his line of questioning—really will not be on A or B 

agent. I think the crux of this has to be how do we make this system work. And we have already found an Achilles Heel that I hope 

the NFLPA will adhere to and listen, even before legislative response may be pursued, and that is, that you have a system, yes, 

that agents buy into which says that you select the arbitrator, but 

who wouldn’t buy into it because the only way you can work, you 

are a designee of the NFLPA, you can’t work without getting that 

authority. I would agree to anything, there is a lot of money in 

this. So it is a patently built-in unfair system, and there is a hand 

in glove. 

When you say that six or seven individuals dish out punishment, 

those six or seven individuals are—I respect them greatly, but it 

is my sense that they are hand in glove to a certain extent. And 

reason why I say that is we have been getting calls from the Retired Players Association about conflicts in their provisions that 

they have had. 

Let me just quickly say this; to answer the question about Mr. 

Poston in particular, it was when he contacted Congress that he 

was immediately suspended, because those particular scheduled 

days of meetings could have continued on so he would have had his 

day in court. 

Mr. Karcher, could I just simply ask you the question, what procedural safeguards should be required of, A, to ensure that the decertification proceeding are fundamentally fair to agents, players 

and NFLPA? And do we need to have discovery and subpoena powVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:57 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\COMM\120706\31311.000 HJUD1 PsN: 31311
81

ers that can be enforced and that can ultimately stand up in court? 

Because I don’t understand why Mr. Weinberg’s 15 players were 

not allowed to testify. Why couldn’t Mr. Weinberg have the ability 

for discovery, calling his 15 players? 

Mr. KARCHER. It is a complicated question, I think; it would take 

me a long time to answer it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You can just say do they need discovery and 

subpoena powers? 

Mr. KARCHER. As I said in the initial statement, there are a lot 

of points here to the overall entire system that just needs to be 

looked at. I would say that Mr. Meehan made a great point that 

there is a lot of agent misconduct going on in this business. However—and I have written about agent misconduct, it takes place. 

And the union must look after the best interests of the players. 

However—and I have written on this issue—that the union, under 

the labor laws, has the power, if they wanted to, to start representing players, make it an option to have players be represented 

by the union, make it an option that they could. But they have chosen a system in which there are third-party agents involved. Now, 

if that is the system that is chosen, the question is, under that situation when they are not employees of the union, they are not 

under their control, they are not looking after him like Mr. 

Berthelsen said when he is working for the NFLPA, and they can 

see what he is doing on a daily basis, okay, there needs to be some 

sort of, I would think, minimum due process and fairness in a system when you have third-party agents, and that is a system that 

you want to have. 

And I guess the question would be, why, in my mind, why is it 

so difficult to have a system of, like we talked about earlier, somebody had proposed where you have people strike arbitrators from 

a list and ultimately agree on one arbitrator. I mean, that is a typical situation in society where parties in equal bargaining agree to 

a contract that says that. The problem that you have in this situation, and it is unique, is that you have a third-party system where 

in order to represent players, you must agree to sign on the dotted 

line, and you must consent to that with no negotiation powers. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. I need to get to Mr. 

Friedman. And I would like to conclude, Mr. Arrington, on this 

whole idea of having witnesses. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Ms. Jackson Lee, the answer to your question is 

yes. If the goal of the arbitration process is to get to the truth and 

have these grievances heard by an impartial arbitrator——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is the key. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. That is the key, that is the goal. Procedural safeguards, due process rights have to be implemented. You have to 

have discovery, you have to have an honest and fair exchange of 

documents. In the court system, the discovery is liberal, the discovery is broad, there is no harm in exchanging those documents. 

You have to get sworn statements. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But you wouldn’t mind it being more restrained on the arbitration system and as well modifying what the 

agent sign; we want to protect players, but modifying that agreement that says we select the arbitrator? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Sure. 

82

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Arrington, with your daily dealings with 

agents——

Mr. CANNON. Let me ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady 

be granted one more minute. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished Chairman and the 

distinguished Ranking Member. 

Just in the course of your experience with the NFL and with the 

Players Union—which I know has many meritorious assets, many 

good things that it does—in your back and forth, your time with 

the Redskins and the 6.5 million, I know it came into arbitration, 

but just the idea of being able to call witnesses, both you and your 

agent and the Players Union or however it is, the Redskins, would 

that have been a fairer system? 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Well, I think, as has been alluded to, I think if 

a neutral arbitrator would have been able to have been brought on 

board, I don’t have a problem going through the just process. It is 

not about trying to beat anything unlawfully or anything like that, 

or under the table, it is just be fair. You know, this has been I 

think 3 years now since this has happened, and to me the truth 

still remains the same. That is why I don’t have to stay here and 

keep referring to my notes or different things that—to me, you 

know, if you are trying to cover things up, you ought to keep trying 

to go through pulling out facts and different things to try and justify what it is that you are saying. And I don’t need to do that because I know exactly what happened. So all I ask is just to have 

a fair process, that is it, nothing more, nothing less, just a fair 

process. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Berthelsen, I think you have heard everyone at the table say they just want a fair process. Why wouldn’t 

the NFLPA adhere to the American arbitration system and reform 

its rules to allow the consensus of agent and opponent—or whoever 

it is—to have a consensus of who the arbitrator would be? 

Mr. BERTHELSEN. We do conform to that system. We do have 

hearings where there are witnesses and cross-examination——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you have a process where an agent can select as well? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Can I ask one final question? 

Mr. CANNON. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 

Massachusetts be recognized for 1 minute. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I want to know how the rehab is coming and will 

you be ready to go next year? 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Hopefully I will. 

Mr. WATT. Can I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute, please? 

Mr. CANNON. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is 

recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. WATT. Just to say a word to Mr. Berthelsen. As strongly as 

I have expressed my concern about the timing of this hearing, let 

me say this in public as I would say it to you in private if you 

asked me to. I think the timing of this hearing is terrible, but I 

hope that you are listening to what is being said. There is a high 

degree of interest—not always uniformly applied by this Committee—to fairness. And it is quite possible that the gentlelady who 

is being so aggressive about this may be sitting in this chair next 

83

year, where the Chairman is sitting. So I hope you have heard this 

concern about fairness, and I hope you will communicate it to whoever it is you are representing, the Players Association, the union, 

whoever it is in this mix. 

I personally am not a big fan of arbitration, period, but that is 

not what had hearing is about. I am not a big fan of injecting ourselves into cases on a case-by-case basis, but I hope you get the 

broader message here about fairness, and I hope you will talk to 

your clients about it, because this may be one of those situations 

that it would be better for you all to resolve and define fairness 

than have this Committee resolve it and define fairness. I yield 

back the rest of my time. 

Mr. CANNON. Let me associate myself with Mr. Watt’s words. 

And I was going to say something very similar to that, and we will 

just let it be said by Mr. Watt. 

Before we adjourn, let me also just point out that this is the—

we don’t often use this hearing room, this is the first room that I 

had a hearing in. And as a young green freshman, Mr. Watt 

showed me great kindness here. So it is a matter of great warmth 

to be here and chair this as the last hearing that I chair. It may 

well be that Ms. Jackson Lee takes the gavel of this Committee, 

and I look forward to working with her. We have some wonderfully 

important issues, especially those that preceded this hearing, that 

I look forward to working with her on. 

But I just did want to say that it has been a great pleasure to 

work with Mr. Watt. We have had some hard conflicts, but all—

first of all, I cherish audible conflicts. People can yell at each other, 

that is not fun at all, but Mr. Watt is a worthy opponent. And on 

a couple of occasions over the past couple of years we have crossed 

swords, but we have had a very gracious, very thoughtful period together here, and it has been my honor and my privilege and my 

pleasure to have worked with you, Mr. Watt, over this period of 

time. 

Let me also say that staff has been wonderful, both majority 

staff—and Stephanie, you have been wonderful in awkward difficult situations. As my staff begins to see itself being paired down 

and working in your awkward position, we want you to know that 

you have been a great model, and I appreciate the many, many 

hours and the many problems that we have resolved together. 

This has been a great 4 years as a Committee, and we have done 

so many wonderful things. And whoever the Chair is, Mrs. Jackson 

Lee, if that is you, we look forward to that same kind of relationship. I can assure you that I will try to emulate, although poorly, 

the model of Mr. Watt. And I hope that we can actually make some 

progress on some of these issues that are not partisan. This is not 

a partisan issue today. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, 

this is not union, non-union, this is about fairness. And I will say 

the hearing was much more interesting than I expected it to be. 

And again, I want to associate myself with what Mr. Watts said 

about why we are here and what ought to happen out of this hearing. 

And with that, without objection, we will adjourn. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I echo and yield and thank both of you for 

your kindness. Thank you very much. 

84

Mr. CANNON. Adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(85)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDI- CIARY

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me also thank you, Chairman Cannon for 

holding this important and informative hearing. I also thank the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Watt, for his cooperation. And I thank all the members of the subcommittee for 

allowing me to join you today. 

The purpose of the hearing is to examine the arbitration practices of the National 

Football League Players Association (NFLPA). I am pleased to extend a warm welcome to each of the witnesses who will help us obtain a better understanding of 

those practices and how well or poorly they are serving the intended purpose of arbitration. The witnesses are:

• Mr. LaVar Arrington Arrington, an All-Pro linebacker for the Washington 

Redskins of the NFL and now a player with the New York Giants;

• Mr. Richard Berthelsen, the General Counsel of the NFLPA;

• Professor Richard Karcher of the Florida Coastal School of Law and an expert 

in the field of sports law; and

• Mr. Larry Friedman, Managing Director of the law firm of Friedman and 

Fieger, LLP, and an attorney who has represented NFLPA certified player 

agents in litigation against the NFLPA.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the NFL and the union for 

its professional football players (NFLPA) recognizes the NFLPA as the exclusive 

bargaining agent. The CBA also gives the NFLPA the authority to regulate and discipline contract agents who represent NFL players in contract negotiations with respective franchises in the NFL. Under the CBA only agents certified by the NFLPA 

may negotiate player contracts. 

As I stated, the collective bargaining agreement authorizes the NFLPA to certify 

and discipline contract agents. But the NFLPA may not decertify an agent—an act 

akin to disbarring an attorney—without permitting the agent an opportunity to contest the proposed decertification to ‘‘a neutral arbitrator pursuant to its agent regulation system.’’

One would think that a sanction as drastic, extreme, and draconian as decertification would trigger a legal process with all the procedural safeguards necessary to 

prevent an erroneous deprivation of a property interest and deter arbitrary or capricious decision-making. 

I think all of us here would simply assume that before the NFLPA could decertify 

an agent and deprive him or her of the right to make a living in his or her chosen 

profession it would be required to afford the agent procedural due process, which, 

at a minimum, requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before an 

impartial decisionmaker. 

One would think that the party seeking to deprive the agent of his license would 

bear the burden of proof, production, and persuasion which must be established by 

at least clear and convincing evidence introduced in accordance with established 

rules of evidence. And, of course, we would expect that the accused would be afforded the right of confrontation and compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in 

his favor. 

But then I learned of a disturbing case involving Mr. Carl Poston, which indicates 

that these assumptions may be unwarranted when it comes to the arbitration processing involving the decertification of NFLPA contract agents. Mr. Poston is the contract agent for LaVar Arrington Arrington, one of the witnesses appearing before 

86

us today. He is also one of my constituents and the subject of an NFLPA decertification arbitration proceeding. Although the merits of that proceeding are not before 

the subcommittee, I think it useful to describe the factual background which 

prompted the NFLPA to institute decertification proceedings against Mr. Poston. 

ABOUT CARL POSTON

Carl Poston has been a professional sports agent for more than 17 years. The father of three children, he was drawn to the business out of a desire to help professional athletes, particular football players, make good decisions concerning their careers, maximize their income during their playing years, and plan for a safe and 

secure post-playing career. Mr. Poston also holds four degrees—a mathematics degree, a law degree, a LLM (an advance law degree in taxation) and an MBA. He 

has developed a reputation as a smart and aggressive agent, who fights hard for 

his players, and zealously represents their interests. 

Since 2000, Mr. Poston has represented LaVar Arrington, the number two overall 

pick in 2000 NFL draft. He has tremendous respect for LaVar Arrington and at all 

times has looked out for his interest and represented LaVar Arrington with undivided loyalty. There are no allegations that Mr. Poston did anything to the contrary. 

ABOUT THE LAVAR ARRINGTON CONTRACT NEGOTIATION

In 2000, Mr. Poston was able to achieve an outstanding seven year contract for LaVar Arrington worth more than $50 million with several escalator provisions 

which could yield LaVar Arrington even more money and higher future salary cap 

values were created which placed the team under pressure for future salary cap renegotiation. Although LaVar Arrington was the second overall pick, his contract was 

the best contract in the entire draft class. Because of the size of LaVar Arrington’s 

contract, and the various escalators, LaVar Arrington’s contract had a major impact 

on the Redskins salary cap. On several occasions, LaVar Arrington, represented by 

Mr. Poston, restructured his contract so that the Redskins could make salary cap 

room and increase their cash flow to sign other players and strengthen the team. 

In late fall of 2003, Dan Snyder, the Redskins owner, called Mr. Poston and asked 

to restructure LaVar Arrington’s contract—again. Snyder explained that he wanted 

to sign additional players, and that in order to do so, the Redskins needed to restructure LaVar Arrington’s contract, and wanted to sign him to a long term contract making LaVar Arrington a ‘‘lifetime’’ Redskin. Snyder told Mr. Poston he 

would receive a call from Eric Schaffer, whom had recently been hired to be the salary cap manager for the Redskins. Mr. Poston called LaVar Arrington and after the 

call, and the two discussed strategy on how to approach the discussions with Schaffer. 

On December 3 Schaffer met Mr. Poston in Houston and the two met for several 

hours discussing the Redskins salary cap and cash flow problems over the next few 

years and the impact LaVar Arrington had on both the cash flow and the salary 

cap. Schaffer explained that the Redskins wanted to stretch out the contract, make 

LaVar Arrington a lifetime Redskin and that the new deal had to be done by December 26, 2003 to maximize the salary cap effect for the team. Schaffer’s proposal 

to Mr. Poston, however, was far short of the parameters that Mr. Poston and LaVar 

Arrington established for such a long term contract. 

Over the next twenty three days extensive negotiations took place that involved 

complex contractual issues. Despite these negotiations, the parties remained extremely far apart and it appeared unlikely that they would be able to reach a deal. 

As the December 26, 2003 deadline approached, the negotiations grew more intense, 

and continued on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. The parties’ positions grew 

closer, but there was still no deal. On the morning of December 26, 2006, Mr. Poston 

arrived at his office in Houston to make arrangements to fly to Washington in case 

a deal was struck before 9:00 a.m. He received a call from Schaffer, who refused 

a key demand in the negotiations—that LaVar Arrington receive a 2006 roster 

bonus of $6.5 million payable in 2006. Without this key provision Poston took the 

deal off the table and told Schaffer that they were out of time and the deal was 

dead. 

In the early afternoon, however, Schaffer called Poston and advised him that the 

Redskins would agree to both $6.5 million 2006 roster bonuses. At this point it was 

too late in the day for Mr. Poston to fly from Houston to Washington D.C. in time 

to make the deadline. 

Mr. Poston called LaVar Arrington and told that the deal appeared to be back on. 

Unable to fly to Washington at that point, Poston and Schaffer worked over the telephone. Poston and Schaffer proceeded to negotiate the final terns, and at approximately 1:30 p.m., reached a deal. Schaffer promised to fax Mr. Poston the completed 

87

contract. Mr. Poston spoke to LaVar Arrington, who was concerned that he could 

not get to the Redskins’ offices in time to sign. Mr. Poston told LaVar Arrington 

to go directly to Schaffer at Redskins Park expecting Schaffer to call Mr. Poston before LaVar Arrington signed the deal. Despite this promise, Schaffer never sent the 

entire contract. He called Mr. Poston and told him that the contact was taking 

longer than expected, and he would fax pages as they were being finished. 

Over the next several hours, Mr. Poston received portions of the contact which 

contained various errors which Mr. Poston called Schaffer to correct. Among the 

items that Mr. Poston observed were missing were the second $6.5 million 2006 roster bonus payable in 2006 and the $11.3 million ‘‘non exercise fee’’ with respect to 

certain options contained in the draft. Mr. Poston observed that the contract contained a 2006 roster bonus payable over three years, which was a sum of money 

that they had agreed to in the contact in addition to the $6.5 million 2006 roster 

bonus payable in 2006. 

Both roster bonuses were key in order to reach the 4-year total of $27.5 million. 

The other roster bonus was money that the parties had agreed to, but which Mr. 

Poston had agreed that Schaffer could structure as he wished. Mr. Poston pointed 

out to Schaffer that the non-exercise fee and the roster bonus were missing, and 

Schaffer assured him that they were being included in the document. 

Mr. Poston continued to wait for a complete and final contact to arrive, and called 

several times but could not reach either LaVar Arrington or Schaffer. Then, Schaffer 

finally took Mr. Poston’s call. In that call, Schaffer told Mr. Poston that LaVar 

Arrington had already signed the contract and had left the office to check into the 

team hotel. Mr. Poston complained that he still had not received the entire contract. 

Mr. Poston told Schaffer that he should not have presented the contract to LaVar 

Arrington without having sent it to Mr. Poston first and then calling him so that 

Mr. Poston and LaVar Arrington could go over the contract. 

Although Schaffer’s conduct in presenting the contract to LaVar Arrington without having Mr. Poston’s prior authorization was plainly inappropriate, Schaffer told 

Mr. Poston that given the looming salary cap deadline, he needed both LaVar 

Arrington’s execution and Mr. Poston’s certification immediately. Schaffer advised 

Mr. Poston that the second $6.5 Roster Bonus as well as the $11.3 had been added, 

and asked that Mr. Poston send signed certification pages. Schaffer then faxed to 

Mr. Poston the pages he needed Mr. Poston to initial and sign, and Mr. Poston initialed and signed those pages and faxed them back. Had Mr. Poston not done so, 

then, according to the Redskins, the entire deal would have fallen apart since a 

major consideration was the creation of salary cap room. Subsequently Mr. Poston 

has been advised that Schaffer’s statement that the deadline was December 26, 

2003 was incorrect and that the certification was not required to be submitted until 

the next day, December 27, 2003. 

Mr. Poston has said that he read all the drafts and partial draft pages that Schaffer had sent him and commented on them, corrected various mistakes, and indicated 

the second 2006 roster bonus and the $113 million non-exercise fee were not included. But according to Mr. Poston, he had little choice but to send back the certification as Schaffer had insisted, because if he had not, the deal that LaVar 

Arrington wanted and on which he had already signed off on, would have fallen 

apart. 

It was only after Mr. Poston had sent back the signature pages, that Schaffer sent 

a full copy of the document. In the document that Mr. Poston received from Schaffer 

he noticed that the signatures were attached to a version that had the $11.3 million 

non exercise fee interlined in handwriting, but had no interlineation for the second 

$6.5 million roster bonus payable in 2006. 

RESOLUTION OF THE ARRINGTON CONTRACT DISPUTE

Mr. Poston attempted to rectify the problem, and called Schaffer who refused to 

continue to speak to Mr. Poston without Redskins legal counsel. Schaffer called back 

with counsel for the Redskins, who claimed that the $6.5 million roster bonus payable in 2006 was not part of the deal. This made absolutely no sense in light of the 

negotiations between Mr. Poston and Schaffer, and was directly contrary to 

Schaffer’s assurances that second 2006 roster bonus was indeed in the paperwork 

that LaVar Arrington had signed. 

Mr. Poston informed LaVar Arrington of the Redskin’s position and also contacted 

the NFLPA to enlist its support and advice. Mr. Poston also helped LaVar Arrington 

hire legal counsel to protect LaVar Arrington’s rights. On March 12, 2004, LaVar 

Arrington, through counsel, filed a non-injury grievance against the Redskins asking 

for (i) addition of the $6.5 million bonus and/or to (ii) void the contract. In the grievance, LaVar Arrington pointed out:

88

The Redskins’ delay in drafting the language, combined with the deadline, created a situation where trust was paramount. The deal could not occur—without 

trust—a trust predicated on Arrington’s desire to help the Redskins. The Redskins controlled the contract language and the time to draft it. It was not humanly possible for Poston to review the Redskins’ version of the contract, compare it on a word-by-word basis with the agreement in principle, and advise 

Arrington by the 4:00 p.m. deadline. Poston and Arrington were required to 

trust the Redskins to accurately memorialize their agreement.

On or about March 23, 2004, the NFLPA agreed to represent LaVar Arrington in 

the matter and retained the law firm of Dewey Ballantine. Mr. Poston had no involvement with the decision but he cooperated fully with the Dewey Ballantine attorneys, meeting with them on two occasions and providing them all information 

they requested, including his notes. 

I am advised that Dewey Ballantine did not meet with LaVar Arrington until 

shortly before his non-injury grievance arbitration was scheduled to be heard. LaVar 

Arrington was not impressed with the performance of his legal representatives, and 

after the hearing called NFLPA President Gene Upshaw to complain. LaVar 

Arrington asked Mr. Upshaw who had hired the Dewy Ballantine firm, asked how 

could they be his lawyers if they had not even bothered to meet with him, the client, 

until shortly before the arbitration. LaVar Arrington told Gene Upshaw was going 

to hire his own attorney who could give him an objective view and did so shortly 

thereafter. 

After LaVar Arrington retained new counsel, the arbitration was adjourned for 

the purpose of pursuing settlement negotiations. Through the efforts of new counsel, 

a settlement was reached. Mr. Poston played an important role in achieving this settlement, including arranging a meeting with Redskins Coach Joe Gibbs to explain 

LaVar Arrington’s feelings concerning the situation. Coach Gibbs helped prevail on 

the Redskins to reach an acceptable settlement with LaVar Arrington. The settlement provided that no one did anything wrong or improper and provided for a new 

contract for LaVar Arrington under which he could obtain an additional $4.85 million under certain conditions, including the right to void the contract if he made Pro 

Bowls in the next four years unless the Redskins paid LaVar Arrington an additional $3.25 million. The settlement agreement provides:

‘‘This Agreement shall not be construed as an admission of liability or a finding 

of wrongdoing by any party.’’

As LaVar Arrington has put it, ‘‘[m]y grievance against the Redskins has been settled on no-fault, win-win resolution.’’

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Mr. Poston did nothing wrong nor improper. So for me, two questions immediately come to the fore: (1) why would the 

NFLPA would institute a decertification proceeding against Mr. Poston; and (2) as 

the Chairman rightly indicates, (a) whether the arbitration procedures employed by 

the NFLPA are fair; (b) whether they ensure a neutral arbitrator; (c) whether adequate opportunity for judicial review exists; and (d) whether the procedures comport 

with the intent underlying the Federal Arbitration Act and, if not, what might be 

a proper legislative response. 

Mr. Chairman, let me thank you again for convening this hearing, which I hope 

will be the first of several. The playing career of the typical professional football, 

baseball, hockey, or basketball player is less than ten years, at which time the athlete in most instances is still under 35 years of age with a remaining working life 

of at least 30 years. 

It is therefore important for Congress to understand whether these professional 

athletes are being well prepared to lead productive lives in the global economy at 

the conclusion of their playing careers. That is why, in my view, it would be useful 

also to examine examination of the effectiveness of the relationship between professional athletes, the representatives that represent players in collective bargaining, 

the sports agents who represent the individual interests of players, and the professional sports team which employ them. 

The Congress’ paramount concern should be ensuring that the financial and professional interests of professional athletes are being well served by those who owe 

them a fiduciary duty of loyalty and care. I believe that professional athletes who 

are poorly served by their player representatives, agents, or the teams that employ 

them are much more susceptible to temptations such as the false lure of performance enhancing drugs. 

89

I am looking forward to hearing from the witness and considering their responses 

to the subcommittee’s questions. 

Thank you. I yield the balance of my time.

90

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL POSTON


CP0001.eps
91


CP0002.eps
92


CP0003.eps
93


CP0004.eps
94


CP0005.eps
95


CP0006.eps
96


CP0007.eps
97


CP0008.eps
98


CP0009.eps
99

ATTACHMENT


CP0012.eps
100


CP0010.eps
101


CP0011.eps
102

LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION (NBPA)


NBA0001.eps
103


NBA0002.eps
104


NBA0003.eps
105


NBA0004.eps
106

LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE PLAYERS’ ASSOCIATION

(NHLPA)


NHL0001.eps
107


NHL0002.eps
108

ITEM ENTITLED, ‘‘NFLPA REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONTRACT ADVISORS,’’LETTER

SUBMITTED BY RICHARD BERTHELSEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL FOOTBALL

LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION (NFLPA), WASHINGTON, DC


NFL0001.eps
109


NFL0002.eps
110


NFL0003.eps
111


NFL0004.eps
112


NFL0005.eps
113


NFL0006.eps
114


NFL0007.eps
115


NFL0008.eps
116


NFL0009.eps
117


NFL0010.eps
118


NFL0011.eps
119


NFL0012.eps
120


NFL0013.eps
121


NFL0014.eps
122


NFL0015.eps
123


NFL0016.eps
124


NFL0017.eps
125


NFL0018.eps
126


NFL0019.eps
127


NFL0020.eps
128


NFL0021.eps
129


NFL0022.eps
130


NFL0023.eps
131


NFL0024.eps
132


NFL0025.eps
133


NFL0026.eps
134


NFL0027.eps
135


NFL0028.eps
136


NFL0029.eps
137


NFL0030.eps
138


NFL0031.eps
139


NFL0032.eps
140


NFL0033.eps
141


NFL0034.eps
142


NFL0035.eps
143


NFL0036.eps
144


NFL0037.eps
145


NFL0038.eps
146


NFL0039.eps
147


NFL0040.eps
148


NFL0041.eps
149


NFL0042.eps
150


NFL0043.eps
151


NFL0044.eps
152


NFL0045.eps
153


NFL0046.eps
154


NFL0047.eps
155


NFL0048.eps
156


NFL0049.eps
157


NFL0050.eps
158


NFL0051.eps
159

LETTER SUBMITTED BY BERNARD PARRISH

Æ


Parrish.eps