← Pablo Torre Finds Out
Pablo Torre Finds Out
Share & Tell & Somethingburgers with Domonique Foxworth and David Samson
00:49:12
Loading summary
Transcript140 lines
- [00:00]
A
I'm Pablo Torre, and this episode of Pablo Torre Finds out is brought to you by Remy Martin. 1738 Accord Royale. Exceptionally smooth cognac for all your game day festivities. Please drink responsibly because today we're going to find out what this sound is.
- [00:17]
B
I learned that Pablo is a lot like Roger Goodell.
- [00:20]
A
Oh, wow.
- [00:22]
B
Whoa.
- [00:23]
A
Right after this ad. Are we rolling? We are. Very good.
- [00:35]
B
So do I log my complaints now or on air?
- [00:40]
A
Are they about me or are they about David?
- [00:42]
B
No, they're about you. How about you?
- [00:44]
A
Oh, we can do them later. We can do those later. We don't have to do those here, you know. Why are you looking? Why is David looking around for Dominique? You're looking. Oh, you want to see Dominique? Can we see Dominique?
- [00:56]
B
Who doesn't?
- [00:57]
A
Hold on.
- [00:58]
C
You sound disconsolate.
- [01:01]
A
There he is. Disconsolate. Why is Dominique disconsolate?
- [01:05]
C
I don't know. He just sounds a little down. He sounds as though he knows he's walking into a show where you're the central figure yet again.
- [01:11]
A
Oh, you think that's Dominique's concern?
- [01:14]
B
Nah, my concern is that I'm the central figure and that Pablo set me up. But that's fine.
- [01:20]
C
I'm just excited to be here with Dominique because Pablo didn't set up Dominique.
- [01:25]
A
He.
- [01:25]
C
He told you exactly what the show was. A setup is.
- [01:28]
A
When you just come out, there's a little, you know.
- [01:32]
B
Would you. Would you like me to explain the setup? See, this is. This is one of the reasons why David is a wonderful person to be around is because he doesn't believe that he needs any more information than information he already has. Like, you don't know this process and how I could feel set up.
- [01:51]
C
I'm always looking for data points. Tell me what. What Pablo did. I thought, see, if there's side beef going on that I don't know about, then I don't know. But there was a group chat that was me, you, and Dominique preparing for today. If you're doing stuff on the side, how can I comment on that?
- [02:06]
B
Oh, no, no. The group chat was. Had been going on for a while, and this date had been marked for a while. Pablo did extensive expose and uncovered secret documents about an organization that's very near and dear to my heart. He asked me to involve myself in, and I said no. But Pablo strategically released that show the day before he was going to have me on his show. So, I mean, it's. I guess I could have been like, no, I'm not coming on your show now. But I guess that's on me. So I guess that's how you would argue that it's not a setup. I think it's a setup, but I walked into it willingly, I guess just.
- [02:50]
A
A little menage trois.
- [02:52]
C
I think that if you did plan it that way, then a tip of the chapeau to you because you could get Dominique on your show at any time.
- [03:00]
A
So the reason I love our group chat, beyond the fact that all of us text extraordinarily differently from each other, I would say that the three of us are like as far away from each other as possible when it comes to how we text. Because Dominique texts no, no more than three words at a time and not very promptly and terribly annoyingly in terms of responsiveness. David is immediately waiting to text something at all times, it seems. But the reason I love the group chat is for that reason. And that reason I think bleeds into the shows we do. We're all very different, but your points of view are incredibly valuable. So I just need to recap for the audience that missed Tuesday's episode, which is, I think just one of the most important and most interesting episodes, frankly we've done in the young history of Pablo Tor finds out because it is about a collusion grievance brought by the NFL PA against the NFL that resulted in a 61 page document that neither side, it turns out the league or the union wanted anyone else to see. Unfortunately, I'm pathologically obsessed with finding out the thing you don't want me to find out. And so I got the document, had Mike Florio on as the guest, we dissected it, we did a whole examination, a reveal about why it is that neither side wanted anyone to see it and also what they were trying to hide. And in this we got to private emails, messages, texts, presentation slides, secret meetings, all that stuff. And hanging in the balance for those who are just maybe bored by the legalese of this just happens to be the most popular sport in America as well as some of the most famous and important people in sports generally and also the way that America basically is currently thinking about labor and management in general. So I am very glad that you two, specifically Dominique Boxworth, David Sampson, are sitting with me here now.
- [05:14]
C
Foreign I listened to the show earlier this week. What I recall thinking to myself is they're not exactly diving deep enough into the existence of pseudo collusion within all leagues during all owners meetings and the fact that the union is culpable in many regards in that they don't allow their players for the most part, to sign bad deals because it sets a bad precedent. And so they get involved at the upper level with deals, just like Major League Baseball does. That was one that I want to address.
- [05:52]
A
Well, in that one is like a dozen things that I want to object to. But just to clarify, I object. Well, to clarify, David Sampson, former president of the Marlins, who worked hand in hand with the owner of the team, Dominique Foxworth, of course, former president of the nflpa, who was a candidate for the executive director job that went to one of the characters in the story, Lloyd Howell, who is the current Ed of the union. That's the backdrop. What you have just laid out, though, is one big thing. You want to give another big thing before we respond to that.
- [06:23]
C
Well, part of my concern with today's show is I don't know where Dominique will enter into the fray of things. So I was going to give a panoply of things to give him optionality in case he doesn't want to just be an audience member.
- [06:41]
B
Panoply it then, man, panoply away. Like, I, I, I think so. Pablo pointed out that I was a candidate for the job. And not only that, like, this is the only. I worked at the basketball union. Also, like sports unions is kind of the only thing professionally that I've ever really actually like, genuinely cared about outside of my own professional football career. And it means a lot to me to not undercut the union at any point. When I left office, I was very quiet about any disagreements or anything, any issues that were going on, because I didn't find it to be a proper thing to do, and I just didn't want, and Pablo's report had things in there that were very challenging to the current administration and the union. And when I was a president, it's very difficult to deal with, with those outside challenges. So I at no point wanted to put myself, particularly because I was a candidate at a job in a position where it was viewed that anybody, because, you know, solidarity is all the union has really, as far as strength is concerned. And so, like, it's infuriating to me that anyone who had been a part of the union to like, publicly take shots at the union. So that was my issue with being involved and in that episode is I didn't want to be put in a position where I, I felt like I was defending something I didn't understand or weakening the union.
- [08:10]
A
But this is why I love the three of us in the room. It's the journalists, it's the former union president, it's the former team president. And David has a panoply. You have a panoply?
- [08:19]
C
I do.
- [08:20]
A
You've called it pseudo collusion. I'm gonna let that sit. You've said we didn't dive deep enough despite it being 63 minutes.
- [08:25]
C
Yeah, it was 63.
- [08:26]
A
So what the else is in your panoply?
- [08:29]
C
I just wanted to point out that what happens inside the league with the Management Council that you say was only invented for the purposes of collusion. Well, you drew an inference that why else would there be a management council?
- [08:45]
A
That part of. Doesn't the existence of this, as Mike Florio put it, feel collusive, Dominique, is a point that was raised like it's this shadowy entity that's job is to direct the teams.
- [08:56]
C
That's not their only job.
- [08:57]
A
Well, I would say that their job is to. Dominique, you can jump in here.
- [09:01]
B
Oh, no, I just. First of all, I think it's interesting that of all the words that he could choose, he could choose a word like panoply, which is so, so close to Monopoly. It's just. It feels like you could have said plethora.
- [09:14]
C
That's like saying that ass is coast is close to glass.
- [09:20]
B
Ain'T it? Monopoly doesn't rhyme with much. You pick the only one that rhymes with Monopoly. Anyway, I was just making a joke. I think the Management Council exists for a number of reasons. It's the same. It's essentially the opposite of the executive committee of the union. I get the point of the Management Council. I think the point that Pablo is making about they do exist as a body to help guide the entire group. I don't think you would disagree with that. And I think that in itself is why Pablo would say that it does lead to the potential of collusive behavior.
- [09:55]
C
I just think that I. I thought he made it too small. They do exist, the Executive Council in Major League Baseball. They exist as a representation of the 30 owners. They're the ones who, when you are doing a transaction, a media transaction or a sale, a purchase agreement, anything, it has to get passed by vote of the Executive Council. Then the Executive Council brings it to the full ownership for a vote. And it's the owners who have to vote 23 to 7 or greater for anything to happen. But one of the things you do is listen to what the Executive Council said. But the union's a great example in baseball. The executive committee of baseball's union voted no on the last cba, and yet it passed because the player reps or the owners, the other owners on the executive council, the player reps voted for it. And so we had a CBA in baseball. So it doesn't always follow that whatever the management council does, the owners do.
- [10:53]
A
Go ahead.
- [10:53]
B
So the example that you use, I mean the example that he used was of the union body diverging from the advice of the executive committee. Not an example of the league as a body diverging from the management council.
- [11:08]
C
No, I agree. I was telling you that there are. It's meant to show. I'm trying to think of. In my career, did we ever go against the executive council?
- [11:16]
A
That'll be a good question. That'll be a good question.
- [11:17]
C
Good question. Were there to be a journalist here and I. And I would say that, no, that when the executive council voted in favor of something, we voted actually. I got it. No, not true. We voted against contraction when the executive council told us to vote for contraction, Dominique. Because we were being contracted.
- [11:36]
A
Explain why that might be. Okay. All right.
- [11:41]
B
All right. So we're going to fire through these pretty quickly. That first issue in the panoply, I believe if we can close now. I don't think that David made the case that he was hoping to make. And I think through a series of very straightforward questions, we. We slapped that one down. What's next? Panoply, man?
- [12:01]
C
Well, I would say the second one is that when you are the union to not acknowledge that you also get involved in what players do in terms of signing deals. The opposite yet equivalent, like two ends of a horseshoe of what the commissioner's office does with its owners and baseball people in terms of contracts.
- [12:22]
B
So the context matters. And trying to make the equivalent of the union and the ownership is very different. Like labor is not the same as management. So I get the point that you're making is you're not essentially, essentially you're not defending anything that's happening. You're saying, but they do it too. And I would say, yes, they do it too, but they do it from a different position and for a different reason. So they wonder.
- [12:49]
C
Different reason, Dominique. It's the same reason we don't want other teams to set a precedent that we then could suffer from. And that's the same with the union, because I've spoken to players about it, hey, I'd love to settle this arbitration case, but they're not letting me because as a 3 plus pitcher, first time eligible, if I settle below blank 3.6, then all of a sudden I'm screwing 10 other of my of my brethren.
- [13:13]
B
I would say that each individual case there are issues There are situations where the management council is completely fine. And then there are situations where the things that they do, I think are concerning use of power and leverage. And I think that a strong union is good for the sport. And with the equal power in the fans and equal power in the media and equal power in the league, what makes it challenging is when the power dynamics are not equal. And that's, I think, where the context matters. To me, the union, having participated in some degree in the negotiations of players, is a lot different because of the power dynamics than it would be for the league to gather and make certain decisions. That's all.
- [14:02]
A
Well, it's also, I just note that, David, I, I think this is, this is telling, but also understandable. You referred to it, the plural. There actually was brethren, right? And so there is this question of wait a minute, are you brothers or are you competitors? And is there a difference when you are the people who are paying the employees versus the employees, right? And so everything about this story is about what the market value of a player is. Is it guaranteed contracts, is it partially guaranteed? How much money are these deals worth? And what this whole document, the 61 page document reveals, is that there is, as I say in the show, there is a remarkable solidarity among owners that the players simply do not have. For lots of reasons that Dominique is union president, of course, had to try and overcome, which involve different economic strata, which involve career length, which involve attention span, which involve frankly, financial chess strategy that the owners swim in.
- [15:09]
B
All of the time I've written about this, I'm sure you've read it multiple times, but I would also throw into it that the career life cycle is also a big leverage point. So when as a player you're negotiating for money is the easiest way to talk about it, but negotiating for an increase in the salary cap, that increase in the salary cap divided up amongst all the players is minute. And then you may not even be there for when it hits the salary cap. The difference is when you divide up 1 percentage point in revenue amongst all the owners, it's enormous. And it gets even more enormous in the fact that you understand that you will be getting that benefit into perpetuity and, and hand that benefit also down to your children. And also then you get to the solidarity point where 32 like minded individuals is a little easier to maintain and create some levels of solidarity. 32 individuals who, many of whom have been in this group for 10, 20, 15 years and don't plan on ever leaving it, that is, I mean, it's just in this ecosystem analogy, that's a big ass lion with a lot of big ass teeth compared to a situation where there are very young guys who are not coming from billions of dollars, who recognize that their career life cycle is very short, their opportunity to gain is very short, and are in different places. There are guys who make 35 million a year, and then there are guys who make a couple hundred thousand a year and may not be around very long. So all those things make the dynamics really difficult. And it's not quite a lion versus a lion in these negotiations, but it.
- [16:57]
C
Never is when it's management versus union. And just go back and think about the SAG AFTRA strikes and think about the number of actors who we heard from who make 20 million per picture. But that's a very tiny percentage of the union. The majority of the union are the people who are, you know, once in a while getting roles where they're barely making any money. And the advent and the onslaught of AI could just eliminate them completely. And so there you end up fighting baseball union. The majority of players never reach arbitration. Dominique, you know that in terms of the career length. And so when you're arguing about free agency issues or you're arguing, you're arguing only to the tip of the top of the union, which makes it harder for a union leader because you've got a few people of power under Boris, but the majority of your union members are not focused on the same issues and owners are not so different as you think. There's a lot of wrangling that has to go on by the commissioner.
- [17:51]
A
Okay, so you mentioned Scott Boris, who is a super agent in baseball, who is another one of these power centers in terms of organization. Right. We're talking about how to organize, how to herd cats. The question of whether David Sampson was taken aback in any way that there was a presentation at the NFL Management Council closed door session at the league annual meetings in Palm beach in 2022 that was like the central scene in the document in which all of this stuff is happening. Roger Goodell and Jeff Pash, his lawyer, had been coordinating via email what messaging to put into these slides we have seen now in the document. The text. Right. That's what the arbitrator ruled on, was that this was the NFL attempting to collude, attempting to coordinate with the owners, the 32 owners. Was any of that something you were like?
- [18:39]
C
Oh, no, it just brought me back to every owner's meeting I ever went to over 18 years. Every single one had that presentation. So I, I, I just to me, it's a nothing burger because I know very well that I didn't collude because we ended up getting screwed more than we screwed in terms of what other teams did with other teams players. Though once in a while we'd purposefully overpay just to do a screw. You did. Like when we took Reyes from the Mets. Jose Reyes loved it, loved doing that. Taking him away by offering him an extra year and extra dollars. So what we're told by the commissioner's office is a do whatever you want. But by the way, if you do differently than what we're saying, you're making a mistake. And here's the proof. And they're. They were right every time. But the competitive nature of the franchisees is such that while you are brethren as you are negotiating media deals or other such things, you're competing against them. And we're all very competitive. We want to win.
- [19:39]
B
And I think there's a bunch of things to address that. First of all, I'm not one who believes that Roger Goodell's job is easy. I think it's hard as hell because I cannot imagine trying to get 31 or 32 billionaires to all fall in line. But I do think that it's a lot easier because I think their interests are a lot more aligned. When there are issues that, that hurt some and help others, that's when it gets really difficult, like creating those coalitions. So I think that's the first thing is I think what you acknowledge is that being a commissioner of even the most profitable sport in America is probably incredibly hard.
- [20:17]
A
Yes.
- [20:17]
B
You know what's tougher? Leading the union. So it's a lot more difficult because there are more people and with more interest and also with less experience in this world. So that's why I imagine, like when you say things to the effect of it's a nothing burger. I think I understand that it's a nothing burger to you. But anytime there is an opportunity to shift a couple chips of power in the direction of the players, it does feel like a something burger.
- [20:52]
A
Look, this is the quote from the arbitrator. Just to set the scene here, right? Quote. There is little question that the NFL Management Council, with the blessing of the commissioner, encouraged the 32 NFL clubs to reduce guarantees in veterans contracts at the March 2022 annual owners meeting, end quote. That was the standard of collusion that the arbitrator found that qualified that was met. He did not find for the record proof to his satisfaction that the 32 NFL clubs acted on that advice directly, as in no one else.
- [21:27]
C
Idiots. Well, we should act on the advice because it's right.
- [21:31]
A
But. But de facto, by the way, I should clarify, like Lamar Jackson, Kyler Murray, Russell Wilson are the three examples of the case studies. The star quarterbacks that were up that offseason and were up for full guarantees because of DeSean Watson's insane contract with the Browns, admittedly insane, and they didn't get them. And we have text messages and, and. And exchanges and emails in which you have not just a friendly relationship, but something like a brotherhood in which they're celebrating the deals.
- [22:01]
B
Not just because characterizing the contract as insane, I think is not fair, unique, but characterizing it as insane. When you look across other sports and look at the value of a player, given his background, I think the result of the contract makes it look particularly silly. But like, I think the idea of it is in itself is not.
- [22:24]
C
That's not right. When it was signed, the day it was signed is the day. If you go back to nothing personal of that day where we said, wow, it wasn't the fact that it was fully guaranteed, that struck me. It's never about that. It's what's the amount guaranteed at signing and whether it's full or not. Just look at that amount in the NFL. And what was guaranteed to Deshaun Watson, the guy who was, to me never should take another snap, was 203 million. I didn't say one word about Josh Allen. I didn't say one word about Lamar Jackson.
- [22:53]
A
I get. I get what I get. I get what Dominique's pointed. I don't want to get lost in what is probably in some ways the bigger story when it comes to just like a guy who was embroiled in dozens of sexual misconduct lawsuits, got the biggest guaranteed contract in the history of the sport. I get what Dominique is saying in terms of the larger context of sports. The thing I'm referring to really, as what is most eye opening, is that David is in no ways moved at all by the idea that there is this degree of clarity around this brotherhood and this cooperation or the fact that.
- [23:31]
C
There were a hundred times in my career what I would say to another team president, hey, we got that one. Done well, huh? Or, man, I cannot believe that you signed that player to that amount. You're killing me, Smalls. Like saying those things, that's not collusion. That's just saying we all act on our own. We all do things in our own self interest, but then we pretend that we're part of a team. And the instances where owners and presidents do not act as part of a team are way more common than when, hey, let's not, let's not give this third basement anything.
- [24:07]
A
But you said that in these presentations that you attended, right, the equivalent of the NFL MC for baseball, that there was always some guidance, some directive from the commissioner's office.
- [24:18]
C
So not. So that's the difference. When you put out slides that show that every long term contract for a pitcher doesn't work out, you are hoping the 30 men sitting there get the inference. You're hoping that they look at that and say, oh my, GM told me that that agent wants eight years, 200 million. Well, that doesn't make sense because all deals over four years end up being bad. They don't say to you, you can't sign a guy for eight years. And that's not what the management council was saying.
- [24:46]
A
They always say, dominique, every team makes their own decision. Doesn't that feel like, I mean, practically speaking, this is not legally speaking. Practically speaking, that feels like the, like disclaimer. But the effect, the intent seems quite obvious to me.
- [25:03]
B
I don't think any of us disagree with what's going on. I think the. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not looking to get into some debate on what constitutes actual collusion. Like that's the point of having an arbitrator. That's the point of going through these processes. And that frankly is the point of a union to challenge these things to ensure I think we find ourselves. If you've ever spent a lot of time around people from other countries that don't, not necessarily Western countries, you'll find that not everybody has as much faith in institutions as we do. And I know that we now generally would argue that as an American society, we have less faith in institutions than we used to. Talk to somebody from some South American countries about what they believe about their institutions. And I say all that to say that I think we generally trust these big bodies. And I think David's a perfect person to have here to remind us that these people are human. While we think of the leagues as these big entities and these great big institutions that we should trust. Like, no, it's made up of people who are smart and people who are sometimes dumb and people who are selfish and sometimes magnanimous. Like, they're people and they need to be held responsible and they need to be checked and balanced just like any other person. And so like, that is fundamentally why, like, I genuinely believe in unions and there are examples on the other side, where unions have become overpowered and they distort industries, but that ain't it in pro sports. That's just not the way it works in pro sports.
- [26:54]
A
Foreign public opinion is where I think me, as the journalist should enter here. Because as much as you guys are both kind of numb to the idea that human behavior is human behavior, let's dose ourselves with the appropriate amount of cynicism, right? The idea that there is this level of communication, coordination, cooperation. What I'm saying is that I don't think normal fans realize how much this stuff is so explicitly discussed, Right? And so when I think of what does it mean? Why is it an uphill battle for employees versus management? It's because the prices of things, the market value of things, the contracts of things, are in fact, being shaped and reshaped quietly in ways that truly, Dominique, all. Only David Sampson is saying this, having done it in public. Like, I just want to be clear about this. What you're getting here is a transparency from Dominique and from David and from me. But typically, the ownership class, the executive class, they're not admitting to anything David is saying right now at all. Right, Dominique? Like, that's. The court of public opinion is tilted because people don't realize that owners actually do this stuff because they never, other than David, admit to it.
- [28:21]
C
But what I'm admitting to. To me, is not in any way wrong. And I would tell you that without impugning anyone on any side, this happens in any business, in any industry where there is an agreement, and we operate within the four corners of the agreement. There are grievances that are filed every year by the union, because what the union is doing is fighting for its interpretation of the four corners. And what management is doing is fighting for its interpretation of the four corners. Because you can't legisl. Legislate every issue that comes up during the course of a relationship with the union. And these grievances are purposeful. They're meant to provide guardrails to behavior that both sides do. And it's not just sports. It's every industry where this happens. So what I'm talking about that people don't like talking about is, of course, we are doing things to try to maximize every piece of leverage, to save every dollar, and to get our employees as little money as possible so we can be more profitable. Oh, I'm sorry. I just described every management of every business in any industry.
- [29:31]
B
Yeah, but not every management of every business in every industry like, exists in a way that professional sports leagues do. And that like, I guess you could argue against a league being a monopoly because they're in competition with other leagues and other entertainment entities. But you can't argue against it being a monopsony in which the, the players have no other outlet to go to use their skills. So when you're saying that in every other industry, it does not like there aren't other industries with salary caps, max.
- [30:01]
C
Salaries, you agree to it.
- [30:03]
B
See, and that gets back to the asymmetry conversation that we're talking about. So look, like David, you told us in a recent episode that your parents didn't let you watch TV when you were a kid. It's like, yeah, you agreed to it. It's like there's a different level of power in the structure and you agree to things because of the situation that you're in. And I imagine that given today's like, perspective, you would think that all the limits on movement of players and constraints on salaries that existed in the leagues in the NFL pre 93, you would now agree that that is unfair and terrible. Right?
- [30:45]
C
I would agree that the union did a great job at one point or another in each of these sports through very powerfully and emotional players like Kurt Flood to make a difference for players going forward that all unions try to accomplish. But, but Dominique, I'm not going to agree with you that you have no outlet for your skill. The minimum. The reason why the court of public opinion is so hard on players and owners is because we're all in stratospheres that no one can relate to the minimum.
- [31:15]
B
But we are, but we all aren't is the thing. The players all are not in stratospheres that they, that people can't relate to.
- [31:25]
C
What's the minimum salary in football?
- [31:27]
B
Let's, let's stick, let's stick to the original point that you tried to get away from. I think that Pablo made a point that the reason why us, you and I talking is interesting is because we both will be honest and like, rather than you directly answer the question I asked. You did a lawyer maneuver and got around it and changed the subject to something else. So, like, I think that.
- [31:50]
C
What question.
- [31:51]
A
I think panoply.
- [31:53]
B
We don't, we don't need, we don't need to answer the question. I don't, frankly, it's not important what your answer is. I think that one of the reasons why this is an area where I find a great deal of passion is because, like, I know these guys and like, I know and I was one of these guys. I know the amount of work and sacrifice and effort and risk, frankly, like the things that decisions that I made, it limited the career paths for me to kind of one area. And if it didn't work out, it didn't work out. And I also know the people for whom it didn't work out, and people who only played for three years in the league and made hundreds of thousands of dollars in those three years, but then are not in a position going forward to have the type of life that you would expect a professional athlete to have. And so, like the union exists not only to make sure that you are not suppressing what you are, but not fully suppressing the salaries of the very top and most talented players. It exists in order to protect the guys at the bottom too, with minimum salaries and with some sort of transition and with the hope that they can get to the point where all this stuff was worth it.
- [33:02]
C
Why should you have the right, Dominique, to have to do a job for three years and be set for life? And I'm not saying that you agree with that, because I know you don't. But the majority of baseball players, they're baseball players for a while, and then they go on to be doctors or dentists, or they work in construction, or they become coaches. It is a moment in time where you try to make as much money as you can, and then if you can live the rest of your life, that is the. I assume football is the same as baseball. Not Even the top 1% of baseball players get to live the rest of their life based on career earnings, right?
- [33:37]
B
At no point did I argue that you should be able to. But you said, what gives you the right? It's not about right, it's about what I would assume. The only time that you don't believe in a free and open market is when it's talking, when it speaks to paying for the talents of individuals. So, like that, it's not about the right, it's about how valuable that you are without the artificial constraints of rookie salaries, without the artificial constraints of salary caps, without any of the artificial constraints. And it's not only about the money. In football, particularly healthcare matters, all these things cost money, which is why we always end up back at money. And about career transition, all this stuff costs money, which we always end up back at money. However, like on the other side of that, when you say, what gives you the right to ask for these things? On the other side of that, what gives you the right to deny them? No, what gives you the right to get another million?
- [34:38]
C
Not ask Right?
- [34:39]
B
Oh, yeah, but that's fine. At no point did I say I expected it. But I guess it. Just turning it back around on you is. Or on the ownership class is. The part where it gets confusing is like, what gives you the right to expect that you should not provide these things? And saying that you agreed to it. You know, it's like, if you and I were to get into a fight, and I say, do you want to stop the fight now? At some point, you would agree to it. You would much rather win the fight. But, like, if we're fighting over Pablo, at some point, you'll be like, hey, you can have 30% of Pablo. I want 80%. At some point, if you and I are in a fistfight, I'll take whatever.
- [35:21]
A
Percentage who's getting the cat calves, who's getting the most valuable part of me.
- [35:25]
B
Yeah, Pablo is a bad example. I don't, I don't want.
- [35:28]
C
Why would we ever fight over a percentage of Pablo.
- [35:33]
A
Jawline.
- [35:33]
C
I'll take zero.
- [35:34]
A
My calves.
- [35:35]
B
Yeah, but I mean, you get the point that I'm asking is that. Is that by saying you agreed to it is like, yeah, it does give you the trap door, but you understand that.
- [35:47]
C
But there's, there's laws about that. I get what you're saying, but there's laws about that.
- [35:52]
A
But everything you're talking about is, is.
- [35:55]
B
There'S the hold on Pablo.
- [35:56]
C
Like, if you cannot, if you're laws about something under duress, that agreement is invalid.
- [36:03]
B
Okay, there are laws about that.
- [36:04]
A
But we're talking, though, we're talking because.
- [36:07]
B
The laws exist in a place where, again, you know, who does not have a lot of influence and power when it comes to the courts, where these decisions are made in these places, where these laws are developed. You know, 22 to 32 year old guys who just got out of college and been playing football, like, there are laws for that and like, no one would argue that it's completely under duress. But, like, but this is. But Dominique, you got me on here. You got me worked up because you got. David.
- [36:35]
A
Towel down, towel down, both of you. Dominique said the word, though.
- [36:39]
B
You won, Pablo. You won.
- [36:42]
A
The word, the word here, the key word here that Dominique just said is power, right? Everything you're talking about, you agreed to. This is a function of the push and pull, right, that takes place behind closed doors, but also relevantly, for the union and perhaps irrelevantly, given the suppression of this document in public. Right? So the whole question of, like, there's, There's a fascinating subplot here, Dominique, when it comes to, like, what are the nuclear buttons available to both sides, Right. And it seems to be the case that if the nuclear button is, we're not going to play the games, one side is far better equipped to survive nuclear winter than the other. And so everything being about you agreed to this, if that's the looming threat, it just feels like we should dive into. Okay, wait a minute. How then do we actually shift the balance of power if that's always going to be the bottom line question, which is Dominique said before is going to be money. Right?
- [37:47]
C
That's what we're talking described every relationship between management and union in every industry. Yes, there's always balance of power issues. And Dominique will acknowledge this.
- [37:59]
B
The power asymmetry is a little more dramatic in sports because of how short the careers are. So, like, if you're saying every union everywhere, it's a little different. Like, it would make sense for a UPS union. Like, they could reasonably go on strike for an extended period of time because their careers could be longer. The fact that the football players careers are a lot shorter and the ownership's careers are not as short like that makes the pain of one missed season. If you're only gonna have three seasons, that pain is a lot more pronounced. And so, like, that makes the power asymmetry, I think, in my view, a little bit more dramatic.
- [38:41]
C
But I call this the Menudo effect, which is that any time you're doing something that is for people to benefit for a short period of time, and by definition, time will opt them out of whatever benefits are being negotiated. Child actors, as an example.
- [38:56]
A
Talking about the Puerto Rican boy band.
- [38:58]
C
You'Ve heard of Menudo. Is that something?
- [39:01]
A
I just couldn't tell if you were like, badly translating a Spanish word.
- [39:04]
C
No, I'm talking about the fact that there's boy bands and you negotiate deals and all of a sudden they grow out of the band, you have to replace them with other boys because they're too old. And that happens with child actors. It happens with all sorts of industries, not just sports, where there is a period of time in your life where you can do that, which you do, and then you've got to go do something else. It's not unique to sports. Dominique. I don't agree.
- [39:27]
B
I know, but. But the boy band, there isn't a cap. There's not a cap on the boy band. You can go to other record labels, you can negotiate like these things. Like, I, I love a good analogy, but your analogies aren't like, we could.
- [39:41]
A
Just talk about it, Dominique. I would actually say that if David's. Go to analogy is boy bands, which are famously rife with abuse. Yeah, you might want to lean into that one, actually.
- [40:04]
C
I spend every day of my career trying to take as much from players as I could and give as little as possible. That is. That was my job.
- [40:12]
A
Dominique, remember that scene in the Big Short? I don't get it. Why are they confessing? And the guy goes, they're not confessing. They're bragging. He's not confessing. He's bragging. It's like the greatest compliment I paid David Samson.
- [40:29]
C
When you're the president of a team, you are going at it with players, whether they're making 10 million or when you're arguing over the minimum. I had arguments with players over what raises they'd get, over how much they get for appearances, all the things that you'd think would make you crazy as a player. But of course, my job was to pay the least amount of money to get people to do the most amount of work. And it wasn't just players. We did it with people in marketing and sales and finance and every. Every part of the company.
- [40:59]
B
All right. I mean, I. I feel like you make all the points that I want to make is like, listening to you talk about it like, makes the points and like, I have no interest in making players or unions look like weak or feeble institutions. But it's not. It's not a coincidence that so many of the leaps in labor rights have come through the courts and professional football specifically and in professional sports because of the asymmetry of power. But I just wanted to have this conversation out in the open. And I think it's pretty clear what you represent and clear what I represent.
- [41:40]
C
I think it's a big story that the union did not disclose this.
- [41:44]
A
Let me get to this. Because I think a big key part of this, right, because as much as David is embodying a rare honesty in terms of, like, this is what it's like. This is what we're trying to do. We're trying to squeeze every dollar. The point I have to make here is that the reason why this document. The reason why this document was not published is because as much as David is in a position now to be very open, there is clearly an incentive for the owners to not have people know that this is what it's like back there.
- [42:17]
C
But the union didn't leak it either.
- [42:18]
A
And this brings me to the other part, which is that when it comes to the nuclear button, and what you do, short of pressing the nuclear button, which the own. Which, of course, we. We know the union does not want to do, for the economic. Vast gap between owners and players. Right. It's obvious now you have the ability to persuade the public that this is something that you might care about, that this is actually an imbalance that seems unfair. I've heard from people who are saying if you had a properly functioning union, you would make a political stink about this. The union is based in Washington, D.C. you would lobby Congress to investigate. You would call for Roger Goodell to be investigated and maybe even removed. You would take all of the information in here and you would tell a story that reflects something resembling an accessible and relatable gulf in what it's like to be an employee in the United States versus an owner and a manager. And the fact that this union did not allow this to get out there for reasons that we chronicle in the episode Dominique, seems. Seems like a lot, man. It just seems like a lot.
- [43:36]
B
It's exactly what I'm not gonna do. So, like, you had. You had an episode not too long with Lena Khan, FTC or former ftc.
- [43:46]
A
Who, by the way, who is also. She's watching this episode, I am told. I look forward to her review as well. Yeah, yeah.
- [43:57]
B
Former, right?
- [43:57]
A
Former. Yes, yes, yes.
- [43:59]
B
Yeah. So I just. I listened to that episode of hers, and she's been doing a couple other media things recently that I listen to, and she speaks about an arm of this or another entity in this ecosystem that in her view, was dormant until recently. And I think that it's a good example of what it means when you have a particular portion of this ecosystem getting a tremendous amount of power without it being checked. And I think the reason why I thought it was important to say that these institutions are made up of people is because it makes it easier for us to understand why they need to be checked. And it makes it clearer to us to understand why places like the FTC need to be active and why unions need to be equally as strong. Because I in no way. And again, with David Sampson being the perfect avatar for this, I in no way would want to live in a world or work in an industry with an unchecked David Sampson or anyone like that.
- [45:03]
C
But you weren't. We were checked. Just FYI, that grievance is exactly the check.
- [45:09]
B
Agreed. I'm saying. My point is the union does exist for that purpose, and the union is doing that. That's all. My point is. I'm saying that in the union also exists in order to protect the league itself with the antitrust exemption that exists because the union is around and like, that benefits both sides. I guess my only point about this is it doesn't have to be overnight. It can be gradual. The power shift can be gradual, and the erosion can be gradual till you get to a point to where you're back in the pre 93 days. And so I certainly don't want to be hyperbolic, and this is why I was more than willing to come on here. I'm happy. I love union stuff. I love having these conversations. Most of the time, people don't care. So I'm happy to have this conversation now about the bigger, broader conversation. Not the specific stuff about what's going on right now, but the bigger, broader conversation. If people care to hear about it now, I'm all in on it. And I know that most people look at athletes and think they're a bunch of spoiled millionaires that play a game for a living. Like, I recognize that. I think it's important to understand the full context of it. And I'm sure I have blind spots in the same way that David, you have blind spots in this. But. But I think in this environment and what the future portends in this environment is not good for anyone if there isn't a strong and functioning union on the opposite side of any of the professional leagues.
- [46:40]
C
I think that these types of conversations are the exact type of conversations that I wish our country had more. Instead of being entrenched in a position and being unwilling to listen and only yelling into an echo chamber where no progress can be made. I found out that from Dominique's perspective, it is very emotional to him, given his past, and that he has a hard time, which I totally understand, trying to make heads or tails of the action of people who he knows, who may have done things that he disagrees with, but has such loyalty that he will not turn. And I find that to be admirable.
- [47:15]
B
I learned that Pablo is a lot like Roger Goodell.
- [47:19]
A
Oh, wow.
- [47:20]
B
Whoa.
- [47:21]
A
Wow.
- [47:22]
B
That's not an insult. It's a compliment. I think that you do a very hard job. And I also think that you have a priority stack. And in the same way that I believe that Roger Goodell genuinely cares about players, I believe that when that is in conflict with something else, he puts something else, like the owners or whatever interest the owners have, he bumps it down. And I think that Pablo is the same way in that he does care about me, but in that priority stack give good hugs.
- [48:03]
A
I give good hugs.
- [48:05]
B
I am below his show and his own personal gain. That's all.
- [48:11]
C
Well, I thought I played the game wrong. I thought we were supposed to tell you something. We found out today. And there's no way that Dominique found out today that you prioritize your show over your friendships.
- [48:25]
A
Good, good. Priority Stack guys. Love you both. Pablo Torre Finds out is produced by Walter Averoma Ryan Cortez Sam Dawig Juan Galindo Patrick Kim neely Loman Rob McRae, Carl Scott Matt Sullivan Claire Taylor Chris Tuminello RStudio Engineering by RG Systems Our Sound Design by NGW Post Our Theme song, as always, is by John Bravo and we will talk to you next time.