As I was posting the Johnny Manziel story, I checked the news online and found a breaking story: apparently the National Football League has reached a settlement with retired players who accused the league of deliberately concealing the dangers of head trauma. The class-action lawsuit alleged the league didn’t do enough to warn players that they risked permanent brain damage if they played too soon after a concussion and that it hid evidence about the risks for decades.
Reportedly, the settlement will cost the league $765 million, which by any measure is a considerable amount of money, but it is a drop in the bucket to the multi-billion dollar generating NFL. And what is the true pay out? There are approximately 4,500 retired players and/or their families party to this settlement. Simple division shows that each plaintiff stands to get $170,000. Let’s say that the lawyers get 20% of the settlement – that’s $34,000 (at that rate, this percentage times 4,500 people will allow the lawyers stand to reap $153 million). That leaves $136,000 per plaintiff/family. Now let’s multiply that by another 25% for taxes, and the players stand to gain a paltry $103,000. (UPDATE: according to sources, the league is paying the legal fees of nearly $200 million, plus all former players can now be tested under the plan. As a result, my calculation changes for a final total of $170,000 minus 25% for taxes = $127,500 per player/family.)
Not much for lifetime injury, especially since they claim they suffer from neurological problems after sustaining traumatic impacts to the head.
Admittedly, something needed to be done and money is being spent on the problems of head trauma in football and hockey, and the ex-players do deserve to be cared for. I just wonder if its enough?

Despite a rigorous grilling of six hours (which either involved whips or was as “rigorous” as Monty Python’s Comfy Chair from the “Spanish Inquisition” sketch), the NCAA decided that even though there was a videotape of Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel signing helmets, they couldn’t prove he took any money. So, the organization and Texas A&M (whose chancellor defended Manziel adamantly) decided to suspend him for the first half of this weekend’s game against Rice.
This is the college football version of a toddler getting a “time out.” In effect, Manziel is suspended for 30 minutes against a team that A&M should defeat easily. And if the team gets in trouble in the first half, “Johnny Football” comes off the bench and leads the team to victory, he can further cement his “legend” at Texas A&M.
Let me remind you that I have no problem with Johnny Manziel making money; the NCAA has been pimping players its entire history. It’s the hypcricy of the investigation. While the NCAA could find no “payments” to Manziel despite the videotape that showed him discussing payments while signing autographs (because cash if fungible and can disappear in a moment’s notice), I just find it odd that the NCAA can’t find any wrongdoing to the white Heisman Trophy winner while throwing the book at African-Americans like Terrell Pryor and others.
But it’s just laughable now. The NCAA “investigating” member schools has long been compared to wolves guarding the hen house, and as I wrote before, perhaps the Manziel case, including the tiny suspension, will be yet another nail in the coffin of the current preposterously hypocritical “game/business “ of college sports, football and basketball in particular. But right now, lots of players should be finding out how Manziel took money and didn’t get any significant punishment. If one cashes in, others should be able to also.

As I’ve written here numerous times, the relationship between a sports team, especially its owner(s) involves a tacit agreement with the team’s fans. As an owner, you put the best team on the field/ice/court and in return, the fans should support the team with money in the form of tickets sold, merchandise purchased, etc.
Both sides need to hold up their end – owners should do everything they can within their situation and means to build winning teams, and the winning turns into more people in the stands and more money in the teams coffers. When the owner puts lackluster product on the field, fans have every right to boycott; best example the last few years of William Wirtz’ life as owner of the Blackhawks. He put a lousy team on the ice and in the last year of his life, they couldn’t give away tickets for free (I know – I turned them down several times).
But the fans have their responsibilities too – to support the team when they are in the hunt and when that doesn’t happen, the owner(s) have the right to cut payroll and if the team never draws, consider moving to a more profitable location. Main case in point, the Chicago White Sox who were in first place last year for most of the season, but they have always been a difficult sell. (I should note that sports teams aren’t usually that profitable on a year-to-year basis. Owners make their major funds by buying low – at least lower – and then selling the franchise for a higher price.)
So, what do we make of the Houston Astros? Recently moved from the National to the American League to make scheduling easier, the Astros franchise is the most profitable in MLB history according to an article published in Forbes magazine this week. Yes, in history – the Astros are on pace to rake in an estimated $99 million in operating income this season. That is nearly as much as the estimated operating income of the previous six World Series championship teams combined.
How did they accomplish this? Owner Jim Crane has reduced costs dramatically as the club tries to rebuild and as a result of the move to the American League. As of now, the Astros are in the cellar of the AL West, playing at a .333 clip at 43 wins and 86 losses 31 ½ games behind Texas. They are six games worse than the Miami Marlins for the worst record in baseball (and yes, worse than both Chicago cellar-dwelling teams.
Having such a horrible record should have the team drawing no fans and generating little money, but according to the Forbes article, rights fees from the local Comcast network affiliate is enough to pay the very low player salaries and generate significant income.
Of course, this appears to be a PR disaster for the team, so management has gone out of the way to refute the story because “fans” might be upset that the team is profiting on a crappy team. The team released a statement (reported by CBS Sports) that said “Forbes released an article that includes significant inaccuracies relating to the Astros’ finances. The Astros do not disclose financial information. However, as MLB will confirm, the information reported in the Forbes article relating to the Astros’ revenues, the Astros media rights fee from CSN Houston, and CSN Houston’s per subscriber rate are all significantly inaccurate. As a result, the conclusion about the Astros operational profit is significantly inaccurate.”
The statement tries to put its own spin on the story continuing “the Astros will continue to operate the team in a fiscally responsible manner that will make the City of Houston proud. We are very excited about our accomplishments and we remain steadfast in our commitment to this rebuilding process. We have established a basis of young talent on our MLB roster that will continue to improve. And our minor league system is now one of the best in MLB. As our young prospects develop, we will move them up to the Major League roster and increase our payroll to a level that will allow the Astros to compete for World Championships.”
Now, will the fans of Houston actually believe this is the big question?

I had heard rumblings for years that Bobby Riggs has thrown his match against Billie Jean King, but ESPN has been reporting some new information. Hal Shaw, now 79, was one of the golf pros at the Palma Ceia Golf and Country Club in Tampa, Fla., a mob-connected (owned?) golf club in the 1970s. He was working late one night when four men came in and sat down to talk (Mr. Shaw at first thought it was a burglary, so he turned out the light in the room he was in and kept quiet).
Now, 40 years after the incident, Shaw told ESPN about the incident. He says he instantly recognized three of the men in the room next to his: Frank Ragano, a Palma Ceia member and mob attorney whose wife took golf lessons from Shaw, and two others he knew from newspaper photographs — Santo Trafficante Jr., the Florida mob boss whom Ragano represented, and Carlos Marcello, the head of the New Orleans mob.
What they discussed was that Bobby Riggs owed the mob more than $100,000 from lost sports bets, and he had a plan to pay it back. Ragano told the men that “Riggsy” was prepared to “set up two matches … against the two best women players in the world,” Shaw says. “He mentioned Margaret Court — and it’s easy for me to remember that because one of my aunt’s names was Margaret so that, you know, wasn’t hard to remember — and the second lady was Billie Jean King.”
Ragano explained that Riggs “had the first match already in the works … and the second match he knew would follow because of Billie Jean King’s popularity and everything that it would be kind of a slam dunk to get her to play him bragging about beating Margaret Court,” Shaw says Ragano told the men. Shaw also says he heard Ragano mention an unidentified mob man in Chicago who would help engineer the proposed fix.
Of course, all of these men are dead, so they can’t comment (nor would they have if still alive). As the article and broadcast story puts forth, there is smoke to go with that fire. First, Riggs was a gambler who hustled people in tennis. He would lose the first two sets to up the bet, then come back and win matches. Looking at tape from the “Battle of the Sexes” match Sept. 20, 1973, Riggs made many unforced errors; hit balls right back at Ms. King, and double faulted often. To people who knew Riggs, this was completely uncharacteristic. Riggs, at 55, was still in good playing shape and he was particularly good on ground strokes and on his serve. Second, Riggs was known as having mob connections. Even his son talked about caddying a foursome with his father and mobsters. Finally, according to his son, Riggs, who played daily for 10-12 hours before the Margaret Court match, played hardly any tennis before the King match, spending most of his time drinking and partying with women.
Some may ask: does this matter – a 40 years old tennis match? Well, since 50 million people (myself included) watched the match on television, and the over 37,000 spectators makes this still the best attended live tennis match in the U.S. even now, it was obvious that the event was a big success. More important of course, was that Ms. King’s victory was a big deal to women everywhere. Within the sport, women’s tennis got a big boost from her victory, and in the 1973 era, women’s lib was still fighting an uphill battle against the small-mindedness of men. Ms. King was a social icon – women could play with and against men and hold their own. But if Riggs tanked, what does that say? Does this watershed moment have as much cultural significance as WWE Wrestling?
I think that it is certainly possible that Riggs tanked the match. Maybe he expected that Ms. King would give him a rematch in which he would try to trounce her, but there was no need for Ms. King to play Riggs again, the point had been made. His interest would have been to erase the over $100,000 in debts Riggs reported had to the mob betting poorly on pro football and other sports. In addition, there was mention in the article that a bank account would be set up in England for Riggs as additional payout.
To the mobsters, with Riggs going off at 5-2 odds, they would make a killing. Ms. King knew nothing about it, and in the broadcast piece, she said she didn’t believe that Riggs had tanked because of the look in his eyes that night. She believes that he wanted to win as badly as she did, but she was genuinely surprised when the reporter told her that yes, Riggs did know and hang out with mobsters.
Is this anything more than an interesting story? I don’t know. I know that as the father of two girls, the Battle of the Sexes was important to women everywhere. I remember that while thinking that Riggs would beat King, I did hope that she would shove all of that “women belong in the kitchen and bedroom” talk down his throat. (In fact, I got into an interesting discussion with some tennis fans a couple of years ago when it was posed to have John McEnroe play Serena Williams. I said that Ms. Williams would beat McEnroe but there were several men including a pro who told me I was crazy. I thought that with the huge serves, there’s no way even Serena could beat a man in the top 500, but McEnroe was long retired and while a Hall of Fame player, he wouldn’t overpower her. Others disagreed.)
I guess the only way to tell would be to look at financial records and see if money went to an account in the U.K. for Bobby Riggs. Regardless, the point was made and it was a necessary one. But was it legitimate?

There was one more story that merited comment while I was away, the Johnny Manziel autograph flap. For those of you who missed it, the Texas A&M quarterback and reigning Heisman Trophy winner allegedly signing memorabilia in exchange for a five-figure flat fee while he was in Miami for last season’s BCS title game. This is not the only situation that is bringing attention to Manziel – another autograph broker claims to have authorized payment to Manziel in exchange for the Texas A&M quarterback’s signatures on approximately 300 mini- and full sized helmets according to an ESPN.com report.
The broker said that he paid Manziel $7,500 for signing the helmets on Jan. 11-12, while he was in New Haven, Conn. attending the Walter Camp Football Foundation dinner. There are videos showing Manziel signing the helmets as they were laid out across a bed in a hotel room, although the videos do not show Manziel accepting any money. The videos were reportedly made to verify the signatures to buyers.
The ESPN report shows that Manziel was very savvy about the signing: he is reported as saying that the broker “never did a signing with me,” and if the broker told anyone, the QB would never work with him again. Manziel also was asked if he would take additional money to personalize the signatures, but Manziel said that he wouldn’t since that has “led to questions” before. The broker says that Manziel wanted money for new rims for his car.
I don’t know what is happening, but it seems that the stench of hypocrisy coming from the NCAA is stronger and smellier than ever. The NCAA has opened its coffers to allow for stipend payments to athletes in the revenue sports as part of their scholarships. But Heaven forbid if the athletes, seeing jerseys with their names on them going for over $100 a pop and they get no money for it (the NCAA has stopped selling jerseys with players’ names on them although the individual schools still can).
There are still numerous voices who proclaim that colleges and universities making billions of dollars off the unpaid effort of athletes is perfectly acceptable because that’s the way it’s always been. But, speaking out of both sides of their mouths has not been a problem for university presidents. This week, Texas A&M chancellor John Sharp told a local television station that Manziel is “innocent.” That is, he is innocent long enough to play this season before he declares for the NFL draft in January.
And the other point that cannot be ignored is that Manziel is white, while the NCAA has thrown the book at former Ohio State quarterback Terrell Pryor and other black athletes who didn’t get money, but services in return for their autographs and memorabilia. But it’s the talented white kid from Texas where there are only two sports – football and spring football who is under scrutiny.
Personally, I think Johnny Manziel got paid for his autograph, and honestly, I don’t have any problem with it. He should be able to get as much money as he can. If he were five years older, he would be doing it, but because the universities and the NCAA feel that profiting off college athletes is their exclusive realm.
This may be the final straw that breaks up the NCAA into a billion pieces. The “business model” of college athletics has been a sham for over 100 years. It’s long past time to clean up the mess.

Much like the NCAA, there is a certain hypocrisy to being a news broadcasting entity like ESPN reporting controversial information on a league that you broadcast. Eventually, the league is going to tell you to back off, and you’re going to do it.
The latest instance was reported in The New York Times this week. Reportedly, the National Football League put pressure on ESPN to pull out of an investigative documentary with PBS’ “Frontline” program.
The “Worldwide Leader in Sports” announced yesterday that it would not be involved in a documentary regarding head injuries in the league. “Frontline” and ESPN reportedly had been working for 15 months on a two-part documentary, to be televised in October. Apparently, the NFL wasn’t happy with ESPN’s role after a trailer for the show was released August 6th.
According to The New York Times piece, last week, a lunch meeting was held at Patroon, a restaurant near the league’s Midtown Manhattan headquarters. It was a small meeting, consisting of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell; Steve Bornstein, president of the NFL Network; John Skipper, ESPN’s president; and John Wildhack, ESPN’s executive vice president for production.
The meeting was apparently combative as league officials conveyed their displeasure with the direction of the documentary, which is expected to detail that the league has turned a blind eye to evidence that players were sustaining brain trauma on the field that could lead to profound, long-term cognitive disability.
ESPN, owned by the Walt Disney Company, pays the N.F.L. more than $1 billion a year to broadcast “Monday Night Football,” which is a ratings juggernaut and therefore big money revenue source for the network.
Of course, both sides deny that the league pressured the network. Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the N.F.L., said “at no time did we formally or informally ask them to divorce themselves from the project. We deny that we pressured them.” The network did the old two-step as well: an ESPN spokesman said that ESPN’s decision was not based on any concerns about hurting its contractual relationship with the N.F.L. Rather, the network said in a statement, it was ending its official association with “Frontline” because it did not have editorial control of what appeared on the public television public affairs series.
Of course, this comes at a time when the league is beset by dozens if not hundreds of lawsuits by former players and their families that the league knew that the sport caused brain injuries and did nothing about it. I have been on the league’s side on this because CTE, one of the primary injuries suffered by athletes in contact sports that can explain difficulty in cognitive processes, rage and outbursts, and in many cases early death both natural and by suicide. My opinion was based on the fact that CTE was only diagnosed less than 10 years ago, and while popular belief was that football wasn’t good for you, the players knew what they were doing and took their chances willingly.
Maybe the documentary found a smoking gun that could cost the league billions of dollars in settlements. The league has tried to be proactive in funding research to make the game safer. It is too little too late for many players, and it may lead to the end of the game in its current form. Perhaps that’s what should happen (and I’m as big a football fan as anyone).
It was inevitable that ESPN would find itself in an ethical predicament: between reporting news stories not flattering to the sports they cover, and the financial considerations of those leagues.
It’s sad, but I’ll certainly be watching that show on “Frontline.”

It is time of year for Christmas for movie fans – the schedule is out for this year’s Toronto International Film Festival, and yes, once again, I will be there watching at least 10 films. But there is a quandary that I get in from time to time and its happening now…
I often pick films, both in the festival and regular films, based on the director. Scorsese films always go to the top of the list; Michael Bay films are avoided like the plague. While I don’t have similar issues with many actors, when it happens, my reaction is particularly strong.
Case in point 1: I think that “Lee Daniels’ The Butler” is an interesting film. It is the story of a black butler for seven presidents in the White House. The lead is the fine actor Forrest Whittaker, but the major part of his wife is played by Oprah Winfrey. Long time readers know that I can’t stand Ms. Winfrey – she is a self-centered, self- righteous blowhard. Spending time in a movie theater with her would be for me like having my internal organs removed without anesthesia.
Which leads me to case in point 2: I do love martial arts films. I grew up on Bruce Lee films and I have an extensive collection of films from the 1970s to today in the genre. So, at first look, “Man of Tai Chi” which is playing at TIFF next month is right up my alley. Unfortunately, the film is directed by and stars Keanu Reeves. I my opinion, Reeves is one of the worst actors of his generation. Other than “The Matrix,” “Speed,” “My Own Private Idaho,” and “River’s Edge,” his career has been a list of bad films. In fact, in the Jack Nicholson-Diane Keaton chic-flick “Something’s Gotta Give,” Reeves, cast as a doctor and romantic rival to Nicholson, turns in the worst performance in modern cinema history. He is so wooden, the furniture shows more emotion. The rugs on the floor have more believability.
So, given the chance, do I try to watch this martial arts film at TIFF? The jury remains out.

(By the way – I am going to try something new this year – blogs from TIFF. With my iPad and hopefully a number of Wi-Fi options, I am going to try and give you some blow-by-blow coverage this year.)