USA TODAY
Tuesday March 30, 1993

 Suzelle Smith is a partner in Howarth & Smith. A law firm that represents a number of NFL players such as Houston's Sean Jones and Philadelphia's Eric Allen who object to the settlement.

LOS ANGELES - NFL owners and attorneys for the NFL Players Association have teamed to ask US. District Judge David S. Doty in Minneapolis to approve a settlement April 16 of all antitrust claims pending against the National Football League.

But don't throw rice yet for this unlikely marriage. Some players haven't had their day in court.

After the jury in the (Freeman) McNeil case found NFL owners violated antitrust laws and imposed unlawful restrictive agreements on the players, the proposed settlement of all cases buys peace for the owners, fees for the NFLPA attorneys and virtually nothing for rank-and-file players.

 The settlement is not fair, not reasonable and not appropriate. It should not be approved because:

No free agency: the purpose of McNeil and other action funded by the NFLPA was to obtain free agency so players could freely bargain as to where, for whom and at what price they would work. The proposed settlement does not achieve free agency. For all new players it imposes five years of restrictions.

Even for five year veterans, the proposed settlement does not give unrestricted free agency. NFL teams may designate "franchise" and "transition" players. For everyone in between. there is a system of salary caps and regulations so complex only the lawyers who drafted them fully know a cruel hoax has been perpetrated.

NFL owners keep their unlawful profits: When an unlawful restraint occurs, money paid by the public to enjoy pro football (in gate receipts, TV revenues, etc.) has been divided so owners keep far too much of the share that under a free market would go to the players.

The NFLPA's expert calculated damages classwide, and tripled under the antitrust laws at approximately $1.5 billion. The proposed settlement would deliver to players less than $100 million at present value. Even this amount is not guaranteed and would be paid out in installments over five years. While the Players give up their rights forever under the agreement the owners may cut off payments under certain conditions,

 Special deals for named plaintiffs and attorneys NFLPA lawsuits like the McNeil and (Reggie) White cases, were paid for and supported by all players. The idea was that a few suits would go first for the good of all. The settlement gives both free agency and full value to the named Plaintiffs, including White. Others have been left out.

Forced settlement is unconstitutional: The "settlement" would require all players even those who had lawsuits on file, to accept the amounts stipulated without their involvement and lose their day in court. This blatantly strips away the constitutional rights of the players to have their own lawsuits and attorneys. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that such non-opt out class actions are unconstitutional.

Finally, the court should not approve the settlement because it is unfair to most of the people who have been injured.

Disclaimer