logo
NFLPA executive committee issues wagon-circling statement regarding Lloyd Howell

NFLPA executive committee issues wagon-circling statement regarding Lloyd Howell

NBC Sportsa day ago
The NFL Players Association is a labor organization. The key positions are inherently political. And a toxic slice of modern American political life has trickled into the union's handling of the current cocktail of controversies that NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell is facing.
Attack. Attack. And attack.
In a statement issued on Sunday by the NFLPA executive committee to its membership (and leaked to Adam Schefter of ESPN, among others), the wagons were circled around Howell — and arrows were fired at the 'fake news' from meddling outsiders.
'As members of the NFLPA Executive Committee, we categorically reject false reports insinuating doubts within this committee or suggestions that we have asked our Executive Director to step down.' the message asserts. 'We further reject attempts to mischaracterize the committee's views or divide our membership. We have established a deliberate process to carefully assess the issues that have been raised and will not engage in a rush to judgement. We believe in and remain committed to working with our Executive Director and other members of NFLPA staff and player leadership who have a shared mission to advance the best interests of players. As we approach the 2025 season, we look forward to continuing our important work together and ensuring the strength and unity of our association.'
So where are the false reports of which they speak? For nearly three weeks, we've been covering every angle of this weakly-covered story. We've seen not a single report that insinuates a single doubt in the executive committee or suggests that the executive committee asked Howell to step down.
Likewise, we've seen nothing that would amount to an 'attempt to mischaracterize the committee's views.'
The only thing that would even support a conclusion of doubt within the union came from a one-word quote provided by executive committee member Cam Heyward to ESPN. Heyward declined to speak to ESPN because the current situation with the union was, as he said, 'dicey.'
That's not a 'false report,' unless Heyward claims he didn't say what he reportedly said.
That said, we'll admit that some of what has been written here in recent days could divide membership, if membership: (1) reads it; and (2) chooses to care about it.
Frankly, we believe membership needs to be divided, if there are members of membership who believe it's fine and/or dandy that Howell hid the collusion ruling from all players, that he didn't use it against the NFL, that an entire free-agency cycle passed without agents being able to use the ruling as leverage in negotiations with teams, and/or that it's acceptable for Howelll to have an undeniably cartoonish conflict of interest, via unnecessary part-time moonlighting with a private-equity firm that is currently rolling on the mattress with the NFLPA's mortal enemy.
The league has used player apathy against it, for years. Union management has been doing it for at least two years, starting with the top-secret hiring of Howell. When called on it, the response is as predictable as it is sad.
If the rank-and-file fall for it, it'll work. Which will be good for current management. But not so good for the current or future members of the union.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Censorship for Citizenship
Censorship for Citizenship

Atlantic

time9 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

Censorship for Citizenship

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Not that long ago, believe it or not, Donald Trump ran for president as the candidate who would defend the First Amendment. He warned that a 'sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media' was 'conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people,' and promised that 'by restoring free speech, we will begin to reclaim our democracy, and save our nation.' On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order affirming the 'right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech.' If anyone believed him at the time, they should be disabused by now. One of his most brazen attacks on freedom of speech thus far came this past weekend, when the president said that he was thinking about stripping a comedian of her citizenship—for no apparent reason other than that she regularly criticizes him. 'Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her,' he posted on Truth Social. This must have been exhilarating to O'Donnell, who received a brief new grant of relevance and told the Irish broadcaster RTE, 'I am very proud to be opposed to every single thing he says and does and represents.' But once the exhilaration subsides, the fundamental idea is very disturbing: Trump appears to view both free speech and U.S. citizenship as conditional, things he can revoke based on his own whims. Writing off the threat to O'Donnell as just another instance of Trumpian trolling—or an attempt to distract from fatal flooding in Texas, dozens of incomplete trade deals, or intramural MAGA battles over Jeffrey Epstein —is tempting. And the odds that Trump would actually successfully strip O'Donnell of her passport seem slim. But that doesn't mean the threat is irrelevant. What in particular set Trump off here is unclear—he and O'Donnell have been feuding for years—but by all indications, the answer is simply that she has exercised her freedom of speech to jab him. Perhaps this should go without saying, but native-born American citizens like O'Donnell generally cannot be stripped of their citizenship. (Citizens can, however, choose to relinquish their citizenship—something that has become a somewhat popular option for people wishing to avoid U.S. taxes, including former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a New York native.) A president can't just decide that he wants to take it away. In other recent cases where the Trump administration has attempted to suppress speech, officials have at least claimed that they have evidence of criminality (though that's not to say even that was a legitimate standard; such accusations are also dangerous, and judges have dismissed them). With O'Donnell, Trump isn't even pretending she has crossed some sort of criminal line. He's also not (yet) taking action, but Trump often uses initially brash and outlandish threats as a way to acclimate the populace to his overreaching, as I wrote in the January 2024 issue of The Atlantic: 'When a second-term President Trump directs the Justice Department to lock up Democratic politicians or generals or reporters or activists on flimsy or no grounds at all, people will wring their hands, but they'll also shrug and wonder why he didn't do it sooner. After all, he's been promising to do it forever, right?' I wish this argument had aged worse. Trump has begun talking more frequently about revoking citizenship as a means of punishing political speech. He has mused about using the tool against political opponents, including the New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, alleging potential fraud, and his former buddy Elon Musk, who had the temerity to insult him. Both of these men are naturalized, which makes their citizenship marginally easier to remove—though, again, not for simple speech. The administration has also been pursuing denaturalizations of citizens whom it believes it can prove lied on their application, which is an established legal basis for stripping their legal status. Even if Trump doesn't normalize taking away citizenship, he is continuing to entrench the idea that the government—or, really, just the president on his own—can punish citizens who criticize it, or him. That's been one of the most prominent themes of his term so far: He has banished the Associated Press from some White House spaces simply for refusing to adopt his preferred terminology, extorted law firms that employed lawyers involved in the criminal cases against him, and demanded huge payouts from news organizations. He'll continue as long as he's successful. 'If we don't have free speech, then we just don't have a free country,' Trump said in a campaign video posted in 2022. 'It's as simple as that. If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominos one by one. They'll go down.' Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News President Donald Trump announced a new weapons-transfer plan for Ukraine and threatened to impose high tariffs on Russia if a peace deal is not reached in 50 days. The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with dismantling the Education Department and firing nearly 1,400 workers. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration for withholding more than $6.8 billion in education funding, which helps pay for free or low-cost after-school programs and assistance for students learning English. Dispatches Evening Read The AI Mirage By Ian Bogost 'I'm not going to respond to that,' Siri responded. I had just cursed at it, and this was my passive-aggressive chastisement. The cursing was, in my view, warranted. I was in my car, running errands, and had found myself in an unfamiliar part of town. I requested 'directions to Lowe's,' hoping to get routed to the big-box hardware store without taking my eyes off the road. But apparently Siri didn't understand. 'Which Lowe?' it asked, before displaying a list of people with the surname Lowe in my address book … The latest version of Siri has 'better conversational context'—the sort of thing that should help the software know when I'm asking to be guided to the home-improvement store rather than to a guy called Lowe. But my iPhone apparently isn't new enough for this update. I would need cutting-edge artificial intelligence to get directions to Lowe's. More From The Atlantic Read. Alert the incels! The rest of us love Pamela Anderson, and we will always love her, Caitlin Flanagan writes. Let go. And let your kid climb that tree, Henry Abbott writes. It could actually make them safer. Play our daily crossword.

Trump says US will send Patriot missiles to Ukraine: 'They desperately need' them
Trump says US will send Patriot missiles to Ukraine: 'They desperately need' them

Yahoo

time9 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump says US will send Patriot missiles to Ukraine: 'They desperately need' them

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said the United States will send Patriot air defense missiles to Ukraine that will be reimbursed for by the European Union, offering critical help to Kyiv as it battles an onslaught of Russian drone attacks. Trump did not specify how many weapons systems the United States would provide and told reporters it had not been agreed upon yet. The United States, Trump stressed, would not pay for them. He then heaped fresh criticism on Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he's soured against in recent weeks. "We will send them Patriots, which they desperately need," Trump said of Ukraine while speaking with reporters at Joint Base Andrews on July 13. "Putin really surprised a lot of people. He talks nice and then he bombs everybody in the evening. There's a little bit of a problem there. I don't like it." Ukraine latest: Trump escalates criticism of Putin, rearms Ukraine, as Russia's war plows on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been pressing Trump to allow his country to purchase Patriot missile air defense systems from the United States as Russia intensifies its missile and drone attacks. Shipments of the missile systems that were previously approved were paused by a Pentagon review of U.S. military stockpiles and then resumed last week by Trump. "Ukraine is ready to buy this equipment and support American weapons manufacturers. Europe can help," Zelenskyy said after a June 25 meeting with Trump. While speaking to reporters after returning from the FIFA Club World Cup match in New Jersey, Trump said the United States would be sending Ukraine "sophisticated military" equipment. The plan was expected to be part of an Oval Office discussion at the White House with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Trump said in an interview with NBC News last week that the United States would be sending weapons to NATO that the military alliance would be paying for. 'We are not paying for any more weapons,' Trump told NBC at the time. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: US will send Patriot air defense missiles to Ukraine: Donald Trump

Raiders' Maxx Crosby Climbs the Ladder in ESPN's Positional Rankings
Raiders' Maxx Crosby Climbs the Ladder in ESPN's Positional Rankings

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Raiders' Maxx Crosby Climbs the Ladder in ESPN's Positional Rankings

Raiders' Maxx Crosby Climbs the Ladder in ESPN's Positional Rankings originally appeared on Athlon Sports. The Las Vegas Raiders hit the jackpot during the 2019 NFL Draft when they selected Eastern Michigan edge rusher Maxx Crosby. They waited until the No. 106 overall pick in the fourth round to do so, but he has been a game changer for the Silver and Black. Advertisement Through six NFL seasons, he has compiled 59.5 sacks and 105 tackles for loss, as well as nine forced fumbles. He has led the league in tackles for loss on two occasions and been named to four Pro Bowls and two All-Pro Second-Teams. There is no definitive answer on where Crosby ranks compared to the NFL's other elite edge rushers, but the consensus is that he belongs somewhere in the top five. Kansas City Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes (15) and Las Vegas Raiders DE Maxx Crosby (98).Jay Biggerstaff-Imagn Images According to ESPN's Jeremy Fowler, who polled NFL executives, coaches and scouts, Crosby ranks at No. 4 in the league among all edge rushers. This is up from his ranking of No. 5 before last season. "Crosby is making waves in the pass-rush pantheon, vaulting one spot in each of the past three years," Fowler wrote. "Outdistancing Nick Bosa and stealing votes from Watt and Parsons is tough. Nearly half of Crosby's votes landed in the top three." Advertisement There has been an ongoing debate about who is better between Bosa and Crosby, as many felt that the Raiders star was robbed of the Defensive Player of the Year award that Bosa won in 2023. However, it appears that several NFL personnel members agree that he has surpassed Bosa, even though Crosby missed five games last season and had only 7.5 sacks and 17 tackles for loss. "Relentless motor, skilled rusher and never wants to leave the game," an NFL coordinator said. "Keeps getting better and better." An AFC coach also sang Crosby's praises, specifically his work ethic and refusal to leave the game for even a snap. Advertisement "For him to play at that high a level with that volume is incredible," a high-ranking AFC personnel staff member said. Crosby trailed the Browns' Myles Garrett, the Steelers' T.J. Watt, and the Cowboys' Micah Parsons in this ranking. He barely edged out Bosa, the Bengals' Trey Hendrickson and the Lions' Aidan Hutchinson for the No. 4 spot. Related: Ryan Clark Makes Honest Assessment of Raiders OC Chip Kelly Before Training Camp Related: Former Raiders All-Pro 'Heartbroken' By Team's Free Agency Decision Related: Raiders Hit With Harsh Reality Regarding Status in AFC West This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jul 9, 2025, where it first appeared.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store