ESPN.com’s sports business reporter since 2012; previously at ESPN from 2000-06
Appears on SportsCenter, ESPN Radio, ESPN.com and with ABC News
Formerly worked as analyst at CNBC
The New York Giants have shaken up their equipment room less than two weeks after settling with three sports memorabilia collectors who accused quarterback Eli Manning and several members of the organization of providing bogus “game-worn” equipment that was sold to unsuspecting fans.
Longtime team employees Edward and Joseph Skiba and Ed Wagner Jr. were let go, multiple sources told ESPN. Joseph Skiba was the team’s equipment director. Edward Skiba, his brother, was the assistant equipment manager. Wagner was the equipment/locker room manager. He had worked for the Giants his entire adult life, according to a 1999 story by The New York Times. His father also was an equipment manager for the team.
The Giants declined to comment on the shakeup.
Joseph Skiba, who was a defendant in the original lawsuit, was asked by Manning in an email to get “2 helmets that can pass as game used.” Skiba later testified that he gave Manning two non-game-used helmets in that instance. The point of contention became whether helmets that were bought by collectors in other years were game used or not.
Skiba was not liable in the civil suit that was settled May 14, according to the judge’s summary judgment.
Skiba, who was accused of making the fake Manning helmets that were sold to collectors by Steiner Sports (the company with which Manning is under contract to provide game-worn jerseys and helmets for sale), had almost all the claims against him dismissed. The judge agreed with his counsel’s arguments that he never profited from the exchange of helmets, nor did he ever directly represent the items as game-used to consumers.
However, owner John Mara said in a deposition that he considered what Skiba did stealing from the team. The Giants did not represent the Skibas in the case, which stretched five years.
In one of the court filings, Manning’s lawyer accused memorabilia collector Eric Inselberg of being “engaged in a decades-long memorabilia scheme” in which he obtained, without permission, game-used Giants equipment, including Manning’s, from the Skibas as well as a local dry cleaner.
Wagner also was listed in the original plaintiff’s complaint, although he was eventually cleared of any liability in the civil case against Manning, the Giants and Steiner Sports.
The Giants are generally considered one of the more stable franchises, and turnover in the equipment room is rare. The Skibas had been with the organization since they were college students.
Covered Vikings for Minneapolis Star Tribune, 1999-2008
ATLANTA — NFL owners have approved a policy that could end player protests during the national anthem. Will it work? Are owners truly united in the effort? And is it more complicated than it needed to be?
Let’s take a closer look at all the lingering questions.
Give it to me in a nutshell. What’s the new policy?
Any team personnel, including players, must “stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem” if they’re on the field at that time, according to the policy statement. It replaces a previous policy that said players “should” stand but did not make it required.
Players are required to stand if they are on the field during the national anthem. Full story »
• Answering the biggest questions » • Players, coaches and owners react » • Jets won’t prohibit kneeling » • 49ers owner abstains from vote »
What does “on the field at that time” mean?
Players who don’t want to stand have the option to go to the locker room during the anthem performance. There will be no discipline for doing so.
“We’re not forcing anyone to stand that doesn’t feel that’s within the way they feel about the particular subjects,” Pittsburgh Steelers owner Art Rooney II said. “But those that are on the field are going to be asked to stand.”
Does that mean any player in the locker room during the anthem will be assumed to be in silent protest?
That’s where things start to get complicated. Players sometimes go in for last-second treatment or (emergency) bathroom breaks. They now might have to clarify why they were not on the field.
How exactly will the NFL define “showing respect” for players who are on the field for the anthem?
It’s a fair question given the frequency of disputes between players and the league on policy interpretations. What’s clear is that the anthem policy extends beyond kneeling or sitting. Linking arms and raising fists, for example, are also expected to be prohibited.
Owners queried on this issue Wednesday said, in essence, that they’ll know it when they see it.
“We didn’t define exactly what they have to be doing to be out there,” Rooney said, “but I think everyone understands what it means to be respectful toward the anthem.”
This is actually a quite reasonable point. If the point of protest is to draw attention, the protest itself can’t be subtle. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which a player is perceived to have protested when in fact he intended no such thing.
Raised fists and linked arms are expected to be prohibited under the league’s new policy. Rich Schultz/Getty Images
What’s to stop a player from protesting on the field?
Again, it’s complicated. Some owners wanted to avoid a direct threat of discipline for protesting. In the end, the league can only fine the team — not the player himself — for a protest. In turn, it is up to the individual team to develop its own policy for disciplining players who protest during the anthem.
Any team punishment of a player must be in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. Most likely, discipline for protesting would fall under “conduct detrimental to the team.” According to the CBA, the maximum punishment for that violation is one week’s salary and/or a four-week unpaid suspension.
How much could the league fine the teams?
The league hasn’t said, and it’s an important detail. If the fine is relatively small, a sympathetic owner could pay the league and then decline to discipline the player.
So, in that scenario, a player could protest and not face discipline?
Correct.
Will that happen? Is there really an owner who would endorse a protest during the anthem, despite these efforts?
“Our focus is not on imposing any club rules, fines or restrictions,” Johnson said in a statement.
Johnson’s comments help illustrate the division among owners. So does the decision of San Francisco 49ers owner Jed York, who abstained entirely from the vote. York didn’t provide many details to explain his decision, other than to say he wanted to focus on pursuing progress.
Why were owners so divided?
Much like the country at large, they come from various backgrounds and political tilts. Some, including the Dallas Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, were genuinely aghast at players protesting during the anthem. Some feared for the business. Others, such as Johnson, did not want to drive further divisions with players.
The final policy was a tortured threading of the needle that reflected multiple viewpoints. Here’s one example of the knots the owners tied themselves into: Some rejected a proposal to clear the field of all team personnel before the anthem, long considered the cleanest and easiest fix, because they thought it would be interpreted as a mass protest and/or disrespectful to the flag.
Are owners really concerned about patriotism? Or just the appearance of it?
Can the answer be both? All owners prefer that players stand during the anthem, but their efforts to address it didn’t start until President Donald Trump began criticizing the protests last fall. To complete the circle, Vice President Mike Pence tweeted a screenshot of a news story on the policy Wednesday and included the hashtag “#winning.”
You’ve come all this way and barely addressed the players’ viewpoint!
Sorry, but that mirrors the NFL’s approach throughout the process. Owners worked closely with a group of players to create an $89 million social justice platform, one designed to address some of the issues players were protesting. But the league did not consult with the NFL Players Association during the development of the anthem policy.
Why not?
Because they didn’t have to and didn’t want to. The policy is a part of the game operations manual, not the CBA, and isn’t subject to collective bargaining. Owners wanted to work with players on the core issues at the root of the protests. But one way to view the policy is an attempt to wrest control of an issue owners felt was threatening their bottom line.
What is the NFLPA saying?
The union will do what it should: review the rule and then protect players by challenging any attempts — intentional or otherwise — to skirt the CBA.
Executive director DeMaurice Smith leaned in hard in a statement posted to Twitter, saying that “management has chosen to squash the same freedom of speech that protects someone who wants to salute the flag in an effort to prevent someone who does not wish to do so.” That claim seems to ignore the players’ option to go into the locker room, but it reflects the frustrated opposition of a group excluded from the process.
pic.twitter.com/3FvuGyy4tA
— NFLPA (@NFLPA) May 23, 2018
What else could go wrong?
The league must be prepared to deal with owners who apply implicit or overt pressure on players to take the field, stand for the anthem and forgo a trip to the locker room. It would be a violation of the rule but difficult to adjudicate outside of the CBA. This could be especially relevant if enough players remain in the locker room to make it a weekly issue.
What’s next?
The policy allows each club to “develop its own work rules, consistent with the above principles, regarding its personnel who do not stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem.” In other words, each team can decide how (or if) it wants to discipline players or other employees who protest during the anthem. The presumed deadline is the first week of the preseason.
COSTA MESA, Calif. — The Los Angeles Chargers’ offense suffered a crushing blow Tuesday, when talented tight end Hunter Henry tore the ACL in his right knee on the first day of OTAs.
Henry will get a second opinion Wednesday, but he’s likely done for the year.
Entering his third season, Henry was being counted on to develop into a focal part of the offense as the Chargers opted not to bring back future Hall of Fame tight end Antonio Gates in free agency.
Chargers coach Anthony Lynn isn’t sweating Melvin Ingram’s absence, saying, “Wherever he’s at, I know he’s getting ready because that’s his makeup.”
Philip Rivers is 36, but is playing at a high level, hasn’t missed a start in more than a decade and the Chargers are protecting him.
2 Related
Now, a Gates return could be in store, as the Chargers are expected to consider re-signing the 37-year-old, a source told ESPN’s Adam Schefter.
Henry’s injury occurred early in practice during team drills, as he limped off the field on his own. Once treated by trainers, Henry remained on the sideline for the rest of the session.
Afterward, Chargers coach Anthony Lynn sounded as if Henry’s injury was nothing serious.
“He’s fine,” Lynn said. “We just held him back because we can.”
The 23-year-old Henry essentially took over as the Chargers’ main tight end in 2017, finishing with 45 catches for 579 receiving yards and four scores. The team went 7-1 in games in which he was targeted at least five times and 0-6 in games he was not.
While known for his toughness, the Arkansas product has had his share of injuries during the first two NFL seasons. He suffered a lacerated kidney that forced him to miss the last two games of 2017. And he missed one game as a rookie due to a knee injury.
As for Gates, Chargers general manager Tom Telesco told reporters during the draft that the team decided to move on from him because his targets would be limited and it wanted to expand Henry’s role. However, Gates already has a good rapport with quarterback Philip Rivers, intimately knows the offense and showed during the last two games of the 2017 season (10 catches, 127 yards, TD) that he can still make plays.
The Chargers signed Virgil Green to a three-year, $8.6 million deal this offseason to serve as the team’s blocking tight end. Sean Culkin, Ben Johnson and Cole Hunt are the other tight ends on the team’s 90-man roster, so depth at that position is an issue.
THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. — Cornerback Marcus Peters is new to the Los Angeles Rams but has quickly developed an opinion on defensive tackle Aaron Donald’s contract situation.
“Pay the man,” Peters said Monday after the Rams’ first organized team activities workout.
Donald, a four-time Pro Bowler and reigning NFL Defensive Player of the Year, did not report for voluntary OTAs on Monday because of an ongoing contract dispute. Rams coach Sean McVay said that he doesn’t anticipate seeing Donald until a resolution is reached.
“It is something that we want to get resolved,” McVay said. “As far as a timetable, don’t really have any dates on that.”
Donald, who turns 27 on Wednesday, is entering the fifth year of his rookie contract and is scheduled to earn $6.89 million, but he is seeking to become one of the highest-paid players in the league.
The Rams’ defense underwent significant changes this offseason to better accommodate defensive coordinator Wade Phillips’ 3-4 scheme. Outside linebacker Robert Quinn was traded to the Miami Dolphins, and linebacker Alec Ogletree was dealt to the New York Giants.
The Rams acquired Peters in a trade with the Kansas City Chiefs and cornerback Aqib Talib in a trade with the Denver Broncos. Defensive lineman Ndamukong Suh signed as a free agent.
“Aaron is a vet, man,” Talib said. “He’s going to take care of his own business. What’s his business is his business.”
Before addressing Donald’s situation, Peters said the offseason program played an important role in the development of chemistry.
“We’ve got to make it jell at the end of the day,” Peters said. “You can say that we’ve got all these big names and that you’ve got this person and that person, but if we don’t make it jell, then it ain’t going to do nothing for us. So we’ve got to come in and learn each other. It’s going to be a learning process for us throughout OTAs, going into minicamp and then going into training camp.”
Donald’s contract negotiations began after the 2016 season. He did not attend organized team activities last May but reported to mandatory minicamp. Donald then held out of training camp and reported a day before the Rams’ season opener without a deal in place.
“He and I have had good dialogue,” McVay said of Donald. “I spoke with him last week. This feels a lot different than last year. Certainly, any time that you have something where the team comes together, to have a player that’s as important as he is here, you would prefer that. But it is voluntary. We understand that, and we have a lot of respect and understanding for what’s going on.”
The Rams’ mandatory minicamp is scheduled for June 12-14.
ESPN Senior Writer
