DeMaurice Smith‘s time as NFLPA executive director could be coming to a close. On Friday, the union’s 32 player reps will hold a vote on Smith’s future, as Mark Maske of the Washington Post writes. 
If Smith doesn’t win two-thirds of the vote, the NFLPA will conduct an open search for his position. The union’s bylaws require the union to identify 2-4 candidates for the job, though could conceivably be among those considered. If Smith does win two-thirds of the vote, he’ll remain under a new contract.
Smith has held the position since 2009 and he’s been reelected twice (2012; 2015). And, in 2017, the selection committee voted unanimously to extend his contract for another four years. This time around, the selection committee was split, leaving Smith’s future up to the player reps.
Clearly, Smith’s showing in the last round of CBA talks didn’t sit well with everyone. The players’ union secured a larger revenue share, but they also agreed to give the NFL an extra regular season game. Aaron Rodgers, Richard Sherman, and others were vocally opposed. If Smith’s job becomes available, Mike Florio of PFT suggests that former Colts first-round pick and current congressional representative Anthony Gonzalez could seek election.
Terrible negotiator, as he never gets enough in return for what he gives up. For example, he should never have given the owners a 17th game without significantly expanding roster sizes. Thursday night games should also never be played without a preceding bye week.
I wonder what the player turn over rate since 2017 has been?
Actually since 2009 he has worked raises for every player, started down the path of guaranteed contracts, pumped the breaks on Goodell and his suspensions, and almost legalized marijuana.
That is how I would sell it if I was Mr. Smith
If he gets reelected can you post a new pic, lol. That isn’t very flattering.
The ultra rich players didn’t like the deal. Like in life, they make up 5-10% of the base (the 1%’ers if you will). The other 90% need their paychecks though & had no problem signing off on the deal.
If memory serves, it was a closer vote than 90% vs. 10%, but yes, it was the stars and higher-paid starters who were vocally unhappy with that deal.
Still, having served on a union’s executive committee myself for eight years, sometimes you need to bring in new blood, although I’m not sure a Republican politician would be my first choice for the job.