They have to install playing surfaces that meet exacting standards. They have to change the names of the facilities. They have to shut down all other business (such as major concerts) for the duration of the World Cup.
Given the hoops through which the 11 NFL stadiums will have to jump in order to placate FIFA, it’s fair to ask whether it’s worth it.
Ben Volin of the Boston Globe recently took a look at that question. Said an NFL official from a team that won’t be hosting any of the World Cup games, “I know more than a few teams weren’t disappointed to lose the bid.”
That could be sour grapes, because those who won the right to host the matches are crowing about it.
“Can’t sleep,” Cowboys owner and G.M. Jerry Jones said recently, per Volin. “This is a great chance to associate with the worldwide love with soccer, and lets us put a little notch on our belt and share it with what soccer’s about, too. They’ll never be able to take away that we held those games in that stadium.”
Cowboys executive Stephen Jones echoed the sentiment: “We’ll be shut down all summer. But it’s worth it. I mean, this is about brand and, you know, being a part of something special.”
The Joneses wanted to host the matches badly enough to give up their suite for the matches.
“I think I’ve got to go someplace else, but that was a part of it,” Jerry Jones said. “We did a lot of things to make this work.”
The Cowboys, Patriots, Falcons, Texans, Chargers/Rams, Giants/Jets, Chiefs, Seahawks, 49ers, Dolphins, and Eagles will be hosting World Cup games in their stadiums.
The total revenue is projected, per Volin, to be roughly $11 billion. FIFA will pay rent for the stadiums, while keeping the revenue from sponsorships, tickets, suites, merchandise, concessions, and parking.
So how much will the teams get for hosting the World Cup? Per Volin, the terms “have been kept under wraps.”
Given that folks like Jones are not known for doing bad deals, they’ll surely be making more money to host the World Cup matches than they would have made in a normal summer.
Still, it’s a headache. Extra work, extra expenses, extra hassles.
Not to mention the P.R. bruise that comes from the perception/reality that NFL owners who are giving FIFA the surfaces it demands while stubbornly refusing to do the same for pro football players.
The Giants need another receiver, after the recent torn Achilles tendon suffered by Gunner Olszewski. Could Odell Beckham Jr. be the answer?
Beckham spoke to the New York Post on Saturday, at linebacker Brian Burns’s charity softball game.
“You know, it’s a place I never wanted to leave,” Beckham told the Post. “And it’s just a special place in my heart just to see all these Big Blue jerseys. Just hoping for the best.”
So where do things stand?
“I think you just rely on the things you always rely on, which is my faith,” Beckham said. “And, you know, God has a place of special purpose and journey for me, and just being able to spend that time away, just made me realize some things. You know, I left some things unfinished, so hopefully we’ll see what he’s got working out.”
What would he say to anyone who questions whether Beckham still has it?
“I guess we gonna find out soon,” Beckham said.
Via Ryan Dunleavy of the Post, the Giants will be working out free-agent receivers on Monday. Beckham reportedly will be among the attendees.
Earlier this month, Giants coach John Harbaugh left the door open for a potential Beckham signing, with a caveat.
“It’s got to be right for both parties,” Harbaugh said, “and Odell wants to be the kind of player that can make a difference. I’m pretty sure that he can make a team in the National Football League right now. But can he make a difference?”
The biggest question is where he’d land on the depth chart. Malik Nabers, Darius Slayton, and Calvin Austin III are the expected starters. Olszewski is a backup and a kick returner.
The team’s anticipated use of Beckham also will determine the contract he’d be offered. Given that he hasn’t played since the 2024 season, the Giants likely wouldn’t be making a major financial commitment. Which means he likely wouldn’t be in a position to make a major impact.
That’s the real question. Does he simply want to be on the team? Does he want to be on the field most of the time? Is he expecting to get a lot of passes thrown his way?
Both sides need to be on the same page about Beckham’s role. It won’t be what it was from 2014 through 2018.
Will whatever the Giants are willing to give him be enough? The answer will determine whether there’s a deal to be done.
Now that the Supreme Court has declined to accept the NFL’s last-ditch effort to force all or part of the Brian Flores case into arbitration, the litigation will finally get going.
And the going could get nasty.
By way of background, I have handled many employment cases. From both sides. After working for years at a firm that focused on representing corporate clients that had been sued (no matter how strong or weak a given case may have been), I decided that I was more interested in representing individuals who had cases I believed to be strong.
So I’ve been there, done that. Many times.
Here’s the reality. No company that has been sued for wrongful termination will admit it. The witnesses will have locked into their stories months before it’s time to take the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Proving that the party line is essentially a lie requires a relentless pursuit of circumstantial evidence to contradict the predictable denial of discrimination, retaliation, etc. (For example, if the plaintiff was fired for violating a specific workplace rule, it’s useful to show that others violated the same rule, without being fired or even disciplined.)
This means that, in the Flores case, his lawyers will aggressively pursue deposition testimony from a wide range of witnesses from the league office and the various teams that have been sued (so far, the Dolphins, Broncos, Giants, Texans, Cardinals, and Titans). Plenty of the witnesses (starting with the Commissioner and any owners) will not react well to being verbally poked, prodded, and pressed for anything beyond the predictable default position: “we didn’t do anything wrong.” These witnesses will emerge from the deposition process feeling anywhere from frustrated to flat-out pissed off.
Flores (along with the other plaintiffs, Steve Wilks and Ray Horton) will deal with the same kind of thing. The lawyers representing the NFL and its teams will look for anything they can find to make them look bad. They’ll dig and dig and dig some more to make the process as uncomfortable as it can be. They’ll throw mud at the wall. They’ll throw mud directly at the plaintiffs. They’ll try to catch them in any potential misstatement, big or small, that could then be characterized at trial as a lie.
In the deposition process, there’s a wide range of latitude when questioning a witness. With no jury present, the lawyers don’t have to worry about being so aggressive (to the point of being openly hostile) that it may alienate the people who will decide the case.
This is what I’d typically say to anyone who was interested in suing a current or former employer: “Think of the worst thing about yourself that you wouldn’t want other people to know. You don’t have to tell me what it is. Just think of what it is. Then, think of what would happen if that thing became public. And then assume that, at some point during this litigation, it will.”
The unofficial playbook for lawyers defending corporate clients against claims of illegal employment practices includes turning the tables on the plaintiff in the hopes of making the plaintiff look as bad as possible when it’s time to present the case to a jury. It gets messy. It gets ugly. And, like the Commissioner and owners who are questioned by Flores’s lawyers, Flores will emerge from his deposition feeling anywhere from frustrated to flat-out pissed off.
That’s how it goes. The discovery process becomes the legal equivalent of a street fight. Which could be bad for the league, the teams, and/or Flores, Wilks, and Horton.
As the snippets of deposition testimony come to light, it will be very good for my current business.
Just when the Giants thought they were out of the Jaxson Dart-Donald Trump conundrum, Trump pulled them back in.
President Donald Trump took to his social-media platform, the ironically named “Truth Social,” to chime in on the situation.
“Thank you Jaxson!” Trump wrote. “It was great being with you. I know you’re taking some heat from the Radical Left Lunatics who are jealous of you, me, and everyone who surrounds us but, I also know that your Jersey also went to Number One, and you’re making Millions of Dollars so, YOU ARE A WINNER — THEY ARE ALL LOSERS. I’ll see you in the White House!”
Setting aside the fact that the eighty-year-old leader of the free world has the online demeanor of an eight-year-old (which we’ve known for more than eight years), Trump’s decision to enter the fray is hardly ideal for Dart. He’s trying to put the incident behind him. Trump, recognizing the benefit of using the situation as a way to appeal to his ever-shrinking base, doesn’t care about whether it creates issues for Dart in the locker room.
Dart shouldn’t be surprised. He should have known there would be a reaction to his decision to introduce Trump at a May 22 rally. Dart should have known that multiple teammates would object. Dart should have known that it could become a controversy.
And Dart should have known that Trump would seize on the opportunity to leverage the situation for his own personal benefit.
On Friday, the Giants made both quarterback Jaxson Dart and linebacker Abdul Carter available to reporters to discuss the situation that unfolded when Dart introduced President Donald Trump at a rally and Carter reacted to the gesture on social media.
Quarterback Jameis Winston, reportedly among the veterans who spoke at a Wednesday team meeting on the issue, also met with the media. The entirety of his 10-minute press conference focused on the Dart-Carter situation.
“We’ve grown from it, and I think that’s the thing,” Winston said in response to the final question asked. “Like, we’re dealing with a chaotic situation that has nothing to do with our required profession. We’re understanding the importance of our voice and who we’re capable of impacting. And I think that is — that’s what I want all my teammates to understand that. . . . It’s bigger than you. It’s bigger than the team itself. Like, we all got people that make decisions. But the reverence for authority, the reverence for the process of growth, has to be there. The reverence for life itself. It has to be there.
“So I think that is where we’re learning as a building. We’re learning, we’re growing. But we’re focused on winning football games, man. . . .
“We know we get paid to do. But a lot of us are opening our eyes to the influence that we do have on the whole world. And that’s a beautiful thing. When you can humble yourself and realize that, man, I got impact. I can really be the change that I desire to see. And that’s what I’m encouraging these guys to do.”
The broader point is that, even when individuals have different views, it’s important for teammates to respect that and to unite as a football team.
Dart and Carter obviously have contrasting viewpoints as to the person who has created (and fueled) much of the division the country is currently experiencing. The goal for the Giants (and for any sports team) is to find a way to come together despite who they are and what they think.
That mindset applies beyond football. Too many families have been fractured in recent years. Long-time friendships have been undermined, if not obliterated.
While it may not be easy, the best outcome is to find a way to set it aside and focus on one or more of the many things that unite us. For the Giants and any other pro football team, it’s a necessity.
Time will tell whether the Giants have fully and completely resolved the situation. Carter’s comments touched on the bizarre double standard that emerged this week, with many on the outside criticizing him for exercising his right to state his views while giving Dart a pass.
Both erred, in different ways. Dart (who declined to answer on Friday the specific question of whether he made a mistake) should have realized that introducing Trump would create an issue for some of his teammates. Ideally, Carter should have kept his objection to it in house.
Still, it’s easy to understand why Carter spoke up. Dart’s decision to introduce Trump sent a strong message as to Dart’s views. Carter felt compelled to make it clear that Dart (who is, as Carter said Friday, “the face of the franchise”) wasn’t speaking for the Giants generally or Carter specifically.
