Thursday night, Lloyd Howell Jr., the Executive Director of the NFL Players Association, submitted his resignation.
Howell’s tenure at the NFLPA had come under pressure in recent days, thanks to reporting from various outlets, including ESPN, Pro Football Talk, and Pablo Torre. In the statement announcing his resignation, Howell stated that “[i]t’s clear my leadership has become a distraction to the important work the NFLPA advances every day. For this reason, I have informed the NFLPA Executive Committee
that I am stepping down as Executive Director of the NFLPA and Chairman of the Board of NFL Players effective immediately.”
How did this happen, and what happens next?
Let’s walk through all of it.
OneTeam Partners and FBI Investigation
The first major story to break came at the end of May, when ESPN reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had begun an investigation into OneTeam Partners, a group-licensing firm co-founded and partly owned by the MLBPA and the NFLPA.
According to ESPN sources, the investigation centered on OneTeam Partners and a private-equity partner, RedBird Capital, and money used to reach media deals as well as monetizing the name, image and likeness of MLB and NFL players.
Subsequent reporting from both The Athletic as well as Pro Football Talk zeroed in on a plan contemplated by the eight-person board of OneTeam Partners in the summer of 2024. Under this proposed “profit unit” plan, labor officials on the OneTeam Partners board — including Howell and MLBPA Tony Clark — “could secure personal gain over and above their union-approved compensation packages.”
According to this reporting, an anonymous NFLPA official criticized the proposal, writing that “[t]he explicit goal throughout the process was to financially enrich the individuals who serve on the [OneTeam] Board as labor organization representatives. . . . [T]he idea was to pay the money into the unions, then the individuals.”
Pro Football Talk outlined that the fact that the plan was ultimately scrapped, and the FBI investigation still exists, could mean that authorities are probing whether a “conspiracy had been formed to reach an illegal outcome.”
As I put my own lawyer hat back on and recall Criminal Law from law school, a criminal conspiracy can exist even if the ultimate, underlying illegal goal is not achieved, provided the parties involved complete a single “overt act” in an attempt to reach that ultimate goal.
Howell’s work with the Carlyle Group
The next story to emerge came at the start of this month. ESPN reported that Howell was also working as a paid, part-time consultant for The Carlyle Group. According to their reporting, Howell joined the firm in March 2023 and was working as an “operations executive” in The Carlyle Group’s aerospace and defense investment team.
Why might this matter? The Carlyle Group is one of a “select group of league-approved private equity firms now seeking minority ownership in NFL franchises,” as reported on by ESPN.
In August of 2024, and in a first for the league, the NFL approved a plan under which institutional investors would be able to partially own league franchises. Under the proposal, Resolution JC-7, private equity funds can purchase up to 10% of any franchise for “passive ownership,” meaning the funds would not have any decision-making power in those organizations.
“They spent a lot of time, a lot of work and I’m appreciative of the kinds of interest that we have from the financial community that spent the time they did putting this together,” Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said last August. “This is a win for the game.”
At the time Resolution JC-7 passed, the NFL approved eight funds as potential groups of buyers: Arctos Partners, Sixth Street Partners, Ares Management, and a consortium comprised of Dynasty Equity, Blackstone, the Carlyle Group, CVC Capital Partners, and Ludis.
Ludis is a platform founded by former NFL running back Curtis Martin. According to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Martin was a driving force behind this resolution.
“[Martin] will be investing along with them personally and to his company,” Goodell said. “As well as bringing in an additional firm [Dynasty], which is primarily focused on getting people of color into ownership positions.”
Howell’s position with The Carlyle Group, as well as his role as the Executive Director of the NFLPA, raised conflict of interest concerns when his role with the firm was uncovered. According to the ESPN report, a “senior union lawyer” spoke with Howell after the resolution was passed, inquiring into whether it was appropriate for him to remain with The Carlyle Group. ESPN also reported that the lawyer “asked Howell to consider resigning from the private equity firm to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest if the firm takes an ownership stake in an NFL franchise.”
Howell “declined to step away from Carlyle,” according to ESPN sources.
ESPN did obtain a statement from The Carlyle Group that indicated that Howell had “disclosed his work at the NFLPA to the firm.” The statement also outlined that Howell “had no access to information about the NFL and Carlyle process beyond public news reports due to strict Carlyle information barriers in place,” said Kristen Ashton, a spokesperson for The Carlyle Group. “Carlyle was not aware of the request from union lawyers for Lloyd to resign from Carlyle.”
Confidentiality agreement with NFL
As the existence of Howell’s position with The Carlyle Group emerged, Pablo Torre was also doing some work of his own.
Mike Florio at Pro Football Talk in June reported the NFL and the NFLPA had “concealed a 61-page arbitration ruling in a collusion case regarding the failure of teams to give fully-guaranteed contracts to certain veteran quarterbacks. In so doing, both sides are squandering the opportunity to factor the experience into future contract negotiations — to the detriment of their constituents.”
In the underlying case, the NFLPA was seeking arbitration regarding how the league handled contract negotiations for veteran quarterbacks in the wake of Deshaun Watson’s fully guaranteed contract. The arbitration request identified three veteran quarterbacks — Russell Wilson, Kyler Murray, and Lamar Jackson — as players impacted by the league’s actions.
The ruling ultimately dismissed the NFLPA’s arbitration request. But under a confidentiality agreement, the ruling was kept under seal.
Florio included this statement in his article, dated June 11: “The league and the union are obviously hiding something. And, as best we can tell, few if any others in a crowded and competitive media ecosystem are trying to get it.”
Torre accepted that challenge. He obtained — and subsequently published — the 61-page ruling and then spoke with Florio about the ruling on an episode of “Pablo Torre Finds Out.” According to Torre:
“The never-before-seen ruling reveals the results of both extensive discovery and a closed-door hearing with witness testimony from — deep breath — NFL commissioner Roger Goodell; three star quarterbacks (Lamar Jackson, Kyler Murray, and Russell Wilson); eight (!) owners; NFLPA leaders; and various powerful agents and executives. It also includes details about a closed-door presentation for all 32 NFL owners at an annual meeting, in the wake of the Cleveland Browns’ unprecedented, fully guaranteed contract for Deshaun Watson. (The trigger for this whole saga.)”
In the ruling, which you can read here, you will see that the NFLPA alleged that “the collusive agreement of the NFL precluded three other quarterbacks — Russell Wilson, Lamar Jackson, and Kyler Murray — from obtaining fully guaranteed contracts after the Watson contract.”
An evidentiary hearing was held over ten days in July and August of 2024 and included testimony from, among others, Wilson, Jackson, Goodell, team owners John Mara, Jimmy Haslam, Michael Bidwell, Steve Bisciotti, Robert Kraft, and Arthur Blank, and several general managers.
During the hearing, testimony was elicited regarding how other teams handled quarterback contract negotiations in the wake of Watson’s fully guaranteed contract with the Cleveland Browns, and focused on a presentation given by the NFL’s Management Council at a league owners’ meeting.
For example, regarding Kyler Murray, it became clear that the Arizona Cardinals were not going to present the quarterback with a similar deal. Bidwell testified at the hearing that former Cardinals general manager Steve Keim made it clear to Murray’s representatives that they were not doing a “fully guaranteed, big contract.”
After Murray signed a five-year, $230.5 million contract with Arizona (of which $103.3 million was guaranteed), Bidwell received a congratulatory text.
From Los Angeles Chargers owner Dean Spanos.
“Congratulations on signing Murray,” read the first text.
“Your deal helps us for our QB next year,” read the second. To which Bidwell replied, “I think many teams will be happy with it once they have a chance to review. Cleveland really screwed things up, but I was resolved to keep the guaranteed relatively ‘low.’”
Following a lengthy discussion of the applicable law regarding conspiracy claims, the ruling was reached.
It was first found that a presentation at the league owners’ meeting “is strong evidence that the Management Council, with the support of the Commissioner, sought to encourage Clubs to reverse the recent growth trend in guaranteed compensation, especially that growth that was not attributable to Covid.” The ruling walks through a slideshow presented at that meeting, outlining how the trend in guaranteed contracts would put pressure on teams with respect to the salary cap. The notes for one slide in particular emphasized that “this not only could ‘hinder roster management,’ but also ‘set a market standard that will be difficult to walk back.’”
The ruling then included this language:
“These statements went beyond merely informing teams about the trend of increasing bonuses and guarantees in the beginning of 2022, and went byond merely educating teams about how bonuses and guarantees can affect individual team Cap space in the future. Instead, the language of the presesntation effectively expressed an opinion about the increases that the League was seeing. It communicated the League’s concerns that increasingly large guarantees and bonuses would substantially raise player compensation, contribute to an expectation that players other than those in the top tier deserved guarantees, and ultimately, give the players a greater share of team and League revenue than was bargained for in the CBA. The slides did indicate that Clubs must still make their own decision, and there is no evidence that the presenters explicitly asked the Clubs to join together in an agreement to restrict the growth of guaranteed salaries and bonuses. However, the NFLMC’s message was not purely educational and informational as the NFL contends; it unmistakably encouraged the owners to reduce the trend of increasing player guarantees.” Emphasis added
The ruling also states that “[i]t is clear that the Management Council presentation was encouraging Clubs to reduce future guarantees.”
Ultimately, the ruling found that while “[t]here is little question that the NFL Management Council, with the blessing of the Commissioner, encouraged the 32 NFL Clubs to reduce guarantees in veterans’ contracts at the March 2022 annual owners’ meeting,” the evidence did not establish by a sufficient legal standard that the teams “agreed to do that or participated in such a scheme.”
In conclusion, the arbitrator dismissed the NFLPA’s request for arbitration on this matter, stating that “[w]hile the NFL Management Council encouraged the 32 member Clubs of the NFL to reduce guarantees in future contracts with players at the March 2022 annual meeting of Club owners, the Clubs did not join in such a collusive agreement and did not act in accordance with one as to the three quarterbacks [Wilson, Murray, and Jackson] named in the initial arbitration demand or to other veteran players. Accordingly, I dismiss the arbitration demand of the NFLPA in its entirety.”
The ruling from arbitrator Christopher Droney came down on January 14, 2025.
While there might have been legitimate reasons to keep the document under seal — Florio posited ahead of its publication that “[t]he silence is quite possibly aimed at protecting one or more people from embarrassment, scrutiny, and/or consequences regarding specific contents of the ruling” — there are also compelling reasons for this to have been made available.
“[B]oth the league and the union are missing out on a chance to help teams, players, and agents learn from the experience. The teams, if they had full and complete access to the document, could study it for guidance on how to avoid a similar outcome in the future. The agents, if they had full and complete access to the document, could study it for clues on how to prevent and/or expose collusion in the future when trying to get the best possible deals for the players.
“Frankly, an argument could be made that the union’s failure to disclose the ruling to its members violates the federal duty of fair representation.”
In July, nearly six months after the ruling, Howell and the NFLPA decided to seek an appeal.
In a statement to ESPN, Peter Ginsberg, an attorney at Moskowitz Colson Ginsberg & Schulman who has represented NFL players, raised questions over the confidentiality agreement.
“As the head of the union, Lloyd has an obligation to protect the best interests of the players,” said Ginsberg. “By agreeing to a confidentiality agreement, the union purposefully blocked the players from receiving crucial information about the operations of the NFL.
“The NFL and the union should not be conspiring together to keep important information from the players.”
Prior sexual discrimination lawsuit against Howell
The final bit of reporting regarding Howell, before his stepping aside?
According to ESPN, he was “sued in 2011 for sexual discrimination and retaliation while he was a senior executive at Booz Allen.”
ESPN reported that “a dispute has emerged about whether the players who voted for him were aware of the lawsuit prior to his 2023 election” as the Executive Director of the NFLPA.
“I felt really good about the process leading up to it,” said one of the players, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Now that all this stuff is coming out, I am like — wait a second, what happened there?”
However, another player who sat on the NFLPA’s executive committee that both vetted and ultimately selected Howell disputed that characterization, noting that Howell was “grilled” about the lawsuit in front of player representatives.
“Full disclosures were made to everybody ... and questions were asked,” said one of the executive committee members. “The worst thing we could do was get the wrong guy, right? We need everybody to feel comfortable, and we aren’t going to have something bite us in a year, or two, or three, or five. We can’t have that happen. ... We obviously all decided we were OK with moving forward [with Howell’s candidacy] or we would have shut it down.”
Howell was sued by a partner at Booz Allen who alleged that “Howell and three other senior executives alleging the company denied female employees leadership roles and excluded them from certain career opportunities provided to men.”
The lawsuit was settled in July of 2015.
What happens next
Now that Howell has stepped aside, what happens next at the NFLPA?
That is a matter with some uncertainty.
Here’s the message the NFLPA Executive Committee sent to players on Lloyd Howell, who voluntarily submitted his resignation tonight.
— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) July 18, 2025
There is no provision in the NFLPA constitution for this; the board of reps is expected to meet within the next day or so to discuss next steps. pic.twitter.com/IOOQI1OjSl
The NFL Constitution does outline the process for hiring an Executive Director. According to the NFLPA Constitution, which you can read here, “In the event of a vacancy in the position of Executive Director, the position will be filled in accordance with Sections 4.04 (e) - (i).”
Those sections read as follows:
(e) If the position of Executive Director is open, the Search Committee (consisting of the current President, Treasurer, and nine Vice Presidents) shall conduct a search for qualified candidates and in so doing shall have the authority to use any resources or expertise necessary to assist them in securing such candidates (including, without limitation, the assistance of an executive search firm and a security firm to conduct security and background investigations of the candidates). The Search Committee shall give due consideration to all candidates recommended by any Player Representatives.
(f) The Search Committee shall submit to the Board the names of no fewer than two (2) and no more than four(4) persons they recommend as qualified candidates for the position of Executive Director. Those names shall be provided to the Board of Player Representatives at the start of the Board meeting at which the term of the sitting Executive Director is set to expire or earlier at the discretion of the Search Committee. In addition, they shall also publish to the Board any additional information as to procedures for and/or timing of the selection.
(g) A candidate must be selected by the majority of the Board of Representatives present and voting at the Board meeting (proportional votes based on dues paying members on each club). If no one candidate receives a majority, then the low vote getter is dropped, and a new vote is taken until a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast.
(h) The Executive Committee shall then negotiate an employment contract with the individual selected as the Executive Director; in doing so they will have the flexibility to enter into a contract the term of which shall be no less than three (3) years and no longer than five (5) years, as the Executive Committee deems appropriate.
(i) A candidate for the position of Executive Director need not be a member in good standing of the NFLPA.
Given this language, the above process is likely the next series of steps for the NFLPA.
