Will NFL Have to Go to Plan C? : Reaction: Players feel sure they have won something, but they don’t know yet how big a victory it is.

First came the celebration.

Then the confusion.

When the Raiders filed into their locker room at their El Segundo training headquarters Thursday, they were greeted with the news that the NFL players had won a big victory in Minneapolis, where a jury had ruled in their favor in an antitrust suit against the league.

When the players flipped on their radios on their way home and heard victory statements from both camps, their enthusiasm was blunted somewhat.

But Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Assn., left no doubt he thinks he is on the winning team.

“What the courts have ruled here,” Upshaw said, “is that this is a restrictive system and anticompetitive. If this is restrictive, then what about the draft? How big a target is that? A guy is told where he must work and can’t talk to anyone else.

“They even broke down the Berlin Wall. The NFL is the last bastion of communism.”

San Diego Charger guard David Richards, awarded $240,000 by the jury Thursday, was elated over the verdict, but knows this may not be the final result.

“It’s not over yet,” he said. “They will obviously appeal the case and I’m sure settlement talks will continue on behind the scenes. It was a total victory. Some of the players weren’t awarded damages, which I feel badly about, but we stood up, took the heat and did something for the rest of the players.

“The system that they had set up has been struck down in federal court. That’s the key. That’s the big victory.”

And Richards reveled in it.

“I shook a lot of hands (Thursday),” he said. “There’s a lot of guys that teased me and ridiculed me when I put my name on the lawsuit. They said we weren’t going to be able to go up against these guys.”

Phoenix safety Tim McDonald, another of the eight plaintiffs, was also elated with the verdict.

“We stuck our neck on the line,” McDonald said. “You still really never know what’s going to happen in the end, but I think everybody knew the system we were functioning under was pretty much unfair.”

Ram quarterback Jim Everett would like to see some form of true free agency as the end product of all this.

“I’ve always thought that a man should have an option on where he works,” Everett said. “I have buddies that came out of college that are working all around the nation because it’s their choice. I guess you could say I’m pro-choice on this. I’m sure the game will change.”

How would Everett like to see it change?

“There’s been a lot of talk about free agency,” he said. “There’s been a lot of talk about retirement plans, those types of things. Again, I know we have to collectively all agree on something.

“But I’d like to see the guys who actually are playing make the money. Nothing against the rookies that come in, (but) I think there should be some sort of proving ground for a year or two.”

Raider executive assistant Al LoCasale, speaking for his organization, said it would be premature to make any comment.

Raider running back Marcus Allen, who has a similar suit of his own pending, was unavailable for comment, but he has declined to talk about his suit in the past.

Representatives of the NFL had no such reticence.

Said Joe Browne, NFL vice president for communications: “Because they asked for $4 million and got 13%, and they’ve been in court for five years on this and received $100,000 per year, we’re pleased.

“We say this is another USFL ‘victory’ for players,” he added, referring to a court decision against the NFL that awarded the USFL $3 in damages. “The players think they achieved something, but will realize what they got is very, very little.”

Upshaw, not surprisingly, disputes such claims of victory.

“Why are they appealing the case if they are pleased about the money awarded?” he said. “Losers always appeal, not winners. We’re not appealing. They understand what this means in total dollars to the players out there.”

Monetarily, the effect could be even far bigger, according to Doug Allen, Upshaw’s assistant.

“We believe this would mean $210 million in damages if applied to players already affected,” Allen said. “The jury ruled that every one of the plaintiffs was economically injured at an average of $211,000 per player. Take that and times it by the 1,000 players affected by the Plan B system and you get $210 million.”

Browne said the ruling meant only that Plan B, which allows teams to protect 37 players after each season, was too restrictive, not that all restrictions were illegal.

“What the jury said is we are entitled to have rules. The jury has said Plan B is too broad with 37 (protected players),” Browne said, “so perhaps we’ll go back and look to see if 35 is the answer, or 32 is the answer.”

Countered Upshaw: “They know they can’t do a cosmetic change. If they say they’ll go to Plan C--Plan B is gone and we will sue on Plan C. If they want to take that chance, we say, fine. That is why we have the courts.”

The only real solution, Browne said, is a collective bargaining settlement with the players’ association.

Ram player representative Michael Stewart agrees.

“I hope if anything comes out of it,” he said, “a new CBA can be reached sometime soon because that’s really what’s all up in the air. Hopefully, maybe this’ll push both sides to come to an agreement.

“All players--it’s kind of like baseball--want the opportunity to see what they’re worth. But even if free agency comes about, I don’t think you’re going to see massive, widespread people switching teams. It’s going to give some guys an opportunity maybe to increase their salaries. Football is a little different than baseball. The money situation is different. I guess time will tell.”

Times staff writers Tim Kawakami and T.J. Simers contributed to this story.

* RELATED STORY: A1