N.F.L. Teams Tape Players While They Tape Up -------------------------------------------- January 10, 1999 By Mike Freeman Earlier this season, a Jets defensive player went into a small room at the team's practice facility in Hempstead, N.Y., and was stunned by what he saw. Inside was a bank of video screens, he said, showing various parts of the complex. On one screen, to the player's surprise, was a view of the locker room. ''A lot of things around here have knocked me for a loop, but this is one of the biggest,'' said the defensive starter, who asked not to be identified for fear of repercussions. ''My first thought was, 'Has the team been spying on us?' '' A spokesman for the Jets denied that the team uses video cameras for surveillance purposes. Several agents said their clients on the Jets were aware of the video cameras and believed they were set up this year after several locker-room thefts at the complex. While it is unclear exactly how many teams use hidden cameras in their complexes, interviews with players, agents and union leaders suggested that several clubs use them and that the number of teams that do is increasing. Gene Upshaw, executive director of the players association, said he believed that at least 25 percent of National Football League teams use cameras in the locker room. Those who were interviewed said they believed the reasons for using the hidden cameras varied from a desire to provide better security for the players, to watching and learning as much about them as possible. A number of players, team executives and union officials believe putting hidden cameras in the locker room, the training room or other parts of the workplace is a good idea. Others believe that cameras are a violation of a player's privacy. ''I think a lot of facilities have surveillance equipment throughout the complex and in the locker room,'' Upshaw said. ''I believe this and I've been told this by some teams. But the equipment is there for security, not so much for surveillance. I don't think most players are aware of it and I know it's like Linda Tripp, but if a player follows the rules, he has nothing to worry about. ''When I'm in Denver, in a meeting with the players at the Broncos' facility, you see certain things in the room and know they're not lights. I know management is listening. When I'm in Cincinnati, I know Owner Mike Brown is listening. I don't want to say how I know, but I know. But when it comes to this issue of cameras around the players, it's not a big deal to me, because they are there for the security of our players, and obviously the safety of the players is a primary concern for me.'' Upshaw added, ''I'd rather err on the side of caution, than have some nut come into the locker room and do something.'' The Broncos and Bengals denied ever eavesdropping on Upshaw during union meetings with players. Art Modell, the Baltimore Ravens' owner, said: ''Some teams are using surveillance equipment in the locker room, yes. But I'd fire the first guy who did that here. No video cameras, no audiotapes, no eavesdropping.'' Most players do not know they are being taped, and teams even keep the fact that they use this equipment from the league office, team officials have said. There are no N.F.L. rules against videotaping players in the locker room. Erosion of privacy has long been of concern for workers in other industries. Now, it is slowly becoming an issue in professional football as well. More teams are using high-tech devices, such as tiny video cameras not much larger than a quarter, and hiding them in their complexes, those interviewed for this article said. Some players said they agreed that video surveillance in the locker room provided more security, but they raised questions about abuse. Are teams watching private conversations players are having with teammates or reporters? And with sophisticated new cameras available, what's next, hidden microphones? Video cameras have been part of football for years. The San Francisco 49ers in the 1980's were among the first to tape team meetings, so a player who was ill and missed one could be given the tape and not fall behind. Teams now routinely tape practices -- even warm-ups. That way, teams can go to the videotape to verify or debunk a compensation claim filed by a player who says he was injured. Now, the use of the camera is entering the locker room, which may prove to be more controversial. Upshaw cited a remarkable example of how one team used videotape from the locker room. A certain player, he said, recently filed a grievance against a team (Upshaw would not identify the player or the team). The core of the grievance came down to where the player was at a particular time. The player said he was not at the team's facility; the team said he was. To back its claim, the team used videotape of the player in the locker room taken at the very time he maintained he was not there, Upshaw said. In some ways, N.F.L. teams are catching up to other employers. A 1997 survey of 900 midsize and large companies by the American Management Association found that nearly two-thirds of the companies surveyed videotaped their workers on the job. If a player did not like being videotaped in the locker room, could he sue his team? Short of videotaping bathroom stalls, little prevents a team from secretly recording the locker room or any other part of the team's facility. The sole Federal law that limits monitoring by an employer comes from the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and it prohibits eavesdropping on personal conversations. Companies, however, can monitor all nonspoken personal communications. ''This is a sensitive issue,'' Upshaw said. ''I'm sure it will be talked about a lot in the future.''