I don't understand why there is such a debate over guarenteed money to players. The current situation is the result of good negotiating between both parties. It is the other leagues that are way off base. When a player signs a contract it is binding for the duration of employment. Just because a team can eventually turn around and release a player doesn't mean that the contract is violated, it means that the players services are no longer necessary. I myself am a union iron worker, the contractors who sign our CBA agree to terms based on the simple premise that when they hire us they must pay such and such amount per hour. I can be laid off or fired at any time by the foreman or contractor at any time. Why would they continue to pay my wage when I am no longer employed by that company. The same goes for the NFL currently. When a player no longer performs up to expectations he is released and the money ends. I have the highest respect for the risks and wear and tear that the players endure, but it's no riskier than my business, and I don't see the logic in paying for labor that is no longer required. It makes perfect sense from the players perspective to of course get as much as they can while they can, but if the NFL starts to resemble MLB in regards to rewarding poor production with millions of dollars then I'll watch one less sport once again. I have no passion for either side in this situation. It is what it is and todays market will dictate how all of this goes down.