Player Contracts: They can't have it both ways.

[Got_Wood]

Screw the class hatred. Players get rooked by a double standard. If you really want to make it fair let the NFL run itself like every other business in the good old US of A. If a competitor will pay me 4 times my current salary to do the same job somewhere else and with the recognition and respect that goes along with it "The Flash" couldn't beat me out the door!!!!

 

Some people are chumps and will bust their ass for years and get paid peanuts while their employer reaps the benefits of their low cost high yield work. IDIOTS. I don't advocate holding out for more than you are worth, but getting paid what you are worth is the American way. It's capitalism baby! Love it or leave it!

 

The only thing the NBA has right is the rookie salary slotting process. Other than that, it's a MESS. You have idiots like Alan Houston formerly of the Knicks completely holding a team hostage with a HUGE contract guaranteed for 5 years, and the jerkoff didn't play the last 4 years. Or Tracy McGrady who is the classic player to perform big in a contract year and get a huge contract once again holding his team hostage for 3 years. Ask the Houston rockets what they think of guaranteed contracts. Or the Knicks, Pacers, Bucks, Jazz, Wizards, or Hornets. Look at Jermaine Oneil, Michael Redd, Andrei Kirilenko, Gilbert Arenas, and Peja Stojacovic.

 

People hate the NBA because the guys already have their money in hand, and aren't motivated to play their best basketball for 82 games. The regular season is a joke. I would think twice before envying the NBA.

[JohnC]

A team can pass, and then pick when they want to. Unlikely, but it's there.

 

I recall OL McKinnie being angry when MIN delayed their pick in 2002, claiming that it was intentional.

 

If an organization "deliberately" delayed making a pick in order to pay the lower rate for the lower pick there would be challenges not only from the agent drafting the player but from the commissioner's office. In the McKinnie situation the Vikings got mixed up with communication problems which resulted in them missing the pick. Don't you think that the teams drafting after the "deliberately delayed" pick would be understandably upset because they would have to pay a higher rate for a higher pick? The so called "deliberately" delayed selection would be considered a manipulation and an abuse of the system. It would be quickly stopped by the Sheriff/Judge/Jury named Goodell.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I think you should re-read your post. My god, will players have to actually "compete" to make their money? That is what incentive is all about... to force a player to maximize his play on the field in order to earn more money.

 

Take a look at the definition of Incentive: "Something, such as the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, that induces action or motivates effort."

 

I like the sound of that.

 

SO, you give a player a guaranteed sum of money and a bonus to satisfy the guaranteed piece of the contract. AND, place incentives in the contract to allow players to earn more money. Win - Win.

We'll have to disagree on this one.

 

We've witnessed Jason Witten and Terrell Owens lobbying Tony Romo for passes to be thrown their way. People here in the Bay Area saw the jealousy that arose between TO and Jerry Rice for touches.

 

It's said that football is the ultimate team game. There is a strong belief that it is impossible to win in the NFL unless the players set aside their personal goals for team goals.

 

So yeah, we disagree.

 

The only thing the NBA has right is the rookie salary slotting process. Other than that, it's a MESS. You have idiots like Alan Houston formerly of the Knicks completely holding a team hostage with a HUGE contract guaranteed for 5 years, and the jerkoff didn't play the last 4 years. Or Tracy McGrady who is the classic player to perform big in a contract year and get a huge contract once again holding his team hostage for 3 years. Ask the Houston rockets what they think of guaranteed contracts. Or the Knicks, Pacers, Bucks, Jazz, Wizards, or Hornets. Look at Jermaine Oneil, Michael Redd, Andrei Kirilenko, Gilbert Arenas, and Peja Stojacovic.

 

People hate the NBA because the guys already have their money in hand, and aren't motivated to play their best basketball for 82 games. The regular season is a joke. I would think twice before envying the NBA.

As I mentioned earlier, NFL players risk catastrophic, career ending injuries more than athletes in other sports. They also have shorter careers.

 

Moreover, NFL football is not the sort of sport where players can just go through the motions. You can't just cruise on the football field without suffering dire consequences.

 

If anything, guaranteed contracts are much more justifiable in a sport like NFL football than in NBA basketball.

[JohnC]

The only thing the NBA has right is the rookie salary slotting process. Other than that, it's a MESS. You have idiots like Alan Houston formerly of the Knicks completely holding a team hostage with a HUGE contract guaranteed for 5 years, and the jerkoff didn't play the last 4 years. Or Tracy McGrady who is the classic player to perform big in a contract year and get a huge contract once again holding his team hostage for 3 years. Ask the Houston rockets what they think of guaranteed contracts. Or the Knicks, Pacers, Bucks, Jazz, Wizards, or Hornets. Look at Jermaine Oneil, Michael Redd, Andrei Kirilenko, Gilbert Arenas, and Peja Stojacovic.

 

People hate the NBA because the guys already have their money in hand, and aren't motivated to play their best basketball for 82 games. The regular season is a joke. I would think twice before envying the NBA.

 

In a couple of years the NBA CBA contract is up. The Commissioner, David Stern, and the owners are going to fight to the max to get those very long term contracts shortened. The problem isn't the guaranteed contracts per say as much as the very long term guaranteed contracts.

 

I agree with you that the rookie salary slotting process is a good approach to take. I see the NFL owners going to that type of rookie salary structure in their next CBA contract with the players.

[agardin]

Again, the signing bonus is guaranteed. To think that there is nothing in a NFL contract that is guaranteed is just wrong. I know this is the most obvious contract to look at but Haynesworth is also holding out

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Haynesworth

 

32 million in the first 13 months of a contract and people are trying to tell me that NFL contracts are not guaranteed????? 41 million total guaranteed money. If they cut Haynesworth tomorrow and he signs with another team for say 9 million he will have made something like 41 million dollars in two years.

 

As I said in an earlier post see Jake Delhomme, I believe, and correct me if I am wrong will make 19 million total from the Browns and Panthers this year. 7 million in salary and 12 million remaing bonus from his Panther days

 

As a side note, NHL contracts do have a buy out clause of 2/3 of the remaining value of the contract.

[The Dean]

Not per se, but the goal is to win NBA fan dollars over to the NFL. The extreme result of a successful program to do that would theoretically be winning all those dollars, and hence the elimination of the NBA.

 

 

 

No question its a monopoly from the standpoint of the players, but kind of a special one that doesn't really relate to other industries. Their skill (throwing or catching a football) only exists at a million dollar level because the NFL exists in its current form. Otherwise, the players are just cashiers or lawyers or foremen on the loading dock like the rest of the world. By contrast, if Microsoft goes under, there are a thousand other places I can program software for the same pay.

 

If there was going to be a true free enterprise system than there shouldn't be any limit on new employers (teams), no restrictions on who can negotiate their on TV deals, and each team sets it's own market, pay scale based on economic region, etc. All of which I think would be very bad for the sport. The NFL has a legitimate need to foster a competitive system for its teams -- that is the product it is selling -- otherwise the product goes bad and the whole business goes down.

 

As for labor rights, it's disingenuous to suggest the players should be protected with guarenteed pay while also allowing them a union system that can prop up salaries by claiming the factory in Baltimore is colluding with the factory in Seattle on wages.

 

Sports leagues are a special case. I don't think the normal 'real world' rules can apply.

 

 

You are right, sports leagues have been made a special case. As a fan, I'm very glad they are. But I have to ask the question "Should they be?" The existence of the NFL (or any sports league) is hardly so important that we ignore some of the basic rules of our economy/society. The truth is, I have no really strong feelings one way or the other, but I think when we (as fans) complain about salaries and prices, we keep in mind the rules for these businesses have been bent all to hell so we have a chance to root for our teams and favorite players. I think we need to understand it is a very complicated situation.

 

There are thousands of companies that produce one unique product and/or very limited products, just like the NFL.

 

And how many of those companies require skills of its employees that are not in any way transferable to another company?

 

The NFL doesn't make widgets.

 

I'd also add to KD's excellent point, "how many of these other companies have one-way contracts with their employees?' As timmo notes in his post quoted below, there are at-will contracts in many fields. His company can terminate him with a 30-day notice. I have to assume that he can also leave to take a more lucrative offer, at a different company where the skills he uses for his current job are also applicable. That simply isn't the case in the NFL. It would be similar if timmo was required to stay with his company and not allowed to work at any job remotely connected to his current profession.

 

 

deano-i read your posts and generally find your thoughts enlightening. oddly, too, i enjoy your avatar.

 

 

i think your thoughts here are laid out nicely, but i disagree with your basic premise that NFL contracts don't conform to some sort of regularly accepted standard.

 

i'm not an attorney, but i don't have to go much farther than to the end of my own desk to find a contract written on an at-will basis. i have a contract with a corporation that allows the company to terminate my relationship with 30 days notice. to paint the proper picture, i have 12 years invested with this organization, substantial sums of money invested in my business, employ between 4-6 people depending on the year, and count on my own common sense to provide for both my family and my golden years. of course, my own experience colors my view of the world, but i see this issue as much more complex than rich owner/unfair contract situation.

 

as i mentioned in my previous post, i understand the equity issue as it relates to the players. i'd be quite devastated if the company i worked with went in a different direction and left me holding the bag. emotionally, i get it. legally, i understand the terms of the relationship. and, i understand that i ahev to feed my family, too.

 

 

i'm of the mind that the deal the union has cut with ownership is legal and binding, thus to suggest inequity as to the structure of the deal belies the fact that two parties came together to structure the deal in the first place. no contract is perfect, i'd think, but it seems to me a player doesn't get "guaranteed" money if the trade off is a player gets a 3 year, no-cut clause without recognizing that the "true" value of the player really is set by the amount of guarantee he commands in any given year under the current arrangement.

 

Put another way, if player X gets a $13m guaranteed bonus, and a a $4mill annual contract under the current structure, it occurs to me the team is comfortable risking $17m or thereabouts. I'd think the downside in looking past one year with guaranteed cash in pocket is the risk of injury, player motivation, and so on. Certainly they hope for more, but who knows?

 

so, it's a deal with the devil any way you cut it. players have one perspective, agents another, ownership a third, and the union has a fourth. it's imperfect, and clearly that seems to be coming to a head.

 

by the way---i never suggested crying for the owners, never even came close to it. quite honestly, i don't cry for the players, either. if you want to talk emotion---virtually every one of these guys is living the dream of men everywhere to be among a group of elite athletes with an opportunity to play in the greatest league in the world (just my humble opinion). some get paid handsomely for their time on the field, and know the risks they face. i respect the elvel of commitment and athleticism it took to them to get there. i don't begrudge them earning millions of dollars, nor do i fault an owner for their success. here's some other things i don't do----

 

i don't refer to owners as cheap p'o's.*

i don't refer to players as lazy p'o's or tubs of goo or garbage.**

 

*i admit to badrapping ralph wilson for his inability to deliver a winning team to our fair city, but see it less of an issue as to how much he spends, more of how he spends it.

 

**i admit to badrapping jason peter's for ignoring his obligation to his team and the fans, and to badrapping vince wilfork for the shot he took at losman which i felt was designed to injure.

 

i do, however, feel badly for a guy like, say Takeo Spikes or Eric Wood or Sam Cowhart when they bust their ass on the field and end up with a major injury.

 

this was cathartic. thanks.

 

 

Very well put timmo. I took an issue with one of your points above, and also wanted to mention that I am NOT for ending the draft. I was just pointing out that in a scenario whre the NFL operates like regular companies (and where one would expect an employee to honor their contract) a draft probably doesn't exist. I am well aware that a change in the the current structure (including revenue sharing) would likely mean the end of the NFL in Buffalo and many other markets.

 

It was also mentioned in this thread the system is "broken". I agree in a sense, but I suppose it depends on how one defines "broken". The league is fabulously successful and labor and owners are becoming fabulously wealthy in the current system. Those proposing change need to keep that in mind.

 

With that said, I have no problem with some structural changes in the NFL revenue/salary structure. I don't really like the idea of a rookie cap, but think it probably will be necessary. (More on this later.) Also I don't think there is any good way to make performance incentives a major part of the salary in a league that is so team-oriented and where performance is so subjective. It's a huge mine field, IMO. But I also don't oppose some incentives based on some objective performance measures (I just don't think you can have the entire salary structure built on them).

 

In the league today, all teams pretty much pay the same salary and have the same contract terms for rookies. Slotting is a fact of life. The teams that don't like to pay rookies a ton of money trade away their high draft picks. Owners simply don't have it in them to march to a different drummer and when one does (like Ralph) he is labeled "cheap", "stupid", "out of touch", etc. If one or two teams make stupid signing decisions, it becomes the new de-facto standard for contracts down the road. The owners don't have to make the stupid contracts the new standard, but they tend to do just that. So, things like rookie caps are really just methods to help the owners protect themselves from themselves. And, as those protections go, a more rigid rookie cap is probably the way to go. But if you are going to limit a players 1st NFL contract, there needs to be a way to make sure he is protected financially should he suffer a career ending injury in that first contract, IMO.

 

OK, enough rambling for now.

[PDaDdy]

The only thing the NBA has right is the rookie salary slotting process. Other than that, it's a MESS. You have idiots like Alan Houston formerly of the Knicks completely holding a team hostage with a HUGE contract guaranteed for 5 years, and the jerkoff didn't play the last 4 years. Or Tracy McGrady who is the classic player to perform big in a contract year and get a huge contract once again holding his team hostage for 3 years. Ask the Houston rockets what they think of guaranteed contracts. Or the Knicks, Pacers, Bucks, Jazz, Wizards, or Hornets. Look at Jermaine Oneil, Michael Redd, Andrei Kirilenko, Gilbert Arenas, and Peja Stojacovic.

 

People hate the NBA because the guys already have their money in hand, and aren't motivated to play their best basketball for 82 games. The regular season is a joke. I would think twice before envying the NBA.

 

There are always going to be examples both good and bad for how the system works. I don't know the details but assuming your examples are good examples of bad examples (lol) it's still a small handful over the years representing a small percentage of NBA players. The REALLY crazy thing...is that most fans look at some of the players that got those contracts and laughed because some were such an obviously bad idea it was laughable.

 

In the world of the NBA as I am being educated to it would seem that shorter contracts would be the way to go. I wouldn't give anything more than a 2 or MAYBE a 3 year contract to a player unless they were a proven performer with a reasonable guarantee of future good performance or had a lot of upside. Stars would get 5 year contracts.

 

I RARELY ever hear about anything related to contract issues in the NBA. That is a good thing. Football could learn something there. Instead we hear more about contract disputes and hold outs than actual on field football news. Tell me about how the Saint's 3 - 4/ 4 - 3 hybrid defense was so effective instead of Darren Sharper is shopping his talents on the open market.

[PDaDdy]

There are always going to be loopholes. I would argue, why would a team pull a player out of a game that gives them the best chance to win?? The Titans aren't going to pull Chris Johnson out of a game because of incentive clauses if he's going to score a touchdown that gives them the lead in a game.

 

At the same time, players DON'T want guaranteed contracts. Why do I say this? Because they'll STILL hold out for more money if they feel they're underpaid halfway through their contracts.

 

There is no perfect situation, but this is getting ridiculous.

 

 

Incentives are bonuses to your salary not to take the place of your salary. Just like in our real world. They aren't the only measuring stick and they are even a bad one at that. How do you come up with incentives for a CB? INTs? Now you have motivated the player to gamble and try to pick off the ball perhaps more than they should. Passes defensed? What about the CB that is so good QB's don't throw the ball his way? etc, etc, etc. Much much much better would be a commission based system like sales people. How the heck you could set that up I don't know but it would be better than incentives for statistics which I love but would not be a good way to financially compensate a player. Perhaps the entire team would get a greater salary based on how well the team played. Huge bonuses for making the play offs. Average margin of victory. Power rankings. Team based incentives are the way to go in this team game.

[PDaDdy]

Again, the signing bonus is guaranteed. To think that there is nothing in a NFL contract that is guaranteed is just wrong. I know this is the most obvious contract to look at but Haynesworth is also holding out

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Haynesworth

 

32 million in the first 13 months of a contract and people are trying to tell me that NFL contracts are not guaranteed????? 41 million total guaranteed money. If they cut Haynesworth tomorrow and he signs with another team for say 9 million he will have made something like 41 million dollars in two years.

 

As I said in an earlier post see Jake Delhomme, I believe, and correct me if I am wrong will make 19 million total from the Browns and Panthers this year. 7 million in salary and 12 million remaing bonus from his Panther days

 

As a side note, NHL contracts do have a buy out clause of 2/3 of the remaining value of the contract.

 

 

Ugh...ya....contracts aren't guaranteed. Do we need to repeat it again? Guaranteed money is guaranteed unless you have violated the contract in some way where the owners can actually come after that. If the contracts were actually guaranteed the phrase "guaranteed money" wouldn't be in the public lexicon. I could also be wrong but I don't think most NFL players get that much if any guaranteed money.

[stuckincincy]

I RARELY ever hear about anything related to contract issues in the NBA. That is a good thing.et.

 

The NBA has a roster limit of 15, with only having to have 12 ready to play in a game. Fact is, most teams play 6 or 7 players game in and game out. And you don't have to have 15 - an owner of a team can only hire 12. Which is done. The NBA draft is 2 rounds, and few that are drafted in rnd 1 ever play.

 

The NBA is a joke, a clown performance - 3 players feeding the ball to two, traveling and palming the norm. It's Vaudeville entertainment.

[agardin]

Ugh...ya....contracts aren't guaranteed. Do we need to repeat it again? Guaranteed money is guaranteed unless you have violated the contract in some way where the owners can actually come after that. If the contracts were actually guaranteed the phrase "guaranteed money" wouldn't be in the public lexicon. I could also be wrong but I don't think most NFL players get that much if any guaranteed money.

 

Not sure I follow you, all over this board people are saying that the contracts are not guaranteed and you can get cut anytime ect....so obviously I feel it bears repeating. Since the thread was about Andre Johnson, he has an 8 year 60 million deal of which 15 million is front loaded and guaranteed. So if he broke his leg in year one he would have been paid 15 million of the deal plus his annual remaining salary for that year, for math sake 60-15=45/8=5.62 million + 15 million signing bonus for a total of 20.62 million dollars.

 

For players of his stature where his original contract was renegotiated( 2 years remaining)as well first round draft picks the signing bonuses are very large relative to the overall deal, this type of signing bonus is fairly standard.

 

http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=321853

[billsfreak]

No. He signed a deal, got guaranteed money, tough ****. if he doesn't like it, sit out and don't get paid and LOSE money from being fined.

 

I am with the owners, the salaries are out of hand. If NFL players dont' like it then go do something else.

Salaries are out of hand is correct, but who pays those salaries and drove them to the point where they are ridiculous now? That's right the owners did, so they have themselves to blame. Why should one side of a contract have their hands tied to the agreement for the length of it while the other side can cancel it whenever they feel like it.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

I'd also add to KD's excellent point, "how many of these other companies have one-way contracts with their employees?' As timmo notes in his post quoted below, there are at-will contracts in many fields. His company can terminate him with a 30-day notice. I have to assume that he can also leave to take a more lucrative offer, at a different company where the skills he uses for his current job are also applicable. That simply isn't the case in the NFL. It would be similar if timmo was required to stay with his company and not allowed to work at any job remotely connected to his current profession.

 

 

 

 

 

Very well put timmo. I took an issue with one of your points above, and also wanted to mention that I am NOT for ending the draft. I was just pointing out that in a scenario whre the NFL operates like regular companies (and where one would expect an employee to honor their contract) a draft probably doesn't exist. I am well aware that a change in the the current structure (including revenue sharing) would likely mean the end of the NFL in Buffalo and many other markets.

 

It was also mentioned in this thread the system is "broken". I agree in a sense, but I suppose it depends on how one defines "broken". The league is fabulously successful and labor and owners are becoming fabulously wealthy in the current system. Those proposing change need to keep that in mind.

 

With that said, I have no problem with some structural changes in the NFL revenue/salary structure. I don't really like the idea of a rookie cap, but think it probably will be necessary. (More on this later.) Also I don't think there is any good way to make performance incentives a major part of the salary in a league that is so team-oriented and where performance is so subjective. It's a huge mine field, IMO. But I also don't oppose some incentives based on some objective performance measures (I just don't think you can have the entire salary structure built on them).

 

In the league today, all teams pretty much pay the same salary and have the same contract terms for rookies. Slotting is a fact of life. The teams that don't like to pay rookies a ton of money trade away their high draft picks. Owners simply don't have it in them to march to a different drummer and when one does (like Ralph) he is labeled "cheap", "stupid", "out of touch", etc. If one or two teams make stupid signing decisions, it becomes the new de-facto standard for contracts down the road. The owners don't have to make the stupid contracts the new standard, but they tend to do just that. So, things like rookie caps are really just methods to help the owners protect themselves from themselves. And, as those protections go, a more rigid rookie cap is probably the way to go. But if you are going to limit a players 1st NFL contract, there needs to be a way to make sure he is protected financially should he suffer a career ending injury in that first contract, IMO.

 

OK, enough rambling for now.

 

last point. my contract has non-compete language in it, so yes, i could walk but as richard gere said in "officer and a gentleman"---"I got nowhere else to go....".

 

good stuff, all of this, i'm respectful of different points of view--or try to be. i forgot to mention i'm the proud son of a wonderful man who happened to be a 40 year member of the IBEW. i try to see both sides of the argument, sometimes successfully, sometimes not i suppose.

 

i know this----God Bless the United States of America--and God Bless the Buffalo Bills.

[puente]

So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics.

 

You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE guaranteed signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal.

 

When does the bubble burst?

As Yoda (CarolinaBill) would say " To a dark place this line of thought will carry us" IF the owners try to implement this then there will be a lockout. IT should be like baseball where you cant renegotiate until the las year of the contract and the contracts are guaranteed PERIOD.

 

The only drawback of this system would be injuries: What if a WR with a 6 yr 60 million contract gets injured in season 1?

[Kelly the Dog]

Here's a partial solution off the top of my head.

 

1] Take three million and change off the top of all money paid to rookies from each team and install a rookie scale like the NBA.

 

2] Take that $100 million and put it in a pool.

 

3] At the end of the season, give equal votes to fans, sportswriters, GMs, coaches, and players, for the top 50 players in the league that year regardless of position, you must vote for each position (so linemen don't get screwed), and you can't vote for guys on your own team -- with one caveat -- THE TOP FIVE HIGHEST PAID at each position are ineligible. So, for instance, Manning, Brees, Brady and two other QBs (Stafford?) wouldn't be eligible that year to receive bonuses.

 

4] On a sliding scale, all remaining players that received the most votes would get bonuses from that 100 million. Like, for example, the top guy on the list would get 5 mil. Number 2 would get 4 mil. Number 3 would get 3 mil. The next 30 or so get at least 2 million and by the time you got down to player number 50, the number would be negligible, say, $50-100K. (That way, players that miss out on being in the top 50 won't B word that they were cheated out of millions). If you can't crack the top 50 you probably don't deserve the bonus anyway.

 

If you could find a way to get more money from the salary cap and make the pool worth 200 mil or 300 mil all the better.

 

That way, if you have a great season like Andre Johnson, you may pocket a couple extra mil.

 

They already have something like this in place, but it's not big money, and how they decide who gets the money is a little dubious. If you give all those entities equal votes, you lower the chance of it being just populist, or favoring certain teams, etc.

[The Dean]

last point. my contract has non-compete language in it, so yes, i could walk but as richard gere said in "officer and a gentleman"---"I got nowhere else to go....".

 

good stuff, all of this, i'm respectful of different points of view--or try to be. i forgot to mention i'm the proud son of a wonderful man who happened to be a 40 year member of the IBEW. i try to see both sides of the argument, sometimes successfully, sometimes not i suppose.

 

i know this----God Bless the United States of America--and God Bless the Buffalo Bills.

 

I'm with you on the appreciation of civil discussion and disagreement. There isn't enough of that here, or anywhere frankly.

 

And one quick comment on your non-compete. I don't know what you do, and I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but I do know that non-compete clauses are sometimes overturned in court. This is particularly true when they are too strict and don't give the employee a reasonable opportunity to find meaningful work in their field. Best of luck to you, should you decide it is time to make a move.

[abqmarko]

And how many of those companies require skills of its employees that are not in any way transferable to another company?

 

The NFL doesn't make widgets.

 

Well let me see there is the CFL, UFL, Arena Football, etc. The pays different, but its still football and they still GET PAID-go to another league if your not happy

[agardin]

Well let me see there is the CFL, UFL, Arena Football, etc. The pays different, but its still football and they still GET PAID-go to another league if your not happy

 

Marshawn has the skill set to be a driving instructor or perhaps a dentist. Just kidding I like ML.

[RealityCheck]

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.

[T master]

So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics.

 

You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE guaranteed signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal.

 

When does the bubble burst?

 

When it hits Buffalo !! But the fans don't understand why we let the likes of Peters go . They're looking for the one time goose that laid the golden egg & especially small market teams can't pay that outrageous money ,but leave it to jerks like Snyder & Jones & the NFL will soon be just like baseball to or three really good teams and the rest just getting by .