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

[PDaDdy]

So when a player is cut (released from his contract) he cannot play for another team? You make it sound as if the player has nowhere to go, as if he can no longer be a football player. The only thing I see when a team cuts a player before his contract is fulfilled, is that he did not live up to thier (team) expectations. He is free to pursue his career somewhere else.

 

So as you have stated owners have the ability to get rid of a player when they underperform. What are the players options when they out perform their contract? You make it sound like the owners can't hire someone else to do their job. They are free to fill their vacant position with anyone they like who is not already signed by another team.

[Malazan]

And what if the player shows up in good faith, is undisputedly underpaid, and the team still refuses to re-negotiate?

 

Then he can collect a bigger signing bonus from his next team. The players are ridiculous. If I stop doing my job then I'm fired and I never got a huge up front payment either.

 

This baloney about it being a violent sport is ridiculous. What if he is cut and only has that 5.8 million to live off of for the rest of his life? It will be like living on the streets. Poor Andre, how was he supposed to know that Football was a violent sport? He just showed up to work and BAM, guy were hitting each other!

 

The guys paying the checks always have the option to drop someone if they're not performing. That is the entire point. They are being paid to play above a certain level.

 

Now, I'm not totally unsympathetic to the plight of players. So I propose that the contract is negotiated with range of value and then with the help of an arbitrator, they are actually paid at the end of the term of the deal. So they can negotiate for say, 5.8 to 9 million and then they'll both make their case *AFTER* the player has performed and come to a fair value instead of *PRE-PAYING* them.

[Orton's Arm]

Some people seem unhappy with the thought of owners being able to cut a player who isn't performing up to the level of his contract. But what happens when a player collects a large signing bonus, then goes into semi-retirement? (As Mike Williams did for the Bills.) Should an owner still be obligated to pay a contract involving large sums? Wouldn't a change like that reward most the guys who should be rewarded the least--such as Mike Williams--while doing nothing for the players who are performing at or above the levels of their contracts?

 

Someone mentioned the idea of shorter contracts. I agree with his point that such contracts would do a better job of matching player pay to payer performance. The downside I see is that they'd make the league become more mercenary, and would tend to shorten the amounts of time players spend with one given team.

 

Under the current system, a portion of a player's contract is guaranteed--the bonus money. The other portion must be earned by play on the field. While that system is imperfect, I don't see a clearly better alternative.

[PDaDdy]

I have received a signing bonus in the past and it was generous. I am a salaried employee and can be terminated at anytime I do not have an 8 year contract where that signing bonus made up a full 25% of my salary. Comparing my

situation or anyone else that is not a professional athlete is completely off base and frankly rediculous.

 

If he were actually paid 5 million a year I would agree with you but since he has been paid 15 million dollars as part of that contract I would say that number is not accurate. If you are maintaing that it is then we have a very different understandanding of the nature of NFL signing bonuses. It sounds like, correct me if I am wrong, you are comparing them with typical employer/employee contracts that are common in normal work environments. NFL signing bonuses are called such because the money that is paid is the guaranteed part of the contract and are front loaded often paid immediately when the client signs. Sometimes they are extremely large and have to be amortized over a couple of years but are guaranteed nonethelss.

 

As for your second question. If I had a job where there was an 8 year contract in place but my employer was going to pay me a very large percentage of the contract upfront and call it a signing bonus then yes I would have to consider that part of my compensation. This is where we differ. I see the signing bonus as part of the overall contract where you seem to see it as unrelated to your annual salary and a bonus in the truest sense of the word. Above and beyond the contract.

 

 

I knew you couldn't answer a simple yes or no question. LOL. I have trouble with that too. I at least will answer the question directly even if it is not a yes or no answer. Sounds like you might be making a case for no contracts in the NFL. What is "rEdiculous" is that the owners have exactly the same option that our employers have in that they can fire us as employees anytime they want. Do you see that?

 

What the players DON'T have is the option that you or I have in that we can walk out the door anytime we want and go work for anyone who will hire us if they are offering more money. Do you see how that is not a fair and equivalent system?

 

Again I will ask...

 

Do you think 5 million a year for probably the best WR in football is fair compensation?

Perhaps I should rephrase this to say do you think that 5 million a year is fair compensation for the 2010 season for the best WR in the NFL?

Do you think your personal 2007 earnings have anything to do with how much money you or I are paid to do our job in 2010?

[mchammer]

So as you have stated owners have the ability to get rid of a player when they underperform. What are the players options when they out perform their contract? You make it sound like the owners can't hire someone else to do their job. They are free to fill their vacant position with anyone they like who is not already signed by another team.

 

When their contract is up they negotiate a better deal. One that reflect their worth for example (Winfield, Jones, Jennings, Owens, Fitzgerald, so on and so on). If they are confident they will outperform their contract they should sign a shorter term contract or a incentive laden one. The fact of the matter is they all want long term contracts because they want security they want to know they will be provided for in good times and in bad or to put it another way "To have their cake and eat it too".

[agardin]

I knew you couldn't answer a simple yes or no question. LOL. I have trouble with that too. I at least will answer the question directly even if it is not a yes or no answer. Sounds like you might be making a case for no contracts in the NFL. What is "rEdiculous" is that the owners have exactly the same option that our employers have in that they can fire us as employees anytime they want. Do you see that?

 

What the players DON'T have is the option that you or I have in that we can walk out the door anytime we want and go work for anyone who will hire us if they are offering more money. Do you see how that is not a fair and equivalent system?

 

Again I will ask...

 

Do you think 5 million a year for probably the best WR in football is fair compensation?

Perhaps I should rephrase this to say do you think that 5 million a year is fair compensation for the 2010 season for the best WR in the NFL?

Do you think your personal 2007 earnings have anything to do with how much money you or I are paid to do our job in 2010?

 

 

I did answer both your questions, Yes ( if I saw the contracts the way you see them, which I obviously don't) and Yes to the second. I have to add context to my answers as I feel the questions do not represent the situation we are discussing. Since we are not in court I don't see the harm in that. Again comparing regular work situations with the NFL is going to cause problems.

 

So we are clear. IMO-15 million to me has to be considered part of his salary and not a bonus that is above and beyond the contract. 5 million a year would be TOO LOW (YES questionA) for a player like Johnson and I would imagine that his contract would be renogiated by the Texans if that were the case. If I were paid 25% of my of my overall compensation for an 8 year contract in 2007and as such my 2007 salary was higher than the balance of the contract, then YES I would have consider that as part of the total renumeration/annual salary especially since I could be fired at anytime after signing

 

Here is a yes or no question for you,

 

A)Should the 15 million guaranteed money part of his overall contract/renumeration be included when considering his annual salary?

 

This is fun and I am not trying to provoke or annoy anyone, it can be hard to get that when these discussions are written and not over a couple of beers.

[stuckincincy]

This is fun and I am not trying to provoke or annoy anyone, it can be hard to get that when these discussions are written and not over a couple of beers.

 

 

That's how we roll here!

[PDaDdy]

When their contract is up they negotiate a better deal. One that reflect their worth for example (Winfield, Jones, Jennings, Owens, Fitzgerald, so on and so on). If they are confident they will outperform their contract they should sign a shorter term contract or a incentive laden one. The fact of the matter is they all want long term contracts because they want security they want to know they will be provided for in good times and in bad or to put it another way "To have their cake and eat it too".

 

On this you have a great point. If I was a player that was at the top of my game I personally wouldn't want to sign a contract that was longer than 3 years. Your assertion though that players have "security" by signing a longer contract is 100% FALSE. Since as has been beat to death organizations can release the player at any point a long term deal guarantees or secures NOTHING!!!

[PDaDdy]

I did answer both your questions, Yes ( if I saw the contracts the way you see them, which I obviously don't) and Yes to the second. I have to add context to my answers as I feel the questions do not represent the situation we are discussing. Since we are not in court I don't see the harm in that. Again comparing regular work situations with the NFL is going to cause problems.

 

So we are clear. IMO-15 million to me has to be considered part of his salary and not a bonus that is above and beyond the contract. 5 million a year would be TOO LOW (YES questionA) for a player like Johnson and I would imagine that his contract would be renogiated by the Texans if that were the case. If I were paid 25% of my of my overall compensation for an 8 year contract in 2007and as such my 2007 salary was higher than the balance of the contract, then YES I would have consider that as part of the total renumeration/annual salary especially since I could be fired at anytime after signing

 

Here is a yes or no question for you,

 

A)Should the 15 million guaranteed money part of his overall contract/renumeration be included when considering his annual salary?

 

This is fun and I am not trying to provoke or annoy anyone, it can be hard to get that when these discussions are written and not over a couple of beers.

 

It's all good we often get to heated in these forums and I know that I have been a major offender in the past but we are a passionate fan base.

 

As I attempted to articulate previously NO I don't think that guaranteed money is part of the SALARY portion of the contract. I see it as a signing bonus. Just like stock options, annual bonuses, profit sharing etc.

 

That being said it was probably pretty dumb of Andres Johnson to sign a one sided owner friendly contract that basically says he would get paid 5 million to play this year. That was stupid. We now have the benefit of hindsight though to see that he became what he is today and is deserving of much greater. A WR can't throw himself the ball and he himself might not have realized his true potential. For anyone, player OR GM, it is difficult indeed to predict the certainty of future great performance.

 

Unfortunately we don't know all of the details but we all know that on some of these deals there are hand shake promises and smiles about ..."sign the contract now....we know it won't REALLY last as long as the specified terms....if you start lighting it up ...we will take care of you as an organization" It's a business. If it's not in writing it didn't or won't happen.

[agardin]

It's all good we often get to heated in these forums and I know that I have been a major offender in the past but we are a passionate fan base.

 

As I attempted to articulate previously NO I don't think that guaranteed money is part of the SALARY portion of the contract. I see it as a signing bonus. Just like stock options, annual bonuses, profit sharing etc.

 

That being said it was probably pretty dumb of Andres Johnson to sign a one sided owner friendly contract that basically says he would get paid 5 million to play this year. That was stupid. We now have the benefit of hindsight though to see that he became what he is today and is deserving of much greater. A WR can't throw himself the ball and he himself might not have realized his true potential. For anyone, player OR GM, it is difficult indeed to predict the certainty of future great performance.

 

Unfortunately we don't know all of the details but we all know that on some of these deals there are hand shake promises and smiles about ..."sign the contract now....we know it won't REALLY last as long as the specified terms....if you start lighting it up ...we will take care of you as an organization" It's a business. If it's not in writing it didn't or won't happen.

No worries, we will agree to disagree on the signing bonus not being included to the salary. I am for the players in certain cases and the owners in others. Chris Johson should get a hefty raise and get as much of his salary up front in the guaranteed signing bonus (even though he has a contract). Then he should play out that new contract. I am totally against franchise tags and RFA which is another discussion all together. If Andre Johnson had a year or two left on his deal and if I were his GM I would re-up for 4-6 years and hand him over another chunk up front. He has too many years left in his current deal and I don't know if his holding out will work in his favour. If it does, and if this isn't addressed in the new CBA, then it will set precedent for all NFL contracts in the future.

[agardin]

Sorry I forgot to add, that in the examples you stated above, options, profit sharing ect. are dependant on future factors so they are by definition not gauranteed which I feel is different from NFL singing bonuses

[shoretalk]

It is true that we need to reestablish the honor of a contract. To me this should be a mandate of the negotiations between the league and the players.

 

All too many people who criticize the draft say that in the "real world" we can go wherever we want to go to work. Well, that is partially true but if we want to work for a specific corporation or in a specialized industry or say for the government then we have to accept their places of work and salary. No one forces these players to play in the National Football League. They can choose Canada or some other sports venue or perhaps work in another industry while still playing football in a semi-pro league. Not every journalist graduate gets picked up by a national newspaper and then tells their employer what their working conditions will be ... some end up working at WalMart and writing a blog.

 

So, if these young men want to play for this specific industry they will have to follow the industry's rules, which have been established to even out the competitive advantages for employment through the salary cap.

 

Those who are brand new to this employment venue should have a pre-set base salary, in essence a rookie salary structure. This would allow them to get to work right away without trying to creatively get a few more dollars than those picked before them. In this structure would be work incentive bonuses and salary elevators for the initial contract period that I would make for 3 or 4 years. Like teachers before tenure is earned or other jobs with probationary learning periods at this point in their initial working years there would be no guarantees of contracts being paid if they are laid off (cut) before the end of the contract's term. Making 'All Rookie" or "All Pro" or even being on a team making the playoffs would increase the salary for the next year by a preset formula.

 

Once a player has established themselves through this initial "rookie" contract they would have the opportunity to negotiate contracts but each team would continue to have a salary cap protecting the integrity of the employer's franchises from one or two owners who might want to use their personal wealth to dominate the others. These new contracts would be guaranteed like the contracts in other professional sports but they would also be limited to 3 years or less in length as a protection to the teams. A team would be liable for the monies remaining on a contract if they cut the player however if a player is injured there would be a payment scheduled based on the inability to continue employment.

 

The rules of the league would prohibit the renegotiation of these contracts, players who signed contracts would not be able to hold out for a new contract. However, the league standard contract would include automatic pay raises for personal and team achievements so that a player in year two of a three year contract who makes the pro bowl will receive an increased salary in year 3.

 

We all know that in 2011 we may be watching the bus drivers play and it will be interesting to see who amongst the wealthy wins the battle ... I think we as fans have about reached all we can pay out of our pockets in this economy there isn't much blood left in the wallets ... so paying back-ups millions of dollars while the average American gets by on under $50K just can't be the way of the world much longer.

[PDaDdy]

It is true that we need to reestablish the honor of a contract. To me this should be a mandate of the negotiations between the league and the players.

 

All too many people who criticize the draft say that in the "real world" we can go wherever we want to go to work. Well, that is partially true but if we want to work for a specific corporation or in a specialized industry or say for the government then we have to accept their places of work and salary. No one forces these players to play in the National Football League. They can choose Canada or some other sports venue or perhaps work in another industry while still playing football in a semi-pro league. Not every journalist graduate gets picked up by a national newspaper and then tells their employer what their working conditions will be ... some end up working at WalMart and writing a blog.

 

So, if these young men want to play for this specific industry they will have to follow the industry's rules, which have been established to even out the competitive advantages for employment through the salary cap.

 

Those who are brand new to this employment venue should have a pre-set base salary, in essence a rookie salary structure. This would allow them to get to work right away without trying to creatively get a few more dollars than those picked before them. In this structure would be work incentive bonuses and salary elevators for the initial contract period that I would make for 3 or 4 years. Like teachers before tenure is earned or other jobs with probationary learning periods at this point in their initial working years there would be no guarantees of contracts being paid if they are laid off (cut) before the end of the contract's term. Making 'All Rookie" or "All Pro" or even being on a team making the playoffs would increase the salary for the next year by a preset formula.

 

Once a player has established themselves through this initial "rookie" contract they would have the opportunity to negotiate contracts but each team would continue to have a salary cap protecting the integrity of the employer's franchises from one or two owners who might want to use their personal wealth to dominate the others. These new contracts would be guaranteed like the contracts in other professional sports but they would also be limited to 3 years or less in length as a protection to the teams. A team would be liable for the monies remaining on a contract if they cut the player however if a player is injured there would be a payment scheduled based on the inability to continue employment.

 

The rules of the league would prohibit the renegotiation of these contracts, players who signed contracts would not be able to hold out for a new contract. However, the league standard contract would include automatic pay raises for personal and team achievements so that a player in year two of a three year contract who makes the pro bowl will receive an increased salary in year 3.

 

We all know that in 2011 we may be watching the bus drivers play and it will be interesting to see who amongst the wealthy wins the battle ... I think we as fans have about reached all we can pay out of our pockets in this economy there isn't much blood left in the wallets ... so paying back-ups millions of dollars while the average American gets by on under $50K just can't be the way of the world much longer.

 

The NFL is a special case though. It is a de facto monopoly in my opinion. The teams are individual companies but the system prevents employees, Andre Johnson of the Texans, from leaving that company and going to work for a company that would compensate him in line with his current talents and performance, The Bills. ROFLOL. We aren't talking about the players getting a larger chunk of the pie. That is a whole other discussion and they likely get a large enough share of the pie already. What this is about is that some fans expect players to honor contracts while the owners can "dishonor" those contracts whenever they see fit. That is a BS double standard.

 

If not for anything else it could be considered collusion or something along those lines. The example of a couple major cereal manufacturers colluded to drive up the price of their cereals. Sure there were other options. You could go out and buy a generic brand. You could cook your own bacon and eggs etc. Still their practice was illegal. Sure these guys could go to the CFL or the arena league but we all know that the only real game in town is the NFL.

[PDaDdy]

When their contract is up they negotiate a better deal. One that reflect their worth for example (Winfield, Jones, Jennings, Owens, Fitzgerald, so on and so on). If they are confident they will outperform their contract they should sign a shorter term contract or a incentive laden one. The fact of the matter is they all want long term contracts because they want security they want to know they will be provided for in good times and in bad or to put it another way "To have their cake and eat it too".

 

So what are your thoughts on my actual statement? I think you just verbatim regurgitated what you said before. You probably don't want to see the logic of my statement as it shoots down your argument. Employees should be able to leave an employer any time they want just like an employer can fire the employee anytime they want.

 

How do people NOT see that as being fair? There are many points of contention on this subject but how someone can't understand that very basic statement is truly beyond me. But then again I usually think people are smarter than they often are.

[K-9]

I gotta think that since NFL owners dishonor contracts every time they cut a player, that it's only a matter of time before a savvy lawyer brings a huge class action suit against the NFL on behalf of EVERY player that has EVER been cut. These guys obviously have a grievance that needs to be remedied.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[mchammer]

So what are your thoughts on my actual statement? I think you just verbatim regurgitated what you said before. You probably don't want to see the logic of my statement as it shoots down your argument. Employees should be able to leave an employer any time they want just like an employer can fire the employee anytime they want.

 

How do people NOT see that as being fair? There are many points of contention on this subject but how someone can't understand that very basic statement is truly beyond me. But then again I usually think people are smarter than they often are.

 

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I had other more pressing matters to attend to. My thoughts on what is fair and not fair with regards to players and owners is this: Every player has a representative (agent) with their best interest at heart (agent will receive 1/3 of contract value). For anybody to claim that the players are being screwed is naive. Each side of these negotiations is fairly represented and no one is being forced to sign on the dotted line if they do not agree to the terms. Players know going into the process that they can and most likely will be cut before their contract is fulfilled. Therefore their agent will negotiate the most amount of guaranteed money they can get. If this process was unfair they would not deal with the owners and the player association would strike over unfair conditions. The fact this hasn't happened leads me to believe no one is getting the shaft. The fact that fans are concerned with the players well being is just bizarre at best. These men are paid extremely well to play a game and if the NFL did not exists you should ask yourself what they (players) would be doing for employment and what might they be earning in that other job.

[Malazan]

The NFL is a special case though. It is a de facto monopoly in my opinion. The teams are individual companies but the system prevents employees, Andre Johnson of the Texans, from leaving that company and going to work for a company that would compensate him in line with his current talents and performance, The Bills.

 

Nothing is stopping him from providing his skills to Wendys. His contract makes no mention of him working for another company. He simply can't get a job with one of the companies directly competing against his current employer. If he doesn't want to work for minimum wage then that isn't his employer's fault.

 

Oh, I don't have a contract, but I had to sign a non-compete waiver. I can't work for a company or start a company that directly competes with my current employer for 1 1/2 years after the end of my employment. Sounds kinda similar.

 

Stop putting these athletes on a pedestal that they somehow don't equate with the rest of the working world. They're very quick to point out it's a business at contract time.

[stuckincincy]

Nothing is stopping him from providing his skills to Wendys. His contract makes no mention of him working for another company. He simply can't get a job with one of the companies directly competing against his current employer. If he doesn't want to work for minimum wage then that isn't his employer's fault.

 

Oh, I don't have a contract, but I had to sign a non-compete waiver. I can't work for a company or start a company that directly competes with my current employer for 1 1/2 years after the end of my employment. Sounds kinda similar.

 

Stop putting these athletes on a pedestal that they somehow don't equate with the rest of the working world. They're very quick to point out it's a business at contract time.

 

Amen.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

So what are your thoughts on my actual statement? I think you just verbatim regurgitated what you said before. You probably don't want to see the logic of my statement as it shoots down your argument. Employees should be able to leave an employer any time they want just like an employer can fire the employee anytime they want.

 

How do people NOT see that as being fair? There are many points of contention on this subject but how someone can't understand that very basic statement is truly beyond me. But then again I usually think people are smarter than they often are.

 

 

pdads--

 

it is not an issue of fairness. if it was 'fair' good effort and lotsa moxy would prevail and the good guys would win out (we'd have a Super Bowl or three, too). if it was fair an owner wouldn't have to pay a player who sat out, who got hurt, who was undermotivated, who didn't deliver and so on. if it was fair, there'd be a chart, they could all agree on what was worth what to whom, and no one would argue either too much, or too little.

 

it's not an issue of fairness, it's an issue of legalities. it's an issue of negotiation, what's acceptable risk to a franchise, to a player, and to an agent.

 

i suggest with striking clarity that no party to these contracts wants anything to do with fairness. they want to strike the best deal in order to protect their best interest.

 

besides, equity is a sliding scale based on the year and performance of the team and the player.

 

my thought with respect to guys holding out is that virtually every year, a guy like tom brady or peyton manning or drew brees should be holding out because they should always be at or near the top of the payscale, including guaranteed money, adjusted by some factor to reflect the net worth of a franchise qb as it relates to, say, a wide receiver or left tackle or whomever.

 

and with due respect to you and your opinion, considering the guaranteed portion of the contract as seperate and apart from the annual compensation is akin to considering a wave not part of the ocean. i'm thinking no way andre johnson signs for $5mil per season absent the $10+ guaranteed. and, if you think that he made a mistake signing at that time for what he did, i think you're underestimating the improtance of common sense that an agent might bring to the table wehn encouraging a client to sign for something that a year or two later looks to be undervalued.

see theisman, joe.