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

[Willis990]

Huge guaranteed money...NFL salaries pale in comparison to the NBA and MLB... Marbury 20 Million didn't even play this season, Ray Allen 20 million, Vince Carter 18 million...MLB JD Drew 14 million...just an average player. I don't blame football players for trying to get the most they can...no guaranteed contracts and only if you are star QB or left tackle. Highest paid QB in 2009 was Carson Palmer at 16.6 million...highest paid left tackle was Jason Peters @ 13 million

 

 

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?

[The Dean]

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.

 

 

And you can leave at any time and work for a different company, doing your same job. YOU are not under contract. When an NFL coach has a 4-year contract and gets fired after year #2, the team typically still has to pay that coach for two more years as that was the term of the contract. If they choose not to pay (they have to claim insubordination or some other egregious violation) there are lawsuits to fight. Same goes for an NFL GM.

 

Any contract that binds one side but not the other is a one-sided contract.

[BillsfaninFl]

I can understand your inability to find my argument completely rational and even remotely compelling. Your argument is an emotional one, and emotion has nothing to do with it. I'm not being a hard-ass, it's just pretty clear to me that when Drew Rosenhaus sits down with the negotiating mgmt group from the team, he knows what he's doing. I don't see it remotely as an Oprah moment.

 

Would you at least spot me this----would you support (millionaire) Andre Johnson returning the unearned pro-rata share of his guaranteed bonus money to the (billionaire) owner as part of the re-negotiation? I'd assume if we're looking for equity, that is. Maybe guaranteed money needs to come off the table?

 

We do have some common ground, though. I'd concur with you, though maybe for different reasons, that the system is broken. I think it's onerous to all parties that such princely sums are paid to draft choices who haven't done a thing, at the expense of players who have earned their keep.

 

I'd be happy to see this type of thing end forever.

 

PLAYERS: It's actually evolving in the wrong direction. The recent trend toward more money being guaranteed is making things worse. There should be no overall team cap - just a positional cap for players. No one should be making as much money as ten other starters. I believe that there should be a guaranteed pay to offer a safety net because of the physical risks involved. But I disagree with the ridiculous paychecks being handed out. I agree with adjusting salaries based upon performance, as stated above. True, stats do not tell the whole story, but that's true for almost any job. Many people have someone evaluate their performance at least annually with bonuses and future raises impacted accordingly. Of course, the other key factor is how the organization is doing.

 

OWNERS: After their initial investment, owners are in a low risk mode for the rest of their tenure. So they are more like bankers or stock brokers who make handsome profits/commissions no matter what happens. In essence, the owners are getting guaranteed paychecks also.

 

FANS: These are the real owners. They pay all the bills and salaries, but have no voice in controlling costs because the business is a monopoly. Would-be pro competition in football is crushed (in the U.S.) or gobbled up by the NFL (see AFL of the 1960s) or starved (the CFL). The greed of owners and players is a runaway problem that will not be solved until the cash cow gets sick. Only fan rebellion will stop the bleeding, but that may not happen for a long time because the sport is so addictive to fans (like me). I don't want fans to walk away or a strike or lockout to happen, and I hope the government continues to give preferential treatment to the NFL. So I can't really B word too much about this because I am part of the problem.

[billsfan89]

So the players can't have it both ways but the owners can? The owners can abrogate a players contract whenever they want. Even these big money contracts with 20 million guaranteed are hardly guaranteed players are lucky to have 2 years of guaranteed money in any contract they sign.

 

It amazes me how people always side with the owners/management over the players. The players put there bodies and well being on the line, if they want to renegotiate a contract with years left on it they have the right to do so and as long as the owners can cut them at any time (Which is not honoring the contract themselves) this will happen.

 

If this was baseball/basketball/hockey I would say that no player should do a holdout because the owners hold their end of a bargain when a player under preforms or gets old towards the end of a deal. Thus if a player over preforms on a contract they shouldn't hold out because the owners honor a bad deal thus you should honor a bad deal on your end until you get the chance to negotiate a new one.

 

Yeah it gets a little ridiculous when players sign a long term deal and want it torn up two years later but whats the difference between that and a player signing a big deal and two years later getting cut.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

From another thread, but I think, very pertinent to this one.

 

As the story goes, he (Shane Conlan) got the last scholarship Penn St. had to offer that year. Their staff recruiter came to watch him play a high school basketball game and offered him thereafter. I, for one, was shocked he chose football. I thought he was a better baseball player and would have been a super athletic catcher. He was scouted and had a baseball scholarship offer from Arizona, I believe.

 

One Monday nighter they played at KC and the Bills lost pretty bad as Derrick Thomas had a big night. Shane had a good game as he was constantly colliding with Christian Okoye in the hole. He was probably giving up 30+ lbs. to the "Nigerian Nightmare." I remember Frank Gifford saying that Shane had earned a long stay in the Jacuzzi that night. I couldn't help but think about that game when I saw him at a Frewsburg high school basketball game a few seasons ago. He wasn't moving too well and appeared much older than he is. Human bodies just aren't meant to play NFL football. There is a price to pay.

Amen to that. You hear stories about football players suffering brain trauma and suffering from extreme depression and dementia as a result. Or players having prosthetics to replace worn out hips and knees…the sort of things that most athletes in other sports simply don't have to worry about to anywhere near the degree that pro football players do.

[Meathead]

hilarity always ensues when joe six pack tries to apply ditch digger employment logic to world class entertainer compensation

[K Gun Special]

And you can leave at any time and work for a different company, doing your same job. YOU are not under contract. When an NFL coach has a 4-year contract and gets fired after year #2, the team typically still has to pay that coach for two more years as that was the term of the contract. If they choose not to pay (they have to claim insubordination or some other egregious violation) there are lawsuits to fight. Same goes for an NFL GM.

 

Any contract that binds one side but not the other is a one-sided contract.

 

 

Thats not what a one sided contract is. Its when the terms of the contract are so egregiously benefitting one party that its deemed unconscionable. A NFL gm or coaching contract is hardly that.

[The Dean]

Thats not what a one sided contract is. Its when the terms of the contract are so egregiously benefitting one party that its deemed unconscionable. A NFL gm or coaching contract is hardly that.

 

 

I would argue: if side A can walk away from a multi-year contract and owe side B nothing, while side B is bound by the terms of the contract for the entire life of the contract, the contract is egregiously benefiting side A by definition. The very thought of it is unconscionable.

 

The courts have not taken that position, however.

[Red]

How does that message compare to the message the Bills have repeatedly sent the last 10 years? We are cheap. We won't pay top dollar for top talent but we will over pay for mediocre to above average talent. Do you think that players and agents are NOT getting that message. Do you think that good players who want to win a super bowl want to go to a cold weather town that refuses to pay the most talented players that have come through the organization? I think they get THAT message loud and clear.

 

I agree with your point.

 

At no point do I believe that the Bills have invested their money wisely. That is why John Guy is gone. Modrak should be as well, as his track record this past decade is horrendous.

 

With that being said, nothing you bring up diminishes what I am saying about players holding their team hostage while they already have a contract. The Bills are far from innocent of bungling the past decade, but things have to change to have players and teams honor the contracts.

[PDaDdy]

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

 

 

Part of the guaranteed money in my opinion is about covering for exactly that situation. We forget the stories of the promising athletes that due to an injury had potentially bright futures ruined. In a way it is like an insurance policy or signing bonus. I don't know if you have ever gotten an equivalent of a signing bonus, AKA "guaranteed money", but it is to attract good talent. This is the case in the business world and in the NFL which is if people have forgotten first and foremost a business.

 

I guess I'm having trouble following you. I you trying to say that since a player could get injured and is still due their signing bonus that owners should have the right to void contracts whenever they feel like it? I don't get it. People can't see the forest for the trees. Let's look at the Andre Johnson situation.

 

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

It is a yes or no question by the way.

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

Also a yes or no question.

[PDaDdy]

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.

 

Other than you hate basketball, I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with my statement that you don't hear about contract issues in the NBA compared to the NFL and that they must be doing something right.

[PDaDdy]

I agree with your point.

 

At no point do I believe that the Bills have invested their money wisely. That is why John Guy is gone. Modrak should be as well, as his track record this past decade is horrendous.

 

With that being said, nothing you bring up diminishes what I am saying about players holding their team hostage while they already have a contract. The Bills are far from innocent of bungling the past decade, but things have to change to have players and teams honor the contracts.

 

Absolutely. As someone educated me I think that like the NBA NFL contracts should be guaranteed. YES, agents AND GMs will have to learn how to write good contracts in the new system. Any contract over 5 years is a complete and total joke. You could even make a case that any contract over 3 years is a joke. So much changes from year to year that trying to set a price for a players services 2, 3, 5, 6, years down the road is folly.

 

The adjustment that COULD be made especially for star athletes is to attempt to put in a clause that increases the players salary by the percentage increase in the salary cap from year to year. This way an awesome player who is the best at their position will still be paid like it a couple years down the road. You could also add a clause like they use for the franchise tag. Player X will be paid the average of the top 5 players at his position. It's a built in raise structure.

 

That even being said I still think the answer is truly guaranteed contracts. Unbreakable by the player AND the organization.

[agardin]

This thread is great but it is causing my head to hurt. Andre Johnson's situation is crazy, because of performance he had his original deal torn up and given a new deal with 15 million guaranteed. Guaranteed is what it sounds like, the terms of the contract are for 8 years and a total of 60 million dollars. Because of the threat of injury, NFL contracts have a large % of the total value of the contract paid over the first few years and are guaranteed. He currently has a full five years left on his deal and he wants to renogatiate AGAIN. According to everyone in the league his case has no precedent because of how much time is left on his current deal.

 

I know all of the above has already been said but....Everyone that argues that the owners can get out of any contract prior to the expiry of the contract so the overall contract is in their favour doesn't understand the concept of guaranteed signing bonuses. When you hear of crazy contracts ala Nate Clemens, the only thing that counts is the guaranteed money as it is the only thing that the player would be entitled to no matter what happens. I expect Drew Rosenhaus et al understands this.

 

Andre's problem is that he renegotiated too soon, at his behest. If he waited until Larry Fitzgerald had signed his deal he would be the top paid receiver in the game with a ton of it guaranteed. The trade off is that if he got hurt before he resigned he would be SOL. That is business and that is life. If I were a GM of an NFL team I would gladly renogiate rookie deals for the likes of Chris Johnson, Andre and Jason Peters for that matter when their original deal wasn't close to be fair. Once a deal is renegotiated I would never renegotiate a second time within the first few years of resigning. Houston may have a problem on their hands as he is their best player and I would say the best at his position.

 

If they choose not to resign him, which there will be huge pressure to do in this year of labour strife. They will have a disgruntled player who may or may not turn up, if they trade him they will never get the level of compensation they deserve as his stock has fallen because of his situation. Rock and hard place if you ask me and also a good illustration of why the system doesn't really favour owners.

[K-9]

PLAYERS: It's actually evolving in the wrong direction. The recent trend toward more money being guaranteed is making things worse. There should be no overall team cap - just a positional cap for players. No one should be making as much money as ten other starters. I believe that there should be a guaranteed pay to offer a safety net because of the physical risks involved. But I disagree with the ridiculous paychecks being handed out. I agree with adjusting salaries based upon performance, as stated above. True, stats do not tell the whole story, but that's true for almost any job. Many people have someone evaluate their performance at least annually with bonuses and future raises impacted accordingly. Of course, the other key factor is how the organization is doing.

 

OWNERS: After their initial investment, owners are in a low risk mode for the rest of their tenure. So they are more like bankers or stock brokers who make handsome profits/commissions no matter what happens. In essence, the owners are getting guaranteed paychecks also.

 

FANS: These are the real owners. They pay all the bills and salaries, but have no voice in controlling costs because the business is a monopoly. Would-be pro competition in football is crushed (in the U.S.) or gobbled up by the NFL (see AFL of the 1960s) or starved (the CFL). The greed of owners and players is a runaway problem that will not be solved until the cash cow gets sick. Only fan rebellion will stop the bleeding, but that may not happen for a long time because the sport is so addictive to fans (like me). I don't want fans to walk away or a strike or lockout to happen, and I hope the government continues to give preferential treatment to the NFL. So I can't really B word too much about this because I am part of the problem.

 

Lots of interesting food for thought. I would only add that fans have the ultimate voice in controlling costs. If TV ratings plummeted, ticket sales tanked, and merchandise revenues went south all due to fan dis-interest in the product, you can bet it would have an impact on costs.

 

TV rating declines would cause a significant decrease in the amount spent by the networks for the right to televise the games. TV revenues are the goose that lays the golden egg. ANY serious drop in those revenues, which again, are based on ratings, would severely impact team operations around the league. But the NFL has never been more popular with viewers so that's not likely. But the power is STILL in the hands of the fan. Fans lose interest, teams lose money.

 

A decline in TV ratings would also mean a decline in paid attendance. Teams would be forced to lower ticket and concession prices to attract people to the games. This also would have severe impact on bottom line performance and would force changes.

 

Bottom line is that if fans should lose interest teams would lose dollars and players wouldn't be paid as much.

 

Fans definately have the power. But it looks as though they'll never exercise that power in numbers large enough to make a dent in the league's purses. For every jaded old fan there's a new one excited and ready to climb aboard. The NFL has done a masterful marketing job over the years and will continue to do so.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K Gun Special]

I would argue: if side A can walk away from a multi-year contract and owe side B nothing, while side B is bound by the terms of the contract for the entire life of the contract, the contract is egregiously benefiting side A by definition. The very thought of it is unconscionable.

 

The courts have not taken that position, however.

 

 

It depends on the context of the contract. You cannot simply walk away from a valid contract. Coaches/gm who are fired and still receive $$ do so because its in the language of the agreement. its guaranteed money.

 

If side A walks away from the deal then they are not performing under the terms and Side B is NOT bound to pay them for the life of the contract....

 

i havent read the entire 5 pages of this post so if there is some context im missing?

[mchammer]

And you can leave at any time and work for a different company, doing your same job. YOU are not under contract. When an NFL coach has a 4-year contract and gets fired after year #2, the team typically still has to pay that coach for two more years as that was the term of the contract. If they choose not to pay (they have to claim insubordination or some other egregious violation) there are lawsuits to fight. Same goes for an NFL GM.

 

Any contract that binds one side but not the other is a one-sided contract.

 

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.

[BuffOrange]

I understand your point and many casual sports fans are frustrated by the idea of players not honoring their contracts, especially when there are many years left on the contract or in cases where the "ink is barely dry" on the contract.

 

But there are huge differences between the NFL and the other major professional sports:

 

Contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed (only the signing bonus portion is guaranteed).

 

NFL players have shorter careers than athletes in the other sports and more often, risk catastrophic and career-ending injury.

 

There is nothing preventing a team from terminating a player's contract who in the team's estimation, is no longer worth the money which his contract stipulates that he be paid. If he becomes less-productive and/or gets injured, they can cut him.

 

So, you're asking a player to honor a contract in a league where the team often doesn't honor that same contract.

 

With regard to your example of Andre Johnson, who is making $5.8 million per year, there are wide receivers in the NFL (Lee Evans among them) making $9 million per year. Now what if Johnson (who is now underpaid and will continue to be under the terms of his present contract) has a career debilitating injury from which he never truly recovers, or even worse, a career-ending injury?

 

In other sports, the injured player would still collect ALL the money on his contract, even if he were to never play again. In the NFL, Johnson could be cut and be owed NO MORE MONEY.

 

NFL players have very short careers. They play probably the most violent sport and they risk career-ending and catastrophic injuries more than players in other sports.

 

These are the compelling reasons that NFL players feel strongly that they must maximize their earnings, regardless of how the public feels about it.

 

IMO, no discussion of this issue is complete without considering the facts that:

 

A) NFL contracts are not guaranteed (even though they are in the NBA, NHL, and MLB)

B) NFL careers are much shorter than careers in the other major professional sports

 

If I were an NFL football player, I don't think I'd particularly care how the public reacted to my desire for more money…regardless of how many years remained on my contract (if I knew I was woefully underpaid).

 

Now Albert Haynesworth wanting to be traded out of Washington? I have a whole different take on that. He's getting ridiculous money. He needs to shut his mouth and do what the coaches tell him to do.

 

JaMarcus Russell? He needed to get off his lazy ass and lose some weight and study the playbook and act like what he was…the highest paid player on his team.

 

But Andre Johnson? The guy who works his ass off, plays through injuries, is a great teammate, leader, and one of the best players at his position? Andre Johnson who is one of the top two receivers in the game but who makes about half of what Larry Fitzgerald makes?

 

Sounds to me like he deserves a raise.

 

I agree with this. The "having it both ways" is a really nice, populist thing for fans to say and it applies to most leagues. But not really for the NFL.

[agardin]

Part of the guaranteed money in my opinion is about covering for exactly that situation. We forget the stories of the promising athletes that due to an injury had potentially bright futures ruined. In a way it is like an insurance policy or signing bonus. I don't know if you have ever gotten an equivalent of a signing bonus, AKA "guaranteed money", but it is to attract good talent. This is the case in the business world and in the NFL which is if people have forgotten first and foremost a business.

 

I guess I'm having trouble following you. I you trying to say that since a player could get injured and is still due their signing bonus that owners should have the right to void contracts whenever they feel like it? I don't get it. People can't see the forest for the trees. Let's look at the Andre Johnson situation.

 

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

It is a yes or no question by the way.

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

Also a yes or no question.

 

 

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.

[abqmarko]

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.

 

I agree and there are several other leagues like the CFL, UFL, Arena League etc-they may not pay the same, oh well

[PDaDdy]

This thread is great but it is causing my head to hurt. Andre Johnson's situation is crazy, because of performance he had his original deal torn up and given a new deal with 15 million guaranteed. Guaranteed is what it sounds like, the terms of the contract are for 8 years and a total of 60 million dollars. Because of the threat of injury, NFL contracts have a large % of the total value of the contract paid over the first few years and are guaranteed. He currently has a full five years left on his deal and he wants to renogatiate AGAIN. According to everyone in the league his case has no precedent because of how much time is left on his current deal.

 

I know all of the above has already been said but....Everyone that argues that the owners can get out of any contract prior to the expiry of the contract so the overall contract is in their favour doesn't understand the concept of guaranteed signing bonuses. When you hear of crazy contracts ala Nate Clemens, the only thing that counts is the guaranteed money as it is the only thing that the player would be entitled to no matter what happens. I expect Drew Rosenhaus et al understands this.

 

Andre's problem is that he renegotiated too soon, at his behest. If he waited until Larry Fitzgerald had signed his deal he would be the top paid receiver in the game with a ton of it guaranteed. The trade off is that if he got hurt before he resigned he would be SOL. That is business and that is life. If I were a GM of an NFL team I would gladly renogiate rookie deals for the likes of Chris Johnson, Andre and Jason Peters for that matter when their original deal wasn't close to be fair. Once a deal is renegotiated I would never renegotiate a second time within the first few years of resigning. Houston may have a problem on their hands as he is their best player and I would say the best at his position.

 

If they choose not to resign him, which there will be huge pressure to do in this year of labour strife. They will have a disgruntled player who may or may not turn up, if they trade him they will never get the level of compensation they deserve as his stock has fallen because of his situation. Rock and hard place if you ask me and also a good illustration of why the system doesn't really favour owners.

 

 

I understand that there are some bad choices made by owners like Daniel Snyder and whoever did the deal fro Jake Delhomme. But you can't indite the system because of a few bad examples. I understand that you are trying to spread out the guaranteed money over the course of the contract to look at it like salary but in some cases it is a signing bonus in others it's like a guaranteed bonus every year. I don't know what line of work you are in but those aren't exactly equivalent. Some clarification which may sharpen your perspective on this is that.

 

Guaranteed Money =/= Guaranteed Contract

Guaranteed Money =/= Salary