Jump to content

Are sports’ drafts fair to the players?


Recommended Posts

If you still had a cap, it would be a bit unfair to the veteran players who earned their way through service term, as every dollar that gets added to the typical ELCs would come out of their potential pay.  You would probably see quite a bit more early retirement and shorter career spans. 

Because of this, players in the NFLPA and their leadership would probably have abolishing the draft as an extremely low priority in their CBA negotiation wish-list.  They actually bargained the ELC structure down for incoming players in more recent years.  It was bad before, i cant imagine if incoming players had all the leverage a UFA enjoys, if not more because you are bidding on potential and speculation.

Edited by May Day 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big Turk said:

 

It would be glorified Free Agency and the league doesn't want that.  They want parity.

How would this eliminate Parity?

 

The best players are going to spots (AKA QB's) where they have a chance to start right away.

 

They arn't going to sign a huge deal to be a backup somewhere for a team with an already good QB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Safe to say the majority of your skills were gained through on the job training? That's not the case for nfl players. The skills that makes them able to join the league are developed prior to joining the league.

 

Also, I do believe there is a difference between gov't jobs and jobs in the private sector.

 

And yes, the military and the nfl both do a bad job preparing their employees for post career life.

 

True, the army taught me many skills that have no value in the civilian world while NFL players !earn most of their skills prior to the NFL.

 

Still, why do players learn those skills?  I'll hazard a guess: because they dream of playing in the NFL.  And that means going into the draft.  

 

If they didn't accept the obligations that come with the biggest employer (the NFL), they should have prepared themselves for a different career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HardyBoy said:

 

So having freedom to choose where to work is now a liberal crusade? Ok, whatever you say, but I'd recommend maybe going back and learning some stuff about capitalism.

I’m quite versed on capitalism. Sports leagues certainly have the power over employees for a period of time. If an athlete chooses to take up a different vocation that have that right. In fact years ago some top college players did just that . As the revenue and income increased the players went where they could earn more and that was in the NFL. Sure it’s not fair in a sense but the players don’t seem to mind the $. At year 4 or 5 they are open to go wherever they want. So I’d argue they benefit from this arrangement. I’d also argue if other non athletes had a similar financial situation right out of college they would be happy to go to Green Bay or Buffalo. 
 

I should not have thrown liberal out so liberally 😂, so I do stand corrected on that 👍.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of other people have said it, but it's a choice the players have if they want to play pro sports.  I don't see it as any different than the fact that if you want to be a working actor, you probably have to move to LA (or maybe NY.)

There are lotos of other fields in this country where you may have to relocate based on your job if you want to keep your job (thinking in energy production, and I'm sure there are many others.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CountDorkula said:

How would this eliminate Parity?

 

The best players are going to spots (AKA QB's) where they have a chance to start right away.

 

They arn't going to sign a huge deal to be a backup somewhere for a team with an already good QB. 

 

You've got an interesting take, CD. And I agree that a salary cap alone could potentially promote parity. But it would have to include fully guaranteed contracts. Otherwise, every current player would become more and more paranoid that they could be cut at any moment for a younger, cheaper "recruit". And that's how it would work. Teams would be going behind their players' backs to try to find cheaper alternatives. If you ask me, the anxiety that that would cause the players is far worse than forcing them to play somewhere for 4 years.

 

One more thing. Let's not forget that the NFL is made up of 32 raving egomaniac billionaire owners. None of them are going to be able to stomach being outbid by the others. So one of the functions of the draft is to protect the owners from themselves, i.e. to help prevent any internal friction from getting out of control.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no more trades then either?

 

This is a collectively bargained aspect of sports. The PLAYERS signed off on the deal, because they know a healthy league with 32 financially viable teams is best for the largest number of guys. It also is something the players agree to in order to get the owners to share a larger % of revenues. 

 

Draft goes away=% of revenues players get goes down significantly. 

 

Plus, there's only so many spots on the Bills and Chiefs rosters. 

 

Florio will always see the cloud in the silver lining. Last year he didn't want the draft to happen, training camp to happen, the season to happen, and he latches onto endlessly covers any negative story about the NFL. 

 

 

Edited by TheFunPolice
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to make everything perfect and fair from a players' standpoint... sure.  Scrap the CBA and make every player an independent contractor.  Every decent player will have a guaranteed contract and everybody will be a UFA whenever their contract is up.  No draft, no trades, no salary cap, no franchise tags, etc.   We will probably see a huge stratification of the league and teams like the Bills will not be able to compete on any sort of consistent basis (if they ever could).

 

 

While not perfect, the system now overall is fair and it promotes league growth.  The players get a % of the revenue and it is facilitated between a cap roof and cap floor.  

Edited by May Day 10
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, BornAgainBillsFan said:

 

You've got an interesting take, CD. And I agree that a salary cap alone could potentially promote parity. But it would have to include fully guaranteed contracts. Otherwise, every current player would become more and more paranoid that they could be cut at any moment for a younger, cheaper "recruit". And that's how it would work. Teams would be going behind their players' backs to try to find cheaper alternatives. If you ask me, the anxiety that that would cause the players is far worse than forcing them to play somewhere for 4 years.

 

One more thing. Let's not forget that the NFL is made up of 32 raving egomaniac billionaire owners. None of them are going to be able to stomach being outbid by the others. So one of the functions of the draft is to protect the owners from themselves, i.e. to help prevent any internal friction from getting out of control.

 

 

Happens in MLB and NBA.  They don't mind as much maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tipster19 said:

I watched an a video on ProFootballTalk and Mike Florio brought up a very good point. Sports are the only employment that comes to mind where the employee doesn’t get to choose where he gets employed. I never thought or looked at it that way but that’s a very good point. I wonder if sports’ drafts someday get eliminated. 

and you wonder why people shred you all the time..🤦‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mikemac2001 said:

I mean this is basic rules for sports stuff 
 

they are not forced to play they are eligible to be drafted then can sit a year and re enter 

 

In North America. In European sports the pro teams recruit players from a very early age to their youth academies, and they start getting paid as early as 13 years old. 

 

Players can chose to move to other teams, but their current team negotiates a transfer fee. 

 

For instance, when Stefan Diggs wanted out of Minnesota, he would have had much more control over where he went. As long as Minnesota and the team agree on the fee transfer and the new team and Diggs agree on the contract. 

 

In Diggs case, the Bills would have had to pay Minn probably 40-50 million for his rights.

 

Instead of letting free agents leave, teams sell their rights. Probably could have gotten 15 million for Shaq Lawson and maybe 20 mil for Jordan Phillips. 

 

Teams are constantly trying to woo players under contract away from other teams, and the market for player transfer can be steep. 

 

So there's no drafts. Each team has their own youth farm teams, and buy and sell players rights. 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you and your employer come to a mutually bargained agreement, which results in you earning generational type wealth in a handful of years, rather than using your college degree and earning a tiny fraction of what you would earn playing ball, then yes, the deal was "fair" to you. 

 

Players declare for the NFL draft, meaning THEY CHOOSE to enter the system. 

Edited by TheFunPolice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No and yes, the leagues set up these rules to have a competitive balance and get the best product which makes the league and the players the most money. So the players having to abide by the draft entry rules is within the terms of service a league can call upon. But the league has decided to slant the rules to benefit the veteran players and the teams initially.

 

 But the longer term gain of the competitive balance of the league is also what draws up the interests of the league. If the NFL had a European soccer style system I am not sure you would have as much interest in the league overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Doc said:

Is it fair that they make millions to play and game for half a year?  No.  Therefore if they think that not being able to choose where they play is unfair, too bad.

Yes, it is fair. They possess skills and talent that is deemed worth what they are paid, just like any other career. NFL owners are not bleeding money because they have to pay their players. These guys can do things that a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people are able to do.

 

Just because it's a lot of money, and more than you or I will ever see in a lifetime, doesn't make it "unfair".

10 hours ago, BornAgainBillsFan said:

This thread is one of the dumbest in recent memory. But I guess that's what we do as we count the hours until Thursday night.

 

The draft has been around for decades, and the players have been fine with it for decades, because they know that without it their cash cow dies a quick death. The draft provides hope for the bottom dwelling franchises, allowing their fans to at least feel that they might contend in a few years, by building a team of talent at the top of the board. Without the draft, players would gravitate to only warm weather cities, with owners who have bottomless checkbooks, and the league would become defunct within 5 years.

Explain soccer in Europe, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

Is it "fair" that people who play games for a living earn more than teachers, fire fighters, law enforcement officers, soldiers, etc?

Man, this is an argument 13 year olds make. I specifically remember debating this at school when I was young.

 

Answer is: the NFL makes a lot of money. Who is responsible for making that money? The players provide the product. Where would you have the bulk of that money go if not to the players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheFunPolice said:

If you and your employer come to a mutually bargained agreement, which results in you earning generational type wealth in a handful of years, rather than using your college degree and earning a tiny fraction of what you would earn playing ball, then yes, the deal was "fair" to you. 

 

Players declare for the NFL draft, meaning THEY CHOOSE to enter the system. 

It’s pointless, FunPolice...we are debating Gen Z...no matter how rational and logical your points are, they will not get through...God help the future of this country...🤣🤣🤣

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CountDorkula said:

How would this eliminate Parity?

 

The best players are going to spots (AKA QB's) where they have a chance to start right away.

 

They arn't going to sign a huge deal to be a backup somewhere for a team with an already good QB. 

People are convinced that:

A) parity is a good thing (because no one looks back fondly on dynasties)

B) the cap and draft are the only reason parity exists (untrue with the cap, dunno about the draft).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Boxcar said:

Yes, it is fair. They possess skills and talent that is deemed worth what they are paid, just like any other career. NFL owners are not bleeding money because they have to pay their players. These guys can do things that a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people are able to do.

 

Just because it's a lot of money, and more than you or I will ever see in a lifetime, doesn't make it "unfair".

 

You realize the hypocrisy of this statement, coupled with the ones right above it, right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...