Big Turk Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Looks like this could be heading to a court soon. Claims Owners illegally colluded to prevent players from getting fully guaranteed contracts... https://sports.yahoo.com/nflpa-claims-nfl-owners-colluded-to-prevent-teams-from-offering-fully-guaranteed-contracts-151929807.html 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strive_for_five_guy Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Like the anonymous exec essentially said, just because the Browns were dumb enough to guarantee Watson all of that money, doesn’t mean that everyone else needs to do the same. 7 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted November 22, 2022 Author Share Posted November 22, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, strive_for_five_guy said: Like the anonymous exec essentially said, just because the Browns were dumb enough to guarantee Watson all of that money, doesn’t mean that everyone else needs to do the same. Yes of course, but collusion implies all of the owners got on a call or in a meeting room and agreed not to do it again. If they have proof of it, that's illegal. Edited November 22, 2022 by Big Turk 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strive_for_five_guy Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 21 minutes ago, Big Turk said: Yes of course, but collusion implies all of the owners got on a call or in a meeting room and agreed not to do it again. If they have proof of it, that's illegal. Understood, it will be interesting to see what their “proof” is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Browns are idiots. Even most of the players know that Watson contract was stupid. Just because someone does something out of pure desperation doesn’t mean it should become the norm 1 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BullBuchanan Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 NFL deals should absolutely be fully guaranteed. I hope they get it. To offset they should also reduce or eliminate the concept of dead cap. 1 6 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_In_NH Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Just a matter of time......... 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayboy54 Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Of course they did. But, where is illegal to decide how you can run your private business. This is not a government institution. It’s the NFL. If they make a rule to have a salary cap, is it illegal? If they make a rule that you cannot trade players after the deadline, is it illegal? If they make a rule that no fully guaranteed contracts are allows, it is likewise not illegal. Neither was player rights ownership, until the government decided to meddle and make it so. I suppose they could do the same thing here. But, if they do they could also say that all tailgates are illegal, or all seats must be priced at $300. Or that no drinking is allowed at NFL games. Do you want them to continue down this path, or just leave things alone? 1 2 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Grundy Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 SURPRISED?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 (edited) 30 minutes ago, clayboy54 said: Of course they did. But, where is illegal to decide how you can run your private business. This is not a government institution. It’s the NFL. If they make a rule to have a salary cap, is it illegal? If they make a rule that you cannot trade players after the deadline, is it illegal? If they make a rule that no fully guaranteed contracts are allows, it is likewise not illegal. Neither was player rights ownership, until the government decided to meddle and make it so. I suppose they could do the same thing here. But, if they do they could also say that all tailgates are illegal, or all seats must be priced at $300. Or that no drinking is allowed at NFL games. Do you want them to continue down this path, or just leave things alone? The NFL has a number of antitrust exemptions. It is important to understand that under regular US law, teams would have to operate independently of one another. No draft, no salary cap, no league-wide broadcasting deals, no franchise tag or free agency rules, etc. All would be in violation of antitrust laws. Teams would operate like any other competing companies. I’m not saying that there’s a case in this instance or that there’s not. I have no idea if the NFLPA can prove that owners have colluded to not fully guarantee long term contracts. But if they can, then the NFL would be in real trouble. It would be as illegal as all of the large IT company CEOs getting together to set industry-wide wage scales for programmers. If I had to take a guess, I’d say this is probably a lot like airline ticket pricing. Airlines collude constantly, but good luck proving it. Edited November 22, 2022 by BarleyNY 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearNorth Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Without some of the antitrust exemptions doubtful a small market like Buffalo would ever have a team. 2 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Yeah, they're going to have to have real proof, not "well, no one QB got a guaranteed contract." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasNootz Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 56 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: NFL deals should absolutely be fully guaranteed. I hope they get it. To offset they should also reduce or eliminate the concept of dead cap. Guarantee them for injury - but not for laziness. You shouldn't have to pay a player like Albert Haynesworth that eats himself out of the league after getting paid. 3 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayboy54 Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 6 minutes ago, BarleyNY said: The NFL has a number of antitrust exemptions. It is important to understand that under regular US law, teams would have to operate independently of one another. No draft, no salary cap, no league-wide broadcasting deals, no franchise tag or free agency rules, etc. All would be in violation of antitrust laws. Teams would operate like any other competing companies. I’m not saying that there’s a case in this instance or that there’s not. I have no idea if the NFLPA can prove that owners have colluded to not fully guarantee long term contracts. But if they can, then the NFL would be in real trouble. It would be as illegal as all of the large IT company CEOs getting together to set industry-wide wage scales for programmers. If I had to take a guess, I’d say this is probably a lot like airline ticket pricing. Airlines collude constantly, but good luck proving it. I think you’re taking it a little too deep. Not having long-term guaranteed contracts is not at all fixed wage scales. These guys can earn as much or even more with the current way the contracts are incentivized for production. That would all go away with guaranteed contracts. Also, it goes both ways which would not be good. On a guaranteed contract, the ability to renegotiate would not be as available. Plus, the no-cut, no-trade clauses and similar verbiage would probably not apply. Plus, what does that do to the salary cap? Signing bonuses and other incentives? Okay, I understand that a guaranteed contract is a hedge against serious injury. Other than that, it is not what it is made out to be for the players. This would open the door to re-designing The Whole Enchalada. As I see it, the only thing that would do is guarantee a player strike. (And rightfully so.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted November 22, 2022 Author Share Posted November 22, 2022 53 minutes ago, clayboy54 said: Of course they did. But, where is illegal to decide how you can run your private business. This is not a government institution. It’s the NFL. If they make a rule to have a salary cap, is it illegal? If they make a rule that you cannot trade players after the deadline, is it illegal? If they make a rule that no fully guaranteed contracts are allows, it is likewise not illegal. Neither was player rights ownership, until the government decided to meddle and make it so. I suppose they could do the same thing here. But, if they do they could also say that all tailgates are illegal, or all seats must be priced at $300. Or that no drinking is allowed at NFL games. Do you want them to continue down this path, or just leave things alone? That doesn't matter for it to be collusioin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 (edited) 11 minutes ago, clayboy54 said: I think you’re taking it a little too deep. Not having long-term guaranteed contracts is not at all fixed wage scales. These guys can earn as much or even more with the current way the contracts are incentivized for production. That would all go away with guaranteed contracts. Also, it goes both ways which would not be good. On a guaranteed contract, the ability to renegotiate would not be as available. Plus, the no-cut, no-trade clauses and similar verbiage would probably not apply. Plus, what does that do to the salary cap? Signing bonuses and other incentives? Okay, I understand that a guaranteed contract is a hedge against serious injury. Other than that, it is not what it is made out to be for the players. This would open the door to re-designing The Whole Enchalada. As I see it, the only thing that would do is guarantee a player strike. (And rightfully so.) I’m not really arguing one side or the other. I can see some real downside if the NFL went to all fully guaranteed contracts and why teams don’t want to do that. I can also see why the players think more contracts should be fully guaranteed and why they think there is collusion by owners. I was more just trying to point out what the landscape looks like and discuss that, if proven, it would be a problem for the NFL. Edited November 22, 2022 by BarleyNY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7975 Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 How is that different from the nfl getting together and putting in the salary cap? Im not saying this isn’t collusion or wrong to do I just seriously don’t know how it’s different. I’ve always thought player contracts should be guaranteed. They made a contract with the player. If they cut the player I think they should still be paid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayboy54 Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Just now, Scott7975 said: How is that different from the nfl getting together and putting in the salary cap? Im not saying this isn’t collusion or wrong to do I just seriously don’t know how it’s different. I’ve always thought player contracts should be guaranteed. They made a contract with the player. If they cut the player I think they should still be paid. I know… if you really stink and get cut by multiple teams, you might become a billionaire. What a great concept. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paup 1995MVP Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said: NFL deals should absolutely be fully guaranteed. I hope they get it. To offset they should also reduce or eliminate the concept of dead cap. That's just stupid. Nothing should be guaranteed. You play well, you get paid. You don't play well, hit the bricks and go work on a loading dock or drive for UPS. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDIGGZ Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 I don't agree with guaranteed contracts. The player will just pretend like they are hurt and collect game checks. It's a physical game, it's not like other leagues. I think it should be a pay for play system. You don't play or play poorly then you make less. All contracts incentive based 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenorthremembers Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 35 minutes ago, Big Turk said: That doesn't matter for it to be collusioin. Serious question. How is collusion different than forming a union and making decisions together? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cle23 Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 33 minutes ago, Scott7975 said: How is that different from the nfl getting together and putting in the salary cap? Im not saying this isn’t collusion or wrong to do I just seriously don’t know how it’s different. I’ve always thought player contracts should be guaranteed. They made a contract with the player. If they cut the player I think they should still be paid. It's different because the salary cap is negotiated with the NFLPA. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 2 hours ago, Big Turk said: Looks like this could be heading to a court soon. Claims Owners illegally colluded to prevent players from getting fully guaranteed contracts... https://sports.yahoo.com/nflpa-claims-nfl-owners-colluded-to-prevent-teams-from-offering-fully-guaranteed-contracts-151929807.html There is a lawsuit that is a loser. All any GM has to do is to point to injury history and cap impact. 2 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said: Serious question. How is collusion different than forming a union and making decisions together? Because the law allows for unions 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenorthremembers Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 minute ago, BuffaloBill said: There is a lawsuit that is a loser. All any GM has to do is to point to injury history and cap impact. Because the law allows for unions But aren't the owners as a collective group considered a union? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 DeMaurice Smith has been the absolute worst head of the NFLPA ever. He makes horrible deals then tries to litigate the things he should have been negotiating on.. and loses.. continually. So he spends a lot of NFLPA money on negotiating the CBA and loses then spends a bunch of money on these lawsuits and loses.. over and over and over.. I hope the next guy is more competent than the two current idiots running things for the players currently. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 hour ago, BarleyNY said: The NFL has a number of antitrust exemptions. It is important to understand that under regular US law, teams would have to operate independently of one another. No draft, no salary cap, no league-wide broadcasting deals, no franchise tag or free agency rules, etc. All would be in violation of antitrust laws. Teams would operate like any other competing companies. I’m not saying that there’s a case in this instance or that there’s not. I have no idea if the NFLPA can prove that owners have colluded to not fully guarantee long term contracts. But if they can, then the NFL would be in real trouble. It would be as illegal as all of the large IT company CEOs getting together to set industry-wide wage scales for programmers. If I had to take a guess, I’d say this is probably a lot like airline ticket pricing. Airlines collude constantly, but good luck proving it. I guess my question is whether or not the NFL as a whole is one business, or at least a multiple businesses underneath one umbrella business. That could mean the owners can get together and decide whatever they want and it wouldn't be collusion. If they are separate businesses, that's where collusion comes in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Junction Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 hour ago, BearNorth said: Without some of the antitrust exemptions doubtful a small market like Buffalo would ever have a team. Small market isn’t the problem so much as owners depending on the team for income. Bills and packers would be fine. Raiders and bengals would need new ownership Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 42 minutes ago, Scott7975 said: How is that different from the nfl getting together and putting in the salary cap? Im not saying this isn’t collusion or wrong to do I just seriously don’t know how it’s different. I’ve always thought player contracts should be guaranteed. They made a contract with the player. If they cut the player I think they should still be paid. Contracts go both ways. If you are not performing as a player, the team should have a way to protect themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 so why isn't every owners' meeting where they discuss league business an example of collusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock'em Sock'em Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 This is a bit silly. Players and teams can each negotiate for the guarantees that want. Many contacts include enormous guarantees already. Taking away all of the non-guaranteed portion of a contract does not necessarily make it better for either the player or team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florida Bills Fanatic Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 This is the NFLPA taking a course of action that they probably know is a long shot, to appease their members that are complaining (ie Lamar Jackson, et al). The NFLPA had the chance to negotiate guaranteed contracts as part of their collective bargaining agreement and didn't do it. They either didn't think it was important enough to cause a strike over or they were unwilling to make other concessions to the owners to obtain it. This lawsuit will be a fools errand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted November 22, 2022 Author Share Posted November 22, 2022 (edited) 27 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said: There is a lawsuit that is a loser. All any GM has to do is to point to injury history and cap impact. Because the law allows for unions Unions were needed pretty much BECAUSE businesses often colluded back in the day with little to no penalties. 10 minutes ago, Rock'em Sock'em said: This is a bit silly. Players and teams can each negotiate for the guarantees that want. Many contacts include enormous guarantees already. Taking away all of the non-guaranteed portion of a contract does not necessarily make it better for either the player or team. The argument isn't that this isn't possible. The argument is that all of the owners, which would almost assuredly have happened with the commissioner's knowledge, got together and decided to put an end to fully guaranteed contracts. That is illegal and in fact one huge reason why unions exist today. They were in large part, born to combat this type of thing. It has nothing to do with guaranteed contracts happening or not happening, it has to do with WHY they aren't happening and if the owners are "in it together" to prevent it. With the argument you make, collusion wouldn't exist because any business could make the same argument. However, free markets are expected to act as free markets, not as one giant conglomerate that limits compettion. Edited November 22, 2022 by Big Turk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 3 minutes ago, Big Turk said: Unions were needed pretty much BECAUSE businesses often colluded back in the day with little to no penalties. The argument isn't that this isn't possible. The argument is that all of the owners, which would almost assuredly have happened with the commissioner's knowledge, for together and decided to put an end to fully guaranteed contracts. That is illegal. Is it illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted November 22, 2022 Author Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 minute ago, MJS said: Is it illegal? Free markets getting together to ensure something happens that is considered anti-competitive behavior? Yes. It's called collusion. It comes in many forms, there isn't a one form fits all definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 (edited) IMO there doesn't need to be "collusion" It's not something teams would want to do on their own. Browns only did it to beat out Atlanta. Edited November 22, 2022 by TheFunPolice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Just now, Big Turk said: Free markets getting together to ensure something happens that is considered anti-competitive behavior? Yes. It's called collusion. It comes in many forms, there isn't a one form fits all definition. The NFL is not a free market. It is a giant organization with collectively bargained rules. The owners have the power to not give out guaranteed contracts. The owners get together regularly and discuss issues related to the NFL as a whole. This is way different than Walmart and Target getting together to set a price ceiling for sneakers. Just wait and see. Nothing will come from this lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted November 22, 2022 Author Share Posted November 22, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, MJS said: The NFL is not a free market. It is a giant organization with collectively bargained rules. The owners have the power to not give out guaranteed contracts. The owners get together regularly and discuss issues related to the NFL as a whole. This is way different than Walmart and Target getting together to set a price ceiling for sneakers. Just wait and see. Nothing will come from this lawsuit. Of course it is...otherwise there wouldn't be free agency. Players would just be stuck with whatever team drafted them like it was backcin the day before the courts got involved and ruled in favor of the players. Except it's not really. If nothing comes from it, it will because they don't have definitive proof, not because it isn't illegal. Edited November 22, 2022 by Big Turk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 (edited) so is the point of the NFLPA that teams would have been handing out fully guaranteed deals absent this "collusion?" Because it seems like it would not benefit a team at ALL to do that, except in a case like Cleveland where they were going to do anything it took to land Watson Did the owners collude to deny Nathan Peterman another starting job too? Edited November 22, 2022 by TheFunPolice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 32 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said: But aren't the owners as a collective group considered a union? No, as a matter of fact they are a monopoly that has a special legal exemption. There is specific legislation also allowing for and protecting workers (not owners) rights to form a union and collectively bargain. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Not having guaranteed contracts allows players to hold-out/tweet about their disrespect to get back to the negotiating table. Many players play 2-3 years into a 5 year contract, then start complaining. Guaranteed contract will guarantee they have no recourse to get a raise. It’ll also put big time constraints on the salary cap. No more restructuring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.