NFLPA Says Owners Colluding Against Guaranteed Contracts

[EDGECRUSHER]

They cite players like Lamar Jackson not getting the same fully guaranteed contract that Deshaun Watson did. I believe we all said this at the time, but the NFLPA wanted this to be the new standard and the Owners absolutely did not. I wouldn't be shocked if the Browns' owners were basically shunned from the other owner's Reindeer Games after what they did.

As we saw with Ross, do not underestimate the stupidity of some owners to literally send a group email stating "We need to collude against guaranteed contracts" in the subject line, but unless something like that exists, the NFLPA has no case.

With injuries and the salary cap, owners have all the reasons in the world not to guarantee $270 Million to one player.

[Spider-Dan]

If everyone is guaranteeing contracts, the salary cap is not a relevant objection.  The salary cap only matters for team salaries relative to the other teams.

[EDGECRUSHER]

If everyone is guaranteeing contracts, the salary cap is not a relevant objection.  The salary cap only matters for team salaries relative to the other teams.

It matters if the salary cap still exists and now you are locked into a QB at $50 Million for the next 6 years with no way out. Now, and maybe this is what you meant, if EVERY player's salary is guaranteed and not just the franchise players, then I agree. However, that would also lower salaries across the board if they don't come with a "Get Out of Jail" free card.

[fyo]

It matters if the salary cap still exists and now you are locked into a QB at $50 Million for the next 6 years with no way out. Now, and maybe this is what you meant, if EVERY player's salary is guaranteed and not just the franchise players, then I agree. However, that would also lower salaries across the board if they don't come with a "Get Out of Jail" free card.

I think the point is that the total sum the players get won't change one iota if contacts are guaranteed. Teams are pretty much forced to use very close to the max salary cap over a given number of years as it is, so the ONLY thing guaranteed contracts would do is move money from one player to another.

[EDGECRUSHER]

I think the point is that the total sum the players get won't change one iota if contacts are guaranteed. Teams are pretty much forced to use very close to the max salary cap over a given number of years as it is, so the ONLY thing guaranteed contracts would do is move money from one player to another.

I think the problem will be wiggle room. Right now, we are going to have to cut and restructure some guys in the next 1-2 years because we just gave out some big contracts. If every deal was guaranteed, then we would be screwed and likely would not have given out those deals in the first place. I think all contracts should be guaranteed like other sports, but I also know that the weird NFL Accounting allows for teams like the Rams to get creative and still give out big contracts when over the cap.

If every deal is guaranteed and there is no way out, I feel salaries for the "lesser people" will go down.

[Spider-Dan]

It matters if the salary cap still exists and now you are locked into a QB at $50 Million for the next 6 years with no way out.

Your opponents would also locked in for the same high-value position, so it doesn't make a difference... in exactly the same sense that when teams are currently penalized with huge "dead money" cap hits for cutting a player with a huge signing bonus early in the contract, that doesn't make a difference because their opponents are operating under the same constraint.

The salary cap is a mechanism to level the competitive playing field, nothing more.  Guaranteed contracts - be they for franchise players, or for all players - are not relevant to the salary cap as long as they are distributed equally among the teams (so as not to give a competitive advantage to one team or another).

Ironically, the biggest threat to competitive parity is if some teams are able to get all the good free agents because they are offering guaranteed contracts and their opponents are not... which is exactly why you would see NFL teams colluding to prevent guaranteed contracts from becoming popular.

[fyo]

Why should contacts be fully guaranteed? You're just moving money around, not making the pie any bigger, so you can't really use the "for the players" argument.

So who would actually gain from guaranteed contracts and who would lose? I think there's a real risk that we, the fans, would get a worse product, but focusing on the players, it would benefit players who sign big contracts and get injured (or can't be assed to actually play because their pinky hurts) and players whose level of play decline massively.

These players would get more money than they currently do, leaving less for everyone else. It very much is a zero sum game.

Veterans already have their yearly salary guaranteed if they're on a roster for week 1.

Teams cannot cut injured players.

Yeah, I'm not seeing a whole lot of upside for 90% of players. If the NFLPA wanted better injury protections or better terms for the very lowest paid players I could understand that, but this us a move the will benefit the very few at the expense if the many.

[Spider-Dan]

Why should contacts be fully guaranteed? You're just moving money around, not making the pie any bigger, so you can't really use the "for the players" argument.

Fully guaranteed contracts offer more security to the players; just ask them.

There's a reason why the players in every other sport - players who have more negotiating power than NFL players - all wanted (and received) guaranteed contracts.  It's better "for the players," full stop.

So who would actually gain from guaranteed contracts and who would lose? I think there's a real risk that we, the fans, would get a worse product, but focusing on the players, it would benefit players who sign big contracts and get injured (or can't be assed to actually play because their pinky hurts) and players whose level of play decline massively.

This is not how MLB works.
This is not how the NBA works.
This is not how the NHL works.

The only real benefit of non-guaranteed contracts is to placate owners (and, to be honest, fans) who really like the idea of underperforming players losing money.  Competitively, the other leagues have shown that guaranteed contracts do not obstruct the production of a quality product, in any way.

[CF DolFan]

I don't blame them for wanting everyone on guaranteed contracts. Most people under contract are guaranteed unless you are an at-will employee of which you can be terminated at-will. If the NFL were to go guaranteed then I'd think contracts would get shorter. If Deshawn Watson get his leg shattered ala Joe Theisman or Bo Jackson's hip then you wont see any more.  Can you imagine?

[EDGECRUSHER]

I don't blame them for wanting everyone on guaranteed contracts. Most people under contract are guaranteed unless you are an at-will employee of which you can be terminated at-will. If the NFL were to go guaranteed then I'd think contracts would get shorter. If Deshawn Watson get his leg shattered ala Joe Theisman or Bo Jackson's hip then you wont see any more.  Can you imagine?

I think most contracts should be shorter, MLB is just starting to figure this out. They'll give much higher annual salaries to guys like Scherzer on 2-3 year deals but are hesitant to shell out the 10 year deals, and for good reason.

The franchise tag in the NFL is unique and allows teams to basically extend a short contract, I feel like it is a win for both sides. Sadly, the owners never budge during CBA negotiations so the players wouldn't agree to something like 5 year max deals and the only way the owners make that the new standard is through collusion.

[fyo]

Fully guaranteed contracts offer more security to the players; just ask them.

There's a reason why the players in every other sport - players who have more negotiating power than NFL players - all wanted (and received) guaranteed contracts.  It's better "for the players," full stop.
This is not how MLB works.
This is not how the NBA works.
This is not how the NHL works.

The only real benefit of non-guaranteed contracts is to placate owners (and, to be honest, fans) who really like the idea of underperforming players losing money.  Competitively, the other leagues have shown that guaranteed contracts do not obstruct the production of a quality product, in any way.

Then you are advocating for a change to the salary cap. Otherwise you really are just moving money around between players.

Look, the NFL isn't like the other leagues. The players get 48% of a very specifically defined revenue pie. The owners (as a total, across all teams) must pay the players at least 95% of the salary cap over a four year period.

So every single dollar Player A gets extra because his contract was guaranteed is exactly one dollar less that other players get. It's a zero sum game. Period.

It wouldn't be the first time that a group of people wanted something that wasn't in their interest, but if you look at players as a whole, who would benefit from more guaranteed contracts? The top players, obviously, since they are the ones who would get those contracts.

The alternative is to go straight to 100% guaranteed contracts, but that's not what is being argued. I don't dispute that players as a whole might want this and would probably even benefit from it. It would necessarily result in a reduction in pay to some players compared to what they would have gotten otherwise, but I can see the argument that the increased income security would outweigh a lower salary for players that don't underperform their contracts.

In terms of whether such a system would be more "fair" is obviously difficult. Personally, I think you would need to start at the bottom to really increase the fairness, but the most outspoken players are often those with the highest contracts, so I don't see that happening. But giving more guarantees to players signed for a single season (usually at or close to league minimum) would make sense. Again, no extra money is entering the system, so this would necessarily result in other players making less.

[EDGECRUSHER]

Then you are advocating for a change to the salary cap. Otherwise you really are just moving money around between players.

Look, the NFL isn't like the other leagues. The players get 48% of a very specifically defined revenue pie. The owners (as a total, across all teams) must pay the players at least 95% of the salary cap over a four year period.

So every single dollar Player A gets extra because his contract was guaranteed is exactly one dollar less that other players get. It's a zero sum game. Period.

It wouldn't be the first time that a group of people wanted something that wasn't in their interest, but if you look at players as a whole, who would benefit from more guaranteed contracts? The top players, obviously, since they are the ones who would get those contracts.

The alternative is to go straight to 100% guaranteed contracts, but that's not what is being argued. I don't dispute that players as a whole might want this and would probably even benefit from it. It would necessarily result in a reduction in pay to some players compared to what they would have gotten otherwise, but I can see the argument that the increased income security would outweigh a lower salary for players that don't underperform their contracts.

In terms of whether such a system would be more "fair" is obviously difficult. Personally, I think you would need to start at the bottom to really increase the fairness, but the most outspoken players are often those with the highest contracts, so I don't see that happening. But giving more guarantees to players signed for a single season (usually at or close to league minimum) would make sense. Again, no extra money is entering the system, so this would necessarily result in other players making less.

These are very good points. If the size of the Pie (salary cap) is unchanged, then we're just shifting around the slices and nothing more. As you said, the Lamar Jacksons will get more pie and the middle of the pack guys get less pie. No wiggle room means fewer risks with guaranteed money. I would love to see the salary cap increased but the NFLPA is weak and pathetic, so I don't see that happening. They can't even stop their players from getting suspended just from accusations.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

It seems like most of the unions only care about getting the few megastars who already getting ten million dollar a year plus even more at the expense of the guys at the bottom. 

NFLPA should care less about this and more about making sure the UDFA who gets permanently injured during training camp is taken care off.

Reducing the pay of the top MLB players by 1% could offset giving every minor league player a decent pay.  And improve the overall quality of life, a guy who makes $10,000 a year will notice a 50% increase a lot more than some one making $20 million would miss 1%. 

The NHL actually advocates for the entire roster.

[EDGECRUSHER]

It seems like most of the unions only care about getting the few megastars who already getting ten million dollar a year plus even more at the expense of the guys at the bottom. 

NFLPA should care less about this and more about making sure the UDFA who gets permanently injured during training camp is taken care off.

Reducing the pay of the top MLB players by 1% could offset giving every minor league player a decent pay.  And improve the overall quality of life, a guy who makes $10,000 a year will notice a 50% increase a lot more than some one making $20 million would miss 1%. 

The NHL actually advocates for the entire roster.

The top salaries of MLB players is arbitrary, so they can't reduce that by any amount without it being set in stone already.

But you're absolutely right about taking care of the minor leaguers, I just think the owners should foot the bill. After all, these guys can be your future, do you really want them worrying about bills and eating Ramen noodles? They should be taken care of via catered food and other amenities. Just common sense and it's a drop in the bucket compared to your average MLB payroll.

[Spider-Dan]

Then you are advocating for a change to the salary cap. Otherwise you really are just moving money around between players.

Look, the NFL isn't like the other leagues. The players get 48% of a very specifically defined revenue pie. The owners (as a total, across all teams) must pay the players at least 95% of the salary cap over a four year period.

AFAIK, this is how ALL the major leagues work.  All of them have a defined amount of revenue that goes to the players.  It's ALL shifting money around between the players.

It wouldn't be the first time that a group of people wanted something that wasn't in their interest, but if you look at players as a whole, who would benefit from more guaranteed contracts? The top players, obviously, since they are the ones who would get those contracts.

If you're talking about who benefits more at the beginning, then sure: it's the top players, since they will be the first to get guaranteed contracts.  But that's the system already in place right now; look at the players who have gotten the biggest signing bonuses (as a percentage of their contract) over the last 30 years.  The NFLPA is weak, and the only way to get from "a few guaranteed contracts for elite QBs" to "guaranteed contracts for many elite players" to "guaranteed contracts for all players" is one step at a time, using the leverage of players who actually HAVE leverage.