NFLPA Says Owners Colluding Against Guaranteed Contracts

[EDGECRUSHER]

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.
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.

Good points too. A slight difference between NFL and MLB/NBA is that the NFL has a hard cap. MLB doesn't have a cap, just luxury tax penalties that act as a de facto cap. NBA is similar in some ways. I'm not counting the NHL since their top star makes less than Gesicki.

So, the Yankees can be right around the Luxury Tax threshhold and still sign a $40 Million free agent if they want, they just havr to pay a penalty. In the NFL, that's that. The NFL just needs to raise the cap or have it so teams forfeit draft picks by going over it a certain dollar amount.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

I wasn't necessarily advocating cutting any existing contracts, but if MLB teams spent more on MiLB they might cut how much they are willing to spend on other players by about the same amount. 

[fyo]

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.

MLB doesn't have a salary floor, so teams aren't forced to spend a specific amount of money.

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.

If the NFLPA wanted to pursue better terms for injured players and those making the least, that would likely be a lot easier. The owners are extremely conservative when it comes to anything that affects "The Product" and messing with star players definitely falls into that category.

As long as the total "pie" for the players isn't changed, none of the proposals change the financials for owners, except if it were to damage interest in teams / the league as a whole. And since all teams would be operating under the same rules, there wouldn't be any direct competitive changes either.

[Spider-Dan]

IIRC, most NFL contracts are guaranteed for injury anyway (and teams are insured for their value), so a lot of the talk in this thread about injured players eating up salary is immaterial.

"[I]njuries sustained by a player while working out at a club facility or as specifically authorized by his club are considered 'Football-Related Injuries.' Under our agreement with the NFL Players Association, players that sustain 'Football-Related Injuries' are entitled to significant protections, including: (i) payment of Paragraph 5 Salary; (ii) medical care; (iii) pension credit (if the player is unable to perform services for three regular season games due to the injury) and (iv) other benefits, such as Injury Protection, which will provide payments to players in seasons following the season of a career ending injury."

In general, a lot of this discussion around guaranteed contracts and their potential impact on the NFL seems to be missing the point.

Right now, today, teams aren't saving money (or cap space) by cutting injured players.
Right now, today, teams are unwilling to cut expensive, underperforming players due to the significant cap burden from dead money they have already committed to them.

What system are we supposed to be protecting, here?

[EDGECRUSHER]

^^^

Do injuries remove salary from the salary cap?

[Spider-Dan]

Not if they are on the roster when the season starts.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Dead money comes from guaranteed money. No guaranteed money no dead money. 

And also just because contracts are guaranteed for injury doesn't mean the player is.  If a late round draft pick gets a permanent disability during his first year the injury payment won't cover his future problems.

[Spider-Dan]

Dead money comes from guaranteed money. No guaranteed money no dead money.

Signing bonuses are guaranteed money, but no one is in here saying that signing bonuses are a problem and make the league worse.

If a late round draft pick gets a permanent disability during his first year the injury payment won't cover his future problems.

See above:

"and (iv) other benefits, such as Injury Protection, which will provide payments to players in seasons following the season of a career ending injury."

[masterfins]

Dead money comes from guaranteed money. No guaranteed money no dead money. 

Not really.  Signing bonuses are amortized over the life of the contract; so if a player gets a $10M signing bonus as part of a 5 year contract, then $2M is applied per year to the teams' salary cap - this creates dead money if the team cuts the player after two years.  So technically you could be right if the team elects to take the full signing bonus hit in the year paid; but that makes it tough to sign top FA's because signing bonuses would decrease because teams couldn't pay as much due to caps.

[Spider-Dan]

He's saying that if you don't pay a player any signing bonus at all, there's no cap hit if you release that player.

Of course, the front office that adopts that strategy won't have to worry about overpaid talent, because no talented free agents would ever consider signing with them.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

He's saying that if you don't pay a player any signing bonus at all, there's no cap hit if you release that player.

Of course, the front office that adopts that strategy won't have to worry about overpaid talent, because no talented free agents would ever consider signing with them.

Not necessarily.  Many signing bonuses aren’t really bonuses at all, but rather year 1 salary with the cap hit spread into later years.

Plus I never said teams should get rid of *all* guaranteed money. But I disagree with the NFLPA’s assertions that just because 31 other teams aren’t as stupid as the Browns it mean collusion is occurring.

[masterfins]

Not necessarily.  Many signing bonuses aren’t really bonuses at all, but rather year 1 salary with the cap hit spread into later years.

Well that's definitely true.  Probably 75% (or more) of most signing bonuses are actually year one salary.  It's always a game of trying to stay under the cap and put salary off to a future year; when the cap will be raised due to revenue.