What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

CBA agreed in principle (1 Viewer)

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
Chris Mortensen, on ESPN Sportcenter, just now stated that there IS an agreement in principle, and it will be with a revenue figure at 59.5% and some cap over cash limitations.

Said that the NFL accepted Upshaws last proposal ten minutes after the deadline. It still needs to go to the owners for final ratification and approvel, so its not definite. But a deal has been reached.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I laugh at the notion that people are angry at Gene Upshaw and the NFLPA. You wont find an example anywhere in the world of a Union that works so closely with its employer - and with the same interests - as the NFLPA over the last 20 years. Gene Upshaw, while fighting for player rights, ultimately has the Leagues best interests at heart. He is one of the silent heroes of the NFL, and one of the of the key protaganists for the leagues continued growth. And all he gets for it is grief.

A salary cap is NOT in the players best interest, yet Upshaw goes along with it ONLY because its in the best interest of the League. As a result, he asks for a greater percentage of revenues for player salaries, even though its still less FAR LESS than players would earn in an uncapped NFL. The players DESERVE better. And the League knows it.

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Yet player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport. Players get paid LESS than their peers from the NBA and MLB, even though Football is more popular and generates more revenues than other leagues. How can anyone point the finger at Upshaw when he has taken such a moderate stance against the owners over the years? Hes the good guy in all this, not the villain.

Do you want to point the finger at someone? Look at the new, greedy, "leveraged" owners that purchased their Franchises in small markets for $500 million, and now have to do everythting imaginable to turn a profit and justify their investment. These are the people that are rocking the boat, not the NFLPA. They want to keep player salaries down AND prevent rich-owners from over-spending (cash over cap). Essentially, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They are the ones causing the problems here, not the union.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NFL, union agree to delay free agency 72 hours

NEW YORK -- NFL labor negotiations took yet another surprising turn late Sunday when the league and union agreed to postpone free agency another 72 hours, giving the sides more time to try to reach agreement on an extension to their contract. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the delay would give owners a chance to consider the union's latest proposal during a meeting Tuesday in Dallas.

"The NFL negotiators called us tonight after our negotiations broke off to indicate that they will take our complete package to the owners for an approval vote on Tuesday," Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players' Association, said late Sunday night. "We have therefore agreed to extend the free agency deadline until midnight Wednesday in order to provide time for that vote to be accomplished. It was the NFL's previous rejection of our proposal earlier this evening that caused the talks to break down."

The deal that NFL owners will vote on guarantees that players will receive 59.5 percent of all football revenue over the six-year extension of the CBA, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports. That 59.5 percent includes a "cash over cap" limit that addresses the concerns of low revenue clubs about how much teams actually spend on their payrolls in a given year.

The deal also includes the ability to give credits and make adjustments on individual teams' spending on cash over the cap, according to what Upshaw told Mortensen. It is possible that a team that exceeds the spending limit will have their salary cap adjusted the following year by the amount they spend over the cap. That formula could be the subject of major debate during Tuesday's owner meetings in Dallas between low- and high-revenue clubs. Sources say New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft has emerged as the most vocal high-revenue franchise that is a strong dissenter to a new revenue sharing model.

When talks broke off earlier in the day, it left dozens of veterans in danger of becoming salary-cap casualties before midnight Monday, when free agency was supposed to begin.

The breakdown in talks, though surprising, was typical of the topsy-turvy negotiations, so far: Just when things seemed darkest, they got back on track; and when it appeared a deal could be struck, talks fell apart. The union broke off Sunday's session.

"The talks ended after the NFL gave us a proposal which provided a percentage of revenues for the players which would be less than they received over the last 12 years," Upshaw said. "After suggesting we extend the waiver deadline from six o'clock to 10 this evening, they gave us a new proposal which was worse than their prior offer. Quite naturally, we rejected that proposal and saw no need to continue meeting."

But Harold Henderson, the NFL's executive vice president for labor relations, said the union rejected a proposal that would have added $577 million for players in 2006 compared to 2005 and $1.5 billion in the six years of the extension. "It's an unfortunate situation for the players, the fans and the league," Henderson said. A mere four hours later, things were fluid again.

After a conference call between owners and league officials, including commissioner Paul Tagliabue, the league announced yet another extension -- the second 72-hour respite in free agency, which originally was to start Friday. "The NFL and the NFL Players Association have agreed to extend the start of the 2006 league year for 72 hours -- until 12:01 a.m., ET, Thursday, March 9 -- in order to allow the NFL clubs to meet in Dallas on Tuesday to consider the NFL Players Association's offer," the NFL said.

The deadline for teams to be below the salary cap was also pushed back, to 9 p.m. ET Wednesday. Meanwhile, cuts had already started, but the extension to the deadline changed things. Under the terms of the deal reached late Sunday night between the NFL and the players association, teams could opt to rescind any waiver cut made Sunday if they so chose.

That could affect the Oakland Raiders, who thought they would be forced to let quarterback Kerry Collins go as a way of saving $9.2 million in cap space. The delay grants them a reprieve. Center Kevin Mawae was cut by the New York Jets, although he probably would have been gone anyway because he is 35 and missed the final 10 games of last season with a triceps injury.

The Washington Redskins, the team believed to be in the most cap trouble, said they had worked out an agreement to make linebacker LaVar Arrington, a three-time Pro Bowl player, a free agent. An official with knowledge of the transaction told The Associated Press that Arrington had agreed to a buyout that would save the team cap space it wouldn't have had if it had cut him. Other big names also could go if teams try to squeeze under a salary cap of $94.5 million. If a deal is reached, the cap could go as much as $10 million higher -- in other words, allowing teams to keep some of the players.

Amid all the labor back-and-forth came news that running back Shaun Alexander was staying put: The league's MVP agreed to return to the NFC champion Seattle Seahawks for $62 million over eight years, with $15.1 guaranteed, according to his agent, Jim Steiner. These labor negotiations are by far the most difficult since the NFL and the union first agreed to free agency and a salary cap in 1992, ending years of labor unrest that included player strikes in 1982 and 1987. The contract has been extended several times since then, most of the time with ease.

Even now, the contract doesn't expire until 2008, but this would be the last year of a salary cap -- 2007 would be uncapped, which could lead to wild spending by some teams and little by others, creating a haves/have not situation similar to the one in baseball. One reason these talks were more difficult is that the players asked for a change in the system. Until now, they received their money primarily from television and ticket revenues. This time, they requested their share from all team revenues, including outside money generated by everything from parking fees to stadium naming rights.

That led to difficult negotiations, in part, because the teams themselves are having their own dispute over that money because of the disparity in outside income made by low-revenue teams like Buffalo and Indianapolis and high-revenue teams like Dallas, Washington, New England and Philadelphia. Union leaders had suggested that it would be hard to reach agreement on a labor contract until the owners settled their own differences. Both sides seemed ready to compromise Sunday, largely because of the pressure of impending free agency, which was supposed to begin last Friday. However, it was put off for three days so the sides could keep talking.

Negotiations appeared to be at a standstill last Thursday, when the owners took just 57 minutes to reject a union offer. But seven hours later, the sides reversed course and started talking again. Upshaw said he still thinks revenue sharing is the key, although Henderson said it was never discussed. Upshaw also said the players would do as well or better sticking with the current agreement.

"Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 percent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 percent. Given the enormous revenue growth the NFL is experiencing, I am not about to give back gains which we have made in the past. It is clear to me that we will do much better under our current CBA in 2006 and particularly in 2007, the uncapped year," Upshaw said.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This topic can go into a thread that is just like politics. That being said, what if you looked at teh NFL as a acompany where the company has different divisions? Think about that and it puts a different perspective on things. Now as a person looking for work, do I want to go work at the "NFL" and work under their rules? I think everyone would answer, yes. I also think that not one single person who is presently working for teh NFL would leave the NFL and go work somewhere else under the present deal...that in itself tells you the deal is a good one. Again, not going down this long path of discussion, that does not excuse the greed of some of the owners, however, they are the ones taking the risk and leveraging huge wads of cash.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What have you been smokin?

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport.
Signing Bonuses are guaranteed monies and they were included into the CBA to avoid a circumstances you are afraid of. What about MLB? If contracts are guaranteed, why don't they get their whole contract in the form of a signing bonus upfront? (FYI - The MLB example is a hyperbole).
 
NFL, union agree to delay free agency 72 hours

NEW YORK -- NFL labor negotiations took yet another surprising turn late Sunday when the league and union agreed to postpone free agency another 72 hours, giving the sides more time to try to reach agreement on an extension to their contract. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the delay would give owners a chance to consider the union's latest proposal during a meeting Tuesday in Dallas.

"The NFL negotiators called us tonight after our negotiations broke off to indicate that they will take our complete package to the owners for an approval vote on Tuesday," Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players' Association, said late Sunday night. "We have therefore agreed to extend the free agency deadline until midnight Wednesday in order to provide time for that vote to be accomplished. It was the NFL's previous rejection of our proposal earlier this evening that caused the talks to break down."

The deal that NFL owners will vote on guarantees that players will receive 59.5 percent of all football revenue over the six-year extension of the CBA, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports. That 59.5 percent includes a "cash over cap" limit that addresses the concerns of low revenue clubs about how much teams actually spend on their payrolls in a given year.

The deal also includes the ability to give credits and make adjustments on individual teams' spending on cash over the cap, according to what Upshaw told Mortensen. It is possible that a team that exceeds the spending limit will have their salary cap adjusted the following year by the amount they spend over the cap. That formula could be the subject of major debate during Tuesday's owner meetings in Dallas between low- and high-revenue clubs. Sources say New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft has emerged as the most vocal high-revenue franchise that is a strong dissenter to a new revenue sharing model.

When talks broke off earlier in the day, it left dozens of veterans in danger of becoming salary-cap casualties before midnight Monday, when free agency was supposed to begin.

The breakdown in talks, though surprising, was typical of the topsy-turvy negotiations, so far: Just when things seemed darkest, they got back on track; and when it appeared a deal could be struck, talks fell apart. The union broke off Sunday's session.

"The talks ended after the NFL gave us a proposal which provided a percentage of revenues for the players which would be less than they received over the last 12 years," Upshaw said. "After suggesting we extend the waiver deadline from six o'clock to 10 this evening, they gave us a new proposal which was worse than their prior offer. Quite naturally, we rejected that proposal and saw no need to continue meeting."

But Harold Henderson, the NFL's executive vice president for labor relations, said the union rejected a proposal that would have added $577 million for players in 2006 compared to 2005 and $1.5 billion in the six years of the extension. "It's an unfortunate situation for the players, the fans and the league," Henderson said. A mere four hours later, things were fluid again.

After a conference call between owners and league officials, including commissioner Paul Tagliabue, the league announced yet another extension -- the second 72-hour respite in free agency, which originally was to start Friday. "The NFL and the NFL Players Association have agreed to extend the start of the 2006 league year for 72 hours -- until 12:01 a.m., ET, Thursday, March 9 -- in order to allow the NFL clubs to meet in Dallas on Tuesday to consider the NFL Players Association's offer," the NFL said.

The deadline for teams to be below the salary cap was also pushed back, to 9 p.m. ET Wednesday. Meanwhile, cuts had already started, but the extension to the deadline changed things. Under the terms of the deal reached late Sunday night between the NFL and the players association, teams could opt to rescind any waiver cut made Sunday if they so chose.

That could affect the Oakland Raiders, who thought they would be forced to let quarterback Kerry Collins go as a way of saving $9.2 million in cap space. The delay grants them a reprieve. Center Kevin Mawae was cut by the New York Jets, although he probably would have been gone anyway because he is 35 and missed the final 10 games of last season with a triceps injury.

The Washington Redskins, the team believed to be in the most cap trouble, said they had worked out an agreement to make linebacker LaVar Arrington, a three-time Pro Bowl player, a free agent. An official with knowledge of the transaction told The Associated Press that Arrington had agreed to a buyout that would save the team cap space it wouldn't have had if it had cut him. Other big names also could go if teams try to squeeze under a salary cap of $94.5 million. If a deal is reached, the cap could go as much as $10 million higher -- in other words, allowing teams to keep some of the players.

Amid all the labor back-and-forth came news that running back Shaun Alexander was staying put: The league's MVP agreed to return to the NFC champion Seattle Seahawks for $62 million over eight years, with $15.1 guaranteed, according to his agent, Jim Steiner. These labor negotiations are by far the most difficult since the NFL and the union first agreed to free agency and a salary cap in 1992, ending years of labor unrest that included player strikes in 1982 and 1987. The contract has been extended several times since then, most of the time with ease.

Even now, the contract doesn't expire until 2008, but this would be the last year of a salary cap -- 2007 would be uncapped, which could lead to wild spending by some teams and little by others, creating a haves/have not situation similar to the one in baseball. One reason these talks were more difficult is that the players asked for a change in the system. Until now, they received their money primarily from television and ticket revenues. This time, they requested their share from all team revenues, including outside money generated by everything from parking fees to stadium naming rights.

That led to difficult negotiations, in part, because the teams themselves are having their own dispute over that money because of the disparity in outside income made by low-revenue teams like Buffalo and Indianapolis and high-revenue teams like Dallas, Washington, New England and Philadelphia. Union leaders had suggested that it would be hard to reach agreement on a labor contract until the owners settled their own differences. Both sides seemed ready to compromise Sunday, largely because of the pressure of impending free agency, which was supposed to begin last Friday. However, it was put off for three days so the sides could keep talking.

Negotiations appeared to be at a standstill last Thursday, when the owners took just 57 minutes to reject a union offer. But seven hours later, the sides reversed course and started talking again. Upshaw said he still thinks revenue sharing is the key, although Henderson said it was never discussed. Upshaw also said the players would do as well or better sticking with the current agreement.

"Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 percent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 percent. Given the enormous revenue growth the NFL is experiencing, I am not about to give back gains which we have made in the past. It is clear to me that we will do much better under our current CBA in 2006 and particularly in 2007, the uncapped year," Upshaw said.
He migh be a hardass but at least he fights for his guys. I'm not a die hard union man but I'm in one and it affords me a lot of protection from Satan, I mean Hollywood producers. If they had their way hey'd bring in 2 shifts of 8 hour workers and pay them minimum wage, not feed them and toss out anyone who speaks up. Our union protects us from that. But our CBA is up for an extension and they want to eliminate a bunch of positions, drop more rights and such. What's our union chief say to that? Ok, as long as we here at the office get our money, we'll cut whatever you need. SO Upshaw may look like a greedy stubborn jerk but at least he fights for his guys. That's what a union's supposed to do. Not roll over and play lapdog to the management side. Union's had their day and their pirpose and human greed rapidly turned them into a joke. But those of us that make a living under it want only what's ours as we put in 60+ hour weeks in a multi-billion dollar industry. You gotta have 2 extremes, so they can meet in the middle.
 
All good things must come to an end. This, in a couple years, will be the focal point of the beginning of the NFL's demise. Give to much leverage to the players and next time around they will want more. Soon, things will come to a head and the quality will start to suffer.

 
No, it doesnt. You dont just compare an NFL player to a high school teacher or real estate agent and comment "look how well you athletes have it". You compare the NFL CBA to the NHL, MLB and NBA CBA and THEN ask how good Football Players have it. Dont oversimplify the facts here.

Dont get me wrong, I dont "feel bad" for the players because they dont make enough money. Hardly. But thats not my point of contention. The blame, IMO, falls squarely on the "poor" Owners who over-leveraged themselves in order to buy a stake in an NFL franchsie, and now cannot afford to share the wealth with the players.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What have you been smokin?

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport.
Signing Bonuses are guaranteed monies and they were included into the CBA to avoid a circumstances you are afraid of. What about MLB? If contracts are guaranteed, why don't they get their whole contract in the form of a signing bonus upfront? (FYI - The MLB example is a hyperbole).
True, though divided over the course of a contract, it still provides less cash (not to mention stability) than a MLB or NBA contract. Again, as a fan first and foremost, Im not saying its necessarily a bad thing. But as a bystander thats assessing the current Player-Owner squabble, I look at the current deal in light of other professional Sports Leagues in America and I see that the Owners have a very favorable agreement in place.
 
What have you been smokin?

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport.
Signing Bonuses are guaranteed monies and they were included into the CBA to avoid a circumstances you are afraid of. What about MLB? If contracts are guaranteed, why don't they get their whole contract in the form of a signing bonus upfront? (FYI - The MLB example is a hyperbole).
True, though divided over the course of a contract, it still provides less cash (not to mention stability) than a MLB or NBA contract. Again, as a fan first and foremost, Im not saying its necessarily a bad thing. But as a bystander thats assessing the current Player-Owner squabble, I look at the current deal in light of other professional Sports Leagues in America and I see that the Owners have a very favorable agreement in place.
NFL players will always get less cash than others leagues because they play far fewer games (16) and only play over 4 months. Secondly, the NFL has the most teams in their league (32) and each team has 52 players; that comes out to about 1,664 shares of player salaries. When we look at the NBA who has about 30ish teams (guessing) with only 12 players on a team, that comes out to 360 shares of players salaries; far fewer than the 1,664 in the NFL.I also believe NFL players get their free agency status a lot sooner. All rookies register for a 7 round draft, those not drafted are immediately free agents. If you are drafted, you have to wait four years unless the team releases you. How long does it take a baseball player leaving college to reach free agency?

 
A salary cap is NOT in the players best interest, yet Upshaw goes along with it ONLY because its in the best interest of the League. As a result, he asks for a greater percentage of revenues for player salaries, even though its still less FAR LESS than players would earn in an uncapped NFL. The players DESERVE better. And the League knows it.

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Yet player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport. Players get paid LESS than their peers from the NBA and MLB, even though Football is more popular and generates more revenues than other leagues. How can anyone point the finger at Upshaw when he has taken such a moderate stance against the owners over the years? Hes the good guy in all this, not the villain.
I disagree with your belief that the salary cap is not in the players' best interests. You have to remember, it's not just a salary cap, but a salary floor as well. There would almost certainly be quite a few owners under the current salary floor if it wasn't in place. In addition, all players receive 2-1 matching in their 401(k) plans. For young guys making the minimum, that can be a pretty large percentage of compensation. The players also receive very good medical coverage. None of that would be a given if there was no CBA.And yes, contracts aren't guaranteed and NFL players receive less compensation than NBA or baseball players. But, first of all, you have to remember that NFL rosters are MUCH larger than an NBA or MLB roster. To really compare salaries we'd have to know what percentage of the total revenue MLB and NBA players receive. Even then, I bet that the money in MLB is spread out much more disproportionately than in the NFL. Just look at the Florida Marlins for instance. One of their top paid players was Pokey Reece and he was making just (yeah, "just") $800K. For every A-Rod making $25M a year, there are 30 other guys out there making the minimum.

And the short career's works against the owners too. Sure it'd be nice if NFL players had guaranteed contracts, but then when they get hurt and are out of the league in 2 years, the owner is stuck holding the bag. And what percentage of guys are out of the NFL due to injury versus just not cutting it? The NFL has rules in place for compensating a guy if he is forced to retire because of injury. So really you're just advocating owners being forced to continue to pay guys that can't cut it in the NFL.

I'm not going to totally let the owners off the hook because they certainly play a role in this and would be shooting themselves in the foot as well. But let's not pretend that the current system isn't great for the players.

 
A salary cap is NOT in the players best interest, yet Upshaw goes along with it ONLY because its in the best interest of the League. As a result, he asks for a greater percentage of revenues for player salaries, even though its still less FAR LESS than players would earn in an uncapped NFL. The players DESERVE better. And the League knows it.

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Yet player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport. Players get paid LESS than their peers from the NBA and MLB, even though Football is more popular and generates more revenues than other leagues. How can anyone point the finger at Upshaw when he has taken such a moderate stance against the owners over the years?  Hes the good guy in all this, not the villain.
I disagree with your belief that the salary cap is not in the players' best interests. You have to remember, it's not just a salary cap, but a salary floor as well. There would almost certainly be quite a few owners under the current salary floor if it wasn't in place. In addition, all players receive 2-1 matching in their 401(k) plans. For young guys making the minimum, that can be a pretty large percentage of compensation. The players also receive very good medical coverage. None of that would be a given if there was no CBA.And yes, contracts aren't guaranteed and NFL players receive less compensation than NBA or baseball players. But, first of all, you have to remember that NFL rosters are MUCH larger than an NBA or MLB roster. To really compare salaries we'd have to know what percentage of the total revenue MLB and NBA players receive. Even then, I bet that the money in MLB is spread out much more disproportionately than in the NFL. Just look at the Florida Marlins for instance. One of their top paid players was Pokey Reece and he was making just (yeah, "just") $800K. For every A-Rod making $25M a year, there are 30 other guys out there making the minimum.

And the short career's works against the owners too. Sure it'd be nice if NFL players had guaranteed contracts, but then when they get hurt and are out of the league in 2 years, the owner is stuck holding the bag. And what percentage of guys are out of the NFL due to injury versus just not cutting it? The NFL has rules in place for compensating a guy if he is forced to retire because of injury. So really you're just advocating owners being forced to continue to pay guys that can't cut it in the NFL.

I'm not going to totally let the owners off the hook because they certainly play a role in this and would be shooting themselves in the foot as well. But let's not pretend that the current system isn't great for the players.
:goodposting: I also think a salary cap is necessary and is in the good interests of the players. An uncapped league would lead to a lot bigger salaries for the frontline guys; but how does it affect a good offensive guard? It may actually hurt them once all the politics in the system come to a boil and these teams run out of money like they did in baseball. If you look at all the professional sports most of the team money is spread across just a few players while the average guys get left out. In the NFL an average guy in an established system can look at the salary base for a position and have some security in knowing where he stands and get paid according to a market standard. MLB in particular is hit or miss and they are so strict with contracts and player movement in their early years, that many are really vastly underpaid. the NBA has 12 guys per roster but look at the Rockets where McGrady and Yao pretty much suck up the whole payroll. What does the Rockets #5 guy make? In the NBA you get paid because there are under 400 guys in the world good enough to be in the league. But what the #5 guy makes to the #1 guy, it's a monster difference. I just think the NFL is much more stabile for market based salaries in regards to position, skill, and the difference between salaries at different positions.

The only issue I have with NFL contracts is the status of guaranteed money compared to the other leagues. In the NBA if you sign a 5 year 50 million dollar deal you are likely to collect every penny. In the NFL because of injuries, the game play itself, and because it's run more like a business and less like a fantasy team players don't get guaranteed $. Look at the Alexander deal. How much of that 62 million will Shaun collect? If he stays healthy, continues to perform, and doesn't hit a wall he can expect to make it at least as far as when his roster bonus kicks in (end of year 3 or 4). I say he gets maybe a little more than half but he has less than a one percent chance to collect all 62 million.

Is this fair? I say it isn't and players are left on an island when their skills diminish or if they suffer a major injury. I'm not sure how insurance policies cover these examples but I'll guarantee you the 15 million remaining on their contract will not be their insurance settlement.

Just babbling here....

 
The only issue I have with NFL contracts is the status of guaranteed money compared to the other leagues. In the NBA if you sign a 5 year 50 million dollar deal you are likely to collect every penny. In the NFL because of injuries, the game play itself, and because it's run more like a business and less like a fantasy team players don't get guaranteed $. Look at the Alexander deal. How much of that 62 million will Shaun collect? If he stays healthy, continues to perform, and doesn't hit a wall he can expect to make it at least as far as when his roster bonus kicks in (end of year 3 or 4). I say he gets maybe a little more than half but he has less than a one percent chance to collect all 62 million.
I think the spirit of your post is solid, but it is pretty far removed from reality. There are two types of monies in the NFL, guaranteed monies and non-guaranteed monies. Owners and players are responsible for working out a mutually acceptable deal to both parties involved. If Shaun Alexander only wants guaranteed monies, then he is allowed to ask for it. No one is holding a gun to Shaun Alexander's head and telling him to sign the contract. He could have asked for only guaranteed monies and been happy with his 32 million dollar contract. However, egos get involved and players feel some sort of 'respect' is earned when they sign a 62 million dollar contract regardless of how much is guaranteed and how much is not guaranteed.
 
A salary cap is NOT in the players best interest, yet Upshaw goes along with it ONLY because its in the best interest of the League. As a result, he asks for a greater percentage of revenues for player salaries, even though its still less FAR LESS than players would earn in an uncapped NFL. The players DESERVE better. And the League knows it.

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Yet player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport. Players get paid LESS than their peers from the NBA and MLB, even though Football is more popular and generates more revenues than other leagues. How can anyone point the finger at Upshaw when he has taken such a moderate stance against the owners over the years?  Hes the good guy in all this, not the villain.
I disagree with your belief that the salary cap is not in the players' best interests. You have to remember, it's not just a salary cap, but a salary floor as well. There would almost certainly be quite a few owners under the current salary floor if it wasn't in place. In addition, all players receive 2-1 matching in their 401(k) plans. For young guys making the minimum, that can be a pretty large percentage of compensation. The players also receive very good medical coverage. None of that would be a given if there was no CBA.And yes, contracts aren't guaranteed and NFL players receive less compensation than NBA or baseball players. But, first of all, you have to remember that NFL rosters are MUCH larger than an NBA or MLB roster. To really compare salaries we'd have to know what percentage of the total revenue MLB and NBA players receive. Even then, I bet that the money in MLB is spread out much more disproportionately than in the NFL. Just look at the Florida Marlins for instance. One of their top paid players was Pokey Reece and he was making just (yeah, "just") $800K. For every A-Rod making $25M a year, there are 30 other guys out there making the minimum.

And the short career's works against the owners too. Sure it'd be nice if NFL players had guaranteed contracts, but then when they get hurt and are out of the league in 2 years, the owner is stuck holding the bag. And what percentage of guys are out of the NFL due to injury versus just not cutting it? The NFL has rules in place for compensating a guy if he is forced to retire because of injury. So really you're just advocating owners being forced to continue to pay guys that can't cut it in the NFL.

I'm not going to totally let the owners off the hook because they certainly play a role in this and would be shooting themselves in the foot as well. But let's not pretend that the current system isn't great for the players.
The MEDIAN salary in MLB in 2005 was $2.35 million (the average was slightly more - around $2.48 million). (source: http://www.mlb4u.com/pcontracts.html)The median salary for the highest paying NFL team in the 2004 season (Pittsburgh Steelers) was $895,716. For the lowest paying team (San Diego Chargers) it was $453,800. (Source: USA Today)

Im still looking for the mean, but the point here seems to be clear nonetheless - the average Baseball players seem to make much more than Football players. They also benefit from longer careers, guaranteed contracts, fewer health-related risks and no league-administered salary cap that restrcits the amount of money a qualified athlete can earn.

So Id venture to guess that the NFL CBA is clearly going against the players. Does this mean theyd be better off without a cap? I dont know. There are several drawbacks as you correctly pointed out. But to me it seems rather clear that the current CBA is not favorable to NFL players.

 
good compromise. players get a higher # of DGA but it is below the 60% threshold the owners say they will never cross.

 
A salary cap is NOT in the players best interest, yet Upshaw goes along with it ONLY because its in the best interest of the League. As a result, he asks for a greater percentage of revenues for player salaries, even though its still less FAR LESS than players would earn in an uncapped NFL. The players DESERVE better. And the League knows it.

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Yet player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport. Players get paid LESS than their peers from the NBA and MLB, even though Football is more popular and generates more revenues than other leagues. How can anyone point the finger at Upshaw when he has taken such a moderate stance against the owners over the years?  Hes the good guy in all this, not the villain.
I disagree with your belief that the salary cap is not in the players' best interests. You have to remember, it's not just a salary cap, but a salary floor as well. There would almost certainly be quite a few owners under the current salary floor if it wasn't in place. In addition, all players receive 2-1 matching in their 401(k) plans. For young guys making the minimum, that can be a pretty large percentage of compensation. The players also receive very good medical coverage. None of that would be a given if there was no CBA.And yes, contracts aren't guaranteed and NFL players receive less compensation than NBA or baseball players. But, first of all, you have to remember that NFL rosters are MUCH larger than an NBA or MLB roster. To really compare salaries we'd have to know what percentage of the total revenue MLB and NBA players receive. Even then, I bet that the money in MLB is spread out much more disproportionately than in the NFL. Just look at the Florida Marlins for instance. One of their top paid players was Pokey Reece and he was making just (yeah, "just") $800K. For every A-Rod making $25M a year, there are 30 other guys out there making the minimum.

And the short career's works against the owners too. Sure it'd be nice if NFL players had guaranteed contracts, but then when they get hurt and are out of the league in 2 years, the owner is stuck holding the bag. And what percentage of guys are out of the NFL due to injury versus just not cutting it? The NFL has rules in place for compensating a guy if he is forced to retire because of injury. So really you're just advocating owners being forced to continue to pay guys that can't cut it in the NFL.

I'm not going to totally let the owners off the hook because they certainly play a role in this and would be shooting themselves in the foot as well. But let's not pretend that the current system isn't great for the players.
The MEDIAN salary in MLB in 2005 was $2.35 million (the average was slightly more - around $2.48 million). (source: http://www.mlb4u.com/pcontracts.html)The median salary for the highest paying NFL team in the 2004 season (Pittsburgh Steelers) was $895,716. For the lowest paying team (San Diego Chargers) it was $453,800. (Source: USA Today)

Im still looking for the mean, but the point here seems to be clear nonetheless - the average Baseball players seem to make much more than Football players. They also benefit from longer careers, guaranteed contracts, fewer health-related risks and no league-administered salary cap that restrcits the amount of money a qualified athlete can earn.

So Id venture to guess that the NFL CBA is clearly going against the players. Does this mean theyd be better off without a cap? I dont know. There are several drawbacks as you correctly pointed out. But to me it seems rather clear that the current CBA is not favorable to NFL players.
NFL rosters are larger than MLB rosters, and the nfl season is shorter with far fewer games. Sure, the training schedule is longer and more rigorous, but owners aren't collecting gate $$$ for practice. It's tough to do an apples to apples comparison of their respective salaries.
 
A salary cap is NOT in the players best interest, yet Upshaw goes along with it ONLY because its in the best interest of the League. As a result, he asks for a greater percentage of revenues for player salaries, even though its still less FAR LESS than players would earn in an uncapped NFL. The players DESERVE better. And the League knows it.

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Yet player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport. Players get paid LESS than their peers from the NBA and MLB, even though Football is more popular and generates more revenues than other leagues. How can anyone point the finger at Upshaw when he has taken such a moderate stance against the owners over the years?  Hes the good guy in all this, not the villain.
I disagree with your belief that the salary cap is not in the players' best interests. You have to remember, it's not just a salary cap, but a salary floor as well. There would almost certainly be quite a few owners under the current salary floor if it wasn't in place. In addition, all players receive 2-1 matching in their 401(k) plans. For young guys making the minimum, that can be a pretty large percentage of compensation. The players also receive very good medical coverage. None of that would be a given if there was no CBA.And yes, contracts aren't guaranteed and NFL players receive less compensation than NBA or baseball players. But, first of all, you have to remember that NFL rosters are MUCH larger than an NBA or MLB roster. To really compare salaries we'd have to know what percentage of the total revenue MLB and NBA players receive. Even then, I bet that the money in MLB is spread out much more disproportionately than in the NFL. Just look at the Florida Marlins for instance. One of their top paid players was Pokey Reece and he was making just (yeah, "just") $800K. For every A-Rod making $25M a year, there are 30 other guys out there making the minimum.

And the short career's works against the owners too. Sure it'd be nice if NFL players had guaranteed contracts, but then when they get hurt and are out of the league in 2 years, the owner is stuck holding the bag. And what percentage of guys are out of the NFL due to injury versus just not cutting it? The NFL has rules in place for compensating a guy if he is forced to retire because of injury. So really you're just advocating owners being forced to continue to pay guys that can't cut it in the NFL.

I'm not going to totally let the owners off the hook because they certainly play a role in this and would be shooting themselves in the foot as well. But let's not pretend that the current system isn't great for the players.
The MEDIAN salary in MLB in 2005 was $2.35 million (the average was slightly more - around $2.48 million). (source: http://www.mlb4u.com/pcontracts.html)The median salary for the highest paying NFL team in the 2004 season (Pittsburgh Steelers) was $895,716. For the lowest paying team (San Diego Chargers) it was $453,800. (Source: USA Today)

Im still looking for the mean, but the point here seems to be clear nonetheless - the average Baseball players seem to make much more than Football players. They also benefit from longer careers, guaranteed contracts, fewer health-related risks and no league-administered salary cap that restrcits the amount of money a qualified athlete can earn.

So Id venture to guess that the NFL CBA is clearly going against the players. Does this mean theyd be better off without a cap? I dont know. There are several drawbacks as you correctly pointed out. But to me it seems rather clear that the current CBA is not favorable to NFL players.
NFL rosters are larger than MLB rosters, and the nfl season is shorter with far fewer games. Sure, the training schedule is longer and more rigorous, but owners aren't collecting gate $$$ for practice. It's tough to do an apples to apples comparison of their respective salaries.
In all fairness, thats not the argument Grove Diesel made earlier. Thats why I mentioned it.
 
Im still looking for the mean, but the point here seems to be clear nonetheless - the average Baseball players seem to make much more than Football players. They also benefit from longer careers, guaranteed contracts, fewer health-related risks and no league-administered salary cap that restrcits the amount of money a qualified athlete can earn.

So Id venture to guess that the NFL CBA is clearly going against the players. Does this mean theyd be better off without a cap? I dont know. There are several drawbacks as you correctly pointed out. But to me it seems rather clear that the current CBA is not favorable to NFL players.
I disagree with your logic. Football player salaries are less than Baseball player salaries, therefore the CBA is not favorable?There are lots of professions that have skewed salary for apparently similar roles. Private school teachers often make less than public school teachers. Accountants at Deloitte make more than at Joe Smith and Associates. Real estate agents make more in Manhattan than in Lexington Kentucky (though this is more of a guess).

Does the fact that the average professional boxer earns less than football players mean they're not fairly compensated? Amongst all the factors that drive compensation, it's unlikely any union gets such a raw deal for its members, that their compensation would be significantly higher (in % terms) if a "better" deal was struck. Even if the cap went up $20MM per team, that's a 20% increase in compensation. While significant, it wouldn't change your analysis of compensation as compared to baseball.

 
Does the fact that the average professional boxer earns less than football players mean they're not fairly compensated? Amongst all the factors that drive compensation, it's unlikely any union gets such a raw deal for its members, that their compensation would be significantly higher (in % terms) if a "better" deal was struck. Even if the cap went up $20MM per team, that's a 20% increase in compensation. While significant, it wouldn't change your analysis of compensation as compared to baseball.
Look, it's pretty simple; if there were no salary cap, salaries would be higher. That's why the owners want a cap. If there's a uncapped year in 2007, if the "free" market is allowed to set salaries, players will get more money than they will under a salary cap. In America, there is a belief underlying much of our public discourse that what the free market dictates is inherently fair. I think there are serious questions about the truth of that belief, but I haven't seen anyone in these discussions come up with a better definition of "fair compensation."A salary cap may or may not be beneficial to the long-term health of the league, but it certainly doesn't provide fair compensation for the athletes.

 
Does the fact that the average professional boxer earns less than football players mean they're not fairly compensated? Amongst all the factors that drive compensation, it's unlikely any union gets such a raw deal for its members, that their compensation would be significantly higher (in % terms) if a "better" deal was struck. Even if the cap went up $20MM per team, that's a 20% increase in compensation. While significant, it wouldn't change your analysis of compensation as compared to baseball.
Look, it's pretty simple; if there were no salary cap, salaries would be higher. That's why the owners want a cap. If there's a uncapped year in 2007, if the "free" market is allowed to set salaries, players will get more money than they will under a salary cap. In America, there is a belief underlying much of our public discourse that what the free market dictates is inherently fair. I think there are serious questions about the truth of that belief, but I haven't seen anyone in these discussions come up with a better definition of "fair compensation."A salary cap may or may not be beneficial to the long-term health of the league, but it certainly doesn't provide fair compensation for the athletes.
Partially correct. Without a cap, salaries for stars would be higher.
 
Partially correct. Without a cap, salaries for stars would be higher.
Average and median salaries would both be higher without a cap. The super-star salaries are held down by the salary cap, but the second-tier salaries are held down by the super-star salaries, and so on down the line (You're not going to pay Derrick Mason more than Randy Moss).
 
Im still looking for the mean, but the point here seems to be clear nonetheless -  the average Baseball players seem to make much more than Football players. They also benefit from longer careers, guaranteed contracts, fewer health-related risks and no league-administered salary cap that restrcits the amount of money a qualified athlete can earn.

So Id venture to guess that the NFL CBA is clearly going against the players. Does this mean theyd be better off without a cap? I dont know. There are several drawbacks as you correctly pointed out. But to me it seems rather clear that the current CBA is not favorable to NFL players.
I disagree with your logic. Football player salaries are less than Baseball player salaries, therefore the CBA is not favorable?There are lots of professions that have skewed salary for apparently similar roles. Private school teachers often make less than public school teachers. Accountants at Deloitte make more than at Joe Smith and Associates. Real estate agents make more in Manhattan than in Lexington Kentucky (though this is more of a guess).

Does the fact that the average professional boxer earns less than football players mean they're not fairly compensated? Amongst all the factors that drive compensation, it's unlikely any union gets such a raw deal for its members, that their compensation would be significantly higher (in % terms) if a "better" deal was struck. Even if the cap went up $20MM per team, that's a 20% increase in compensation. While significant, it wouldn't change your analysis of compensation as compared to baseball.
I didnt say that lower football salries=unfavorabale CBA.I said Lower Football Salaries, plus non-guaranteed contracts, plus higher risk of injuries, plus shorter careers, plus poor health benefits (currently anyway), equals an unfavorable deal when compared to the other major Sports Leagues in America.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hadn't made a point about roster sizes because I didn't have any info about how that affected median salaries. But I've run some rough numbers and I think it's a pretty good argument for why median and mean salaries would be lower in the NFL than in MLB. The argument regarding number of games doesn't really hold water though.

First, the argument re: number of games. This would be just a revenue argument really. Yes, the NFL does play considerably fewer games than the NBA or MLB. But they actually generate more revenue than MLB (and I'm guessing the NBA too although I didn't check). MLB generates about $3.5B in revenue while the NFL generates about $5B in revenue. So I'm not sure that there's a good argument in there regarding number of games played. MLB does generate more money by gate receipts, but I don't think it's fair to strip out just one component of revenue. The NFL makes a whole lot more money on their tv deals than MLB makes.

But roster size certainly has a large impact on median and mean salaries. And I think it's pretty easy to see why logically. There are 750 active MLB players during a season. There are 1,824 active NFL players during a season. So there are 2.4 times as many NFL players as MLB players sharing just 1.4 times more money.

Still, MLB players take home a larger slice of the revenue pie as it stands right now. They currently take home about 60% of the revenue while NFL players take home about 53% of total revenue. I think those are really the key numbers and why I imagine Gene Upshaw was pushing for 60% of the total revenues. If the league gives them the 59.9% that was rumored this morning, then the two sports would be pretty much in line.

Just from a financial standpoint, it would be literally impossible for the NFL to pay their players the same amounts that they make in MLB. Half the teams in the league would be forced under. They just don't generate the same amount of money per athlete that MLB generates. Maybe that's where the games per season argument can come in. Throw in 2 more regular season games and your revenue per player goes up.

I think the whole guaranteed vs. non-guaranteed thing is not much of a factor. The injury risk works both ways so it's not really fair to bring that into the argument. Yes players get hurt more often, but what percentage of guys in the NFL are really cut because of injury? And again, the teams must actually compensate them if they cut them because of injury. And it's not fair to expect teams to pay an injured player a salary if he's not providing them a service. I think the reality is that the low career expectancy is because there are a lot of guys that barely make teams, hang around for a year or two and then get cut, not because of injuries. The fact is that 53% of all revenue is currently paid out to players. That number could soon be closer to 60%. That's money actually paid out, not non-guaranteed money that guys will never get.

If you make all contracts guaranteed you're either going to just see MUCH smaller contracts for fewer years, or you're going to see NFL teams looking like the Knicks. And all that does is hurt the salaries of the guys who are actually contributing. That'd be great if Jamal Anderson was still collecting a paycheck, but that money would be coming out of Warrick Dunn or Michael Vick's pocket.

 
I heard Mortensen on Mike & Mike this morning, and as I see it this all looks like it boils down to owners vs. owners not owners vs. players.

Tomorrow the owners will debate and possibly vote on ratifying the NFLPA's proposal. However, 3/4 of the owners are required for it to pass (24 votes).

The biggest issue it appears is some sort of revenue sharing among owners, so the breakdown becomes big market owners vs small market owners. The big market teams are tired of putting up the lion's share of money to help out small market teams.

On the surface, Mort said there are 9-10 big market teams and 22-23 small to mid market teams. Basically, as currently constructed, he felt that at least 2 of the big market owners would have to bite the bullet and side with the small market teams or else we will be back where we started (which is nowhere).

Mort felt that there will be two days of HEATED discussion amoung the owners, but as it stood now Mort was not sure that there are 24 teams that would vote yes.

 
Partially correct. Without a cap, salaries for stars would be higher.
Exactly. I'm sure the Yankee players are happy there is no salary cap. Not too sure about the Tampa Bay Devil Rays though. And while one may argue that a cap wouldn't force the Devil Rays to pay more, I think revenue sharing, salary cap and the resulting parity would convince more small market teams of their opportunity to compete consistently and win, and incentivize them to spend more. And that would help the union members that need it most; the bubble players as opposed to the A-Rods. Right now, small market teams can probably triple their payroll and still not come close to the salary scale of the large market teams.
 
I'm still waiting for the thread that says "Talks off AGAIN". This has been one wild roller coaster ride. I wouldn't assume this gets done until the ink drys.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only issue I have with NFL contracts is the status of guaranteed money compared to the other leagues.  In the NBA if you sign a 5 year 50 million dollar deal you are likely to collect every penny.  In the NFL because of injuries, the game play itself, and because it's run more like a business and less like a fantasy team players don't get guaranteed $.  Look at the Alexander deal.  How much of that 62 million will Shaun collect?  If he stays healthy, continues to perform, and doesn't hit a wall he can expect to make it at least as far as when his roster bonus kicks in (end of year 3 or 4).  I say he gets maybe a little more than half but he has less than a one percent chance to collect all 62 million. 
I think the spirit of your post is solid, but it is pretty far removed from reality. There are two types of monies in the NFL, guaranteed monies and non-guaranteed monies. Owners and players are responsible for working out a mutually acceptable deal to both parties involved. If Shaun Alexander only wants guaranteed monies, then he is allowed to ask for it. No one is holding a gun to Shaun Alexander's head and telling him to sign the contract. He could have asked for only guaranteed monies and been happy with his 32 million dollar contract. However, egos get involved and players feel some sort of 'respect' is earned when they sign a 62 million dollar contract regardless of how much is guaranteed and how much is not guaranteed.
How is my post far from reality then? Shaun Alexander is never going to get 62 mill in guaranteed money but when he negotiates he like every other NFL player, seeks as much as possible under the current system. What I'm saying and it is as real as it gets, is that no NFL player is going to get 62 million or anything even close. This salary system of guaranteed money is different from those of the NBA and MLB. That's my point.
 
How is my post far from reality then? Shaun Alexander is never going to get 62 mill in guaranteed money but when he negotiates he like every other NFL player, seeks as much as possible under the current system. What I'm saying and it is as real as it gets, is that no NFL player is going to get 62 million or anything even close. This salary system of guaranteed money is different from those of the NBA and MLB. That's my point.
But how is it worse? That is what I don't understand. If Shaun Alexander signed a contract for 32 million (guaranteed) and Alex Rodriguez signed a contract for 950 million (only 250 of which was guaranteed), would you then argue the CBA in MLB is more owner bias?

 
One only needs to look at Major League Baseball and the old NHL to determine that NFL more or less has figured out how to structure and run a league.

 
How is my post far from reality then?  Shaun Alexander is never going to get 62 mill in guaranteed money but when he negotiates he like every other NFL player, seeks as much as possible under the current system.  What I'm saying and it is as real as it gets, is that no NFL player is going to get 62 million or anything even close.  This salary system of guaranteed money is different from those of the NBA and MLB.  That's my point.
But how is it worse? That is what I don't understand. If Shaun Alexander signed a contract for 32 million (guaranteed) and Alex Rodriguez signed a contract for 950 million (only 250 of which was guaranteed), would you then argue the CBA in MLB is more owner bias?
I never said I thought the league was owner bias at all. What I'm saying is that NFL contracts are bound more by agents, lawyers, and the CBA with the inability to truly gain true market value from a contract. So an argument could be made that under the current system players attempt to maximize guaranteed money and accept inflated plastic contracts that will never pay just as a game of chance (or due to egos as you noted). Maybe this is fair since if you don't live up to the contract, you will be set free but in many other cases you are cut for reasons of salary and salary alone. In the NBA you have a good season and a half then hit the open market you are getting a fat long-term deal that will take care of eight generations of your family (unless your Gary Payton with 9 kids by eight moms). NFL players can never truly relax or depend on anything but one good pay day if your not a QB. Your point addresses the ARod situation but the fact of the matter is that the guy signed for 250 not 950, and he is going to collect a good deal of that change if not all of it.

Maybe I'm not seeing your point as you are usually very cogent in your articulation in this type of banter. :shrug:

 
Your point addresses the ARod situation but the fact of the matter is that the guy signed for 250 not 950, and he is going to collect a good deal of that change if not all of it.
My point was, if Alex Rodriguez padded his salary with some non-guaranteed monies, would you also critize the MLB CBA?
Maybe this is fair since if you don't live up to the contract, you will be set free but in many other cases you are cut for reasons of salary and salary alone.
It works both ways. Look at Jeremiah Trotter. He left the Eagles, signed a huge contract with the Redskins; which had two critical aspects. 1) A huge signing bonus (guaranteed money) and 2) A huge 2nd year salary. The huge 2nd salary was a huge point of leverage for Trotter, this forced the Redskins to cut him after year 1 so he could sign another contract with more guaranteed monies. The only problem in his plan would have been if the Redskins honored his huge annual salary.
In the NBA you have a good season and a half then hit the open market you are getting a fat long-term deal that will take care of eight generations of your family (unless your Gary Payton with 9 kids by eight moms).
This sounds great for the player, but is it great for the player's association? Lets imagine NFL contracts are guaranteed, the Cardinals offer T.O. a huge fat guaranteed contract for 7 years and T.O. blows out his knee. Who is the loser here?

T.O.? :no:

His contract is guaranteed so although he is not going to play football again, he is still going to collect a paycheck.

The Cardinals? :no:

[Currently], with the NFL salary cap their payroll expense is fixed. So whether T.O. plays or not, the Cardinals know what their payroll expense will be.

Braylon Edwards? :yes:

Or I should say possibly. Because when he becomes a free agent in 4 years, there is already a big chunk of money (T.O.'s) that he is guaranteed not to get.

 
Your point addresses the ARod situation but the fact of the matter is that the guy signed for 250 not 950, and he is going to collect a good deal of that change if not all of it. 
My point was, if Alex Rodriguez padded his salary with some non-guaranteed monies, would you also critize the MLB CBA?
Maybe this is fair since if you don't live up to the contract, you will be set free but in many other cases you are cut for reasons of salary and salary alone. 
It works both ways. Look at Jeremiah Trotter. He left the Eagles, signed a huge contract with the Redskins; which had two critical aspects. 1) A huge signing bonus (guaranteed money) and 2) A huge 2nd year salary. The huge 2nd salary was a huge point of leverage for Trotter, this forced the Redskins to cut him after year 1 so he could sign another contract with more guaranteed monies. The only problem in his plan would have been if the Redskins honored his huge annual salary.
In the NBA you have a good season and a half then hit the open market you are getting a fat long-term deal that will take care of eight generations of your family (unless your Gary Payton with 9 kids by eight moms). 
This sounds great for the player, but is it great for the player's association? Lets imagine NFL contracts are guaranteed, the Cardinals offer T.O. a huge fat guaranteed contract for 7 years and T.O. blows out his knee. Who is the loser here?

T.O.? :no:

His contract is guaranteed so although he is not going to play football again, he is still going to collect a paycheck.

The Cardinals? :no:

[Currently], with the NFL salary cap their payroll expense is fixed. So whether T.O. plays or not, the Cardinals know what their payroll expense will be.

Braylon Edwards? :yes:

Or I should say possibly. Because when he becomes a free agent in 4 years, there is already a big chunk of money (T.O.'s) that he is guaranteed not to get.
Yes on point one.Point two: This is the sticking point as Trottier's contract is a good example of NFL players having only this year, only this contract, only a small deal of comfort because they are playing under the cloud of being cut any year they are due a roster bonus, a nice salary, or when they hit 30.

Point three: I agree with this perspective from a NFL business angle but it's unfair to players. They should be able to have some degree of safety and most I would venture to say, do not. I wouldn't want another Grant Hill but NFL players seem to be unprotected from what happened to Hill. I'm not up on my professional sports insurance doctrine but knowing what happened to Billy Simms, I know a lot of guys get left hanging. You think that is fair?

Maybe we are both missing something here but I just think NFL players lack leverage that other professional athletes take for granted.

 
Yes on point one.

Point two: This is the sticking point as Trottier's contract is a good example of NFL players having only this year, only this contract, only a small deal of comfort because they are playing under the cloud of being cut any year they are due a roster bonus, a nice salary, or when they hit 30.

Point three: I agree with this perspective from a NFL business angle but it's unfair to players. They should be able to have some degree of safety and most I would venture to say, do not. I wouldn't want another Grant Hill but NFL players seem to be unprotected from what happened to Hill. I'm not up on my professional sports insurance doctrine but knowing what happened to Billy Simms, I know a lot of guys get left hanging. You think that is fair?

Maybe we are both missing something here but I just think NFL players lack leverage that other professional athletes take for granted.
With Point 2, I see the non-guaranteed monies as an advantage for both players and owners. How it benefits the players; lets say T.O. wants 40 million in a guaranteed signing bonus and the team comes back with, we want to give you 10 million. The two sides discuss the issues and finally decide that 20 million in a guaranteed signing bonus is fair, provided the contract is 7 years. Fair enough, this gives the player the upfront guaranteed money he wants, plus the team can prorate the signing bonus over the maximum number of years; 7. So the annual salaries are not that important, but can be relevant. So the team now wants to sign T.O. with some manageable annual salary for 7 years. This is bad news for T.O., because if the annual number is manageable, then T.O. will not sign another contract for 7 years or unless his skills become so bad that he is released. So T.O. comes back and say, how about we put in a 15 million roster bonus at the end of year 3. This kind of sucks for the team because now the team is forced to give T.O. a 20 million signing bonus and in all liklihood can only spread it over 3 years. After which they will have to pay T.O. another huge bonus or let him become a free agent.

As far as point 3, it depends on your perseptive. The NFL doesn't have nearly as many games, so there is not as many opportunities to extract money from fans. Secondly, the money that is extracted from fans in 16 games have to be divided up 52 ways on one team. In the NBA, money is extracted from fans in 82 games and is only divided up 12 ways on a team. MLB has 162 games and is only divided up 26 ways on a team.

There is just less revenue for more players in the NFL. Do I wish NFL players had more security, sure. Do I wish MLB had more security, sure. Heck, I wish I had more security. :shrug:

 
Your point addresses the ARod situation but the fact of the matter is that the guy signed for 250 not 950, and he is going to collect a good deal of that change if not all of it. 
My point was, if Alex Rodriguez padded his salary with some non-guaranteed monies, would you also critize the MLB CBA?
Maybe this is fair since if you don't live up to the contract, you will be set free but in many other cases you are cut for reasons of salary and salary alone. 
It works both ways. Look at Jeremiah Trotter. He left the Eagles, signed a huge contract with the Redskins; which had two critical aspects. 1) A huge signing bonus (guaranteed money) and 2) A huge 2nd year salary. The huge 2nd salary was a huge point of leverage for Trotter, this forced the Redskins to cut him after year 1 so he could sign another contract with more guaranteed monies. The only problem in his plan would have been if the Redskins honored his huge annual salary.
In the NBA you have a good season and a half then hit the open market you are getting a fat long-term deal that will take care of eight generations of your family (unless your Gary Payton with 9 kids by eight moms). 
This sounds great for the player, but is it great for the player's association? Lets imagine NFL contracts are guaranteed, the Cardinals offer T.O. a huge fat guaranteed contract for 7 years and T.O. blows out his knee. Who is the loser here?

T.O.? :no:

His contract is guaranteed so although he is not going to play football again, he is still going to collect a paycheck.

The Cardinals? :no:

[Currently], with the NFL salary cap their payroll expense is fixed. So whether T.O. plays or not, the Cardinals know what their payroll expense will be.

Braylon Edwards? :yes:

Or I should say possibly. Because when he becomes a free agent in 4 years, there is already a big chunk of money (T.O.'s) that he is guaranteed not to get.
Yes on point one.Point two: This is the sticking point as Trottier's contract is a good example of NFL players having only this year, only this contract, only a small deal of comfort because they are playing under the cloud of being cut any year they are due a roster bonus, a nice salary, or when they hit 30.

Point three: I agree with this perspective from a NFL business angle but it's unfair to players. They should be able to have some degree of safety and most I would venture to say, do not. I wouldn't want another Grant Hill but NFL players seem to be unprotected from what happened to Hill. I'm not up on my professional sports insurance doctrine but knowing what happened to Billy Simms, I know a lot of guys get left hanging. You think that is fair?

Maybe we are both missing something here but I just think NFL players lack leverage that other professional athletes take for granted.
It would be very interesting to hear the union's take on guaranteed contracts. The cap would simply be spread around among more players, thus driving the average salary down. Hell, even without a cap, guaranteed payments to injured or underperforming players reduces the amount of money in the payroll budget.With so many more players than the other sports, would NFL players be willing to split up the pot even more? I'd like to know their answer to this question.

 
Yes on point one.

Point two:  This is the sticking point as Trottier's contract is a good example of NFL players having only this year, only this contract, only a small deal of comfort because they are playing under the cloud of being cut any year they are due a roster bonus, a nice salary, or when they hit 30. 

Point three:  I agree with this perspective from a NFL business angle but it's unfair to players.  They should be able to have some degree of safety and most I would venture to say, do not.  I wouldn't want another Grant Hill but NFL players seem to be unprotected from what happened to Hill.  I'm not up on my professional sports insurance doctrine but knowing what happened to Billy Simms, I know a lot of guys get left hanging.  You think that is fair? 

Maybe we are both missing something here but I just think NFL players lack leverage that other professional athletes take for granted.
With Point 2, I see the non-guaranteed monies as an advantage for both players and owners. How it benefits the players; lets say T.O. wants 40 million in a guaranteed signing bonus and the team comes back with, we want to give you 10 million. The two sides discuss the issues and finally decide that 20 million in a guaranteed signing bonus is fair, provided the contract is 7 years. Fair enough, this gives the player the upfront guaranteed money he wants, plus the team can prorate the signing bonus over the maximum number of years; 7. So the annual salaries are not that important, but can be relevant. So the team now wants to sign T.O. with some manageable annual salary for 7 years. This is bad news for T.O., because if the annual number is manageable, then T.O. will not sign another contract for 7 years or unless his skills become so bad that he is released. So T.O. comes back and say, how about we put in a 15 million roster bonus at the end of year 3. This kind of sucks for the team because now the team is forced to give T.O. a 20 million signing bonus and in all liklihood can only spread it over 3 years. After which they will have to pay T.O. another huge bonus or let him become a free agent.

As far as point 3, it depends on your perseptive. The NFL doesn't have nearly as many games, so there is not as many opportunities to extract money from fans. Secondly, the money that is extracted from fans in 16 games have to be divided up 52 ways on one team. In the NBA, money is extracted from fans in 82 games and is only divided up 12 ways on a team. MLB has 162 games and is only divided up 26 ways on a team.

There is just less revenue for more players in the NFL. Do I wish NFL players had more security, sure. Do I wish MLB had more security, sure. Heck, I wish I had more security. :shrug:
This is some very complicated stuff isn't it? Contract law is one thing but you throw in insurance, bottom lines, emotions, long term and short term business and team goals, and much more and it becomes something only an Ivy Leaguer can compute. I see your point, and I see mine. Your argument has much more historical and contemporary relevance but I just think that there are some holes in the system from a players angle. But to truly understand this would in my mind spoil some of what the game represents so I'll stop speaking of this now. Good stuff though. Shark Pool in the off-season is much more palatable, if not enjoyable. :thumbup:

 
This is some very complicated stuff isn't it? Contract law is one thing but you throw in insurance, bottom lines, emotions, long term and short term business and team goals, and much more and it becomes something only an Ivy Leaguer can compute. I see your point, and I see mine. Your argument has much more historical and contemporary relevance but I just think that there are some holes in the system from a players angle. But to truly understand this would in my mind spoil some of what the game represents so I'll stop speaking of this now.

Good stuff though. Shark Pool in the off-season is much more palatable, if not enjoyable. :thumbup:
Well I think your point is well taken, I just wanted to disclose the other side of the story; most of which you hear about the NFL CBA is from agents like Drew Rosenhaus, and they are usually trying to sell something.
 
Last night someone posted on a Redskin message board saying he had a source in front office of an AFC North team. He said the deadline would be moved back last night.

Link

So far, so good; he's 1 for 1.

Today he posted again: RUMOR: Jerry Jones is why the new CBA might not get done

I talked with my source today regarding his owner's thoughts on whether the rest of the owners will agree to accept the current CBA proposal. He said that Jerry Jones, is the high-revenue owner that is trying to block a deal in its current format. Supposedly Jones has been the ringleader of the high-revenue owners for more than a year and he is doing everything he can to get the necessary 8 votes amongst owners to block a new CBA agreement.

My source's owner ("MSO") says Jones has applied the full court press on other owners going into tuesday's meetings in Dallas. And, here's the kicker: Jones has invited select owners to his mansion in Dallas on Monday Night for dinner. MSO says Jones wants a unified front by at least 7 other owners going into the meetings on tuesday.

But, still breathe easy Skins fans because my source's owner is still feeling that an agreement will get done. Thought you would be interested. As he was telling me this I juts started laughing because it sounds like an f-ing movie. I will post more pertinent info. on the CBA if/when I get it.
If any further information comes available from this guy and it seems at all credible, I'll post it.
 
Same guy, claiming to have a source in the front office of an AFC North team, posting again today.

Link

I just got an e-mail from my source. He said their front office was in a meeting when they got a message from their GM that they are supposed to start preparing for fee agency as if a new CBA was in place. Their GM is in Dallas with the owner in the meetings.

That is all that he gave me and I didn't ask anymore questions.
 
Chris Mortensen, on ESPN Sportcenter, just now stated that there IS an agreement in principle, and it will be with a revenue figure at 59.5% and some cap over cash limitations.

Said that the NFL accepted Upshaws last proposal ten minutes after the deadline. It still needs to go to the owners for final ratification and approvel, so its not definite. But a deal has been reached.
so Mort was full of ....eh?
 
Chris Mortensen, on ESPN Sportcenter, just now stated that there IS an agreement in principle, and it will be with a revenue figure at 59.5% and some cap over cash limitations.

Said that the NFL accepted Upshaws last proposal ten minutes after the deadline. It still needs to go to the owners for final ratification and approvel, so its not definite. But a deal has been reached.
so Mort was full of ....eh?
I think the original post was misleading and the original poster misunderstood what Mortensen was saying. There was no agreement in principle, only that the owners would take back the union's last proposal and take a vote on it. During contract negotiations between a union and mgmt either both sides come to some middle ground and the union takes a back the proposal to be ratified or one side takes a stand and says this is our final and best offer and then it must be voted on. Big differences in scenarios.
 
Partially correct.  Without a cap, salaries for stars would be higher.
Average and median salaries would both be higher without a cap. The super-star salaries are held down by the salary cap, but the second-tier salaries are held down by the super-star salaries, and so on down the line (You're not going to pay Derrick Mason more than Randy Moss).
you are right and wrong...the average (mean) salary would definately go up... however, the median salary would almost assuredly NOT go up...

the only thing no salary cap would do is make Peyton Manning make $35 million a year and James, Harrison, & Wayne make another $40 million/year and everyone else on the Colts make MAYBE what they do now... (for example)

the haves will have more, the have nots will have less...

oh yeah, and if you are going to compare median salaries between MLB and the NFL us the entire roster of the MLB teams, not just the Major League roster... They own the rights and have the contracts to most of the minor league players, you need to include those #s to be a truely accurate representation of salary comparisons...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Link

Here is the latest I have heard: My source's GM informed their staff late last night (after the meetings adjourned in Dallas for the day) that approval of the new CBA is "virtually certain" to happen later today and that their staff should continue planning for free agency as if the CBA is approved.

He also told me that Jerry Jones continues to be the ring leader against a new CBA and that he is still trying win votes from other owners to block an extension. MSO and the GM will be in the meeting all day and he told me that the next news he hears from his GM will be yea or nay on the extension.
 
He also told me that Jerry Jones continues to be the ring leader against a new CBA and that he is still trying win votes from other owners to block an extension. MSO and the GM will be in the meeting all day and he told me that the next news he hears from his GM will be yea or nay on the extension.
I would be more interested in why Jerry Jones is opposed to it. As much as I don't like the man, I still have a great amount of respect for him as a business man.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He also told me that Jerry Jones continues to be the ring leader against a new CBA and that he is still trying win votes from other owners to block an extension. MSO and the GM will be in the meeting all day and he told me that the next news he hears from his GM will be yea or nay on the extension.
I would be more interested in why Jerry Jones is opposed to it. As much as I don't like the man, I still have a great amount of respect for him as a business man.
I'm a fan of a small market team but I see JJ's point. He's really been aggressive in securing marketing deals above and beyond the NFL deals to benefit the Cowboys. Add to that the popularity of his brand (the Boys) and what that means in terms of merchandising and TV viewership. It's safe to say he is responsible for a big chunk of the NFL pie and he feels he shouldn't have to share it all. I can understand that. But he also needs to realize he benefits from a healthy NFL and it's important to keep the league and all of its teams financially strong.

 
He also told me that Jerry Jones continues to be the ring leader against a new CBA and that he is still trying win votes from other owners to block an extension. MSO and the GM will be in the meeting all day and he told me that the next news he hears from his GM will be yea or nay on the extension.
I would be more interested in why Jerry Jones is opposed to it. As much as I don't like the man, I still have a great amount of respect for him as a business man.
I'm a fan of a small market team but I see JJ's point. He's really been aggressive in securing marketing deals above and beyond the NFL deals to benefit the Cowboys. Add to that the popularity of his brand (the Boys) and what that means in terms of merchandising and TV viewership. It's safe to say he is responsible for a big chunk of the NFL pie and he feels he shouldn't have to share it all. I can understand that. But he also needs to realize he benefits from a healthy NFL and it's important to keep the league and all of its teams financially strong.
But what is his counter-point to the proposed CBA agreement by the players?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top