If the draft were abolished, how would it affect your love of the NFL? (1 Viewer)

[shader]

I was reading some scary quotes from Kevin Mawae about the draft. I've heard that some of the lawyers representing the players would like to get the draft abolished.

I have to say, if they got rid of the draft, this would absolutely crush me. It's certainly my favorite non-football weekend of the year, and in a way it's more exciting than a normal football weekend.

To get rid of it and make it all an auction would throw the entire league out of whack, and just really dampen my enthusiasm for the league.

I'm not saying I'd stop watching...but I think it would be the start of an NFL that favors the big markets. When you can give Daniel Snyder the ability to outbid other owners for rookies? Things could get out of whack in a hurry.

A scenario where the Redskins could say "ok screw it, we're about to outbid everyone for Cam Newton, Julio Jones, Patrick Peterson and Marcel Dareus, and sign them all to long-term contracts......this is not a scenario I would want to see and it would really kill parity in the NFL rather quickly. How would a small market team even compete?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I wouldnt like it at all and I doubt that there isnt a draft. A draft allows you to control the incoming players salaries, if there isnt one, THe Hot rookie and stud players would get all the cash and the average guys would be bummin.

 

[Jason Wood]

Absolutely. One of the things the NFL has going for it is parity. Sure, there are organization (e.g., NE, PIT, PHI) that seem to win more in the modern era than not, and those on the other end of things too, but so many factors are held constant. Imagine if all the things that alter the course now, such as ownership commitment, infrastructure, scouting budget/process, coaching hiring/budget/process were then thrown into a mix that now included: widely different team payrolls, open bidding on all incoming athletes, no protection of existing free agents, different agreements for licensing, merchandising, ancillary media revenues, etc...

It would become a case of the haves and have nots. The teams with the most money would, almost assuredly, always be competitive if not dominant.

 

[Grimace59]

I was reading some scary quotes from Kevin Mawae about the draft. I've heard that some of the lawyers representing the players would like to get the draft abolished.

This a scare tactic by the players, other reports have said they player would never try to get rid of the draft because of what is stated above. Top Rookies and FA get paid way too much, everybody else much less. Plus the players understand something like that would kill the league. I can see the Franchise and Transitional tags gone with a new CBA, but not the draft.Hypothetically if the draft was gone, it could kill my love for the game as an actual fan, and I may just go purely NCAA football.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'd prefer a televised live auction (with a cap).

 

[zadok]

I would hate that it would be gone, but it would have no effect on my love of the game. Good organizations find a way to win in any environment.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

It would really bother me. I love watching the draft and it would decimate the team I root for. I'm not saying I wouldn't watch the NFL anymore, but I don't think I would have the same passion that I have for it now.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'd prefer a televised live auction (with a cap).

This.No, I mean THIS.

 

[renesauz]

Depends on what you mean by "gone". If gone means a free for all open market with no restrictions, than yes, my love will be gone with the draft. I'm not interested in such a system.

If "gone" means replaced by something akin to an auction, than I might like it even more, but winning said auction would have to grant that franchise with exclusive rights, just as the draft does now, in order to be effective. Such a system could not stand up to anti-trust scrutiny any more easily than the draft, so why even discuss that as a "solution"?

 

[shader]

I was reading some scary quotes from Kevin Mawae about the draft. I've heard that some of the lawyers representing the players would like to get the draft abolished.

This a scare tactic by the players, other reports have said they player would never try to get rid of the draft because of what is stated above. Top Rookies and FA get paid way too much, everybody else much less. Plus the players understand something like that would kill the league. I can see the Franchise and Transitional tags gone with a new CBA, but not the draft.Hypothetically if the draft was gone, it could kill my love for the game as an actual fan, and I may just go purely NCAA football.

I hope you are right, that it is a scare tactic by the players.

 

[shader]

Depends on what you mean by "gone". If gone means a free for all open market with no restrictions, than yes, my love will be gone with the draft. I'm not interested in such a system.If "gone" means replaced by something akin to an auction, than I might like it even more, but winning said auction would have to grant that franchise with exclusive rights, just as the draft does now, in order to be effective. Such a system could not stand up to anti-trust scrutiny any more easily than the draft, so why even discuss that as a "solution"?

Wouldn't the purpose of the players theoretically abolishing the draft, be to allow rookies to play wherever they want to? I agree, this auction might change the means of granting franchises players, but it still doesn't change the fact that the player wouldn't get to determine where he would go.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'd prefer a televised live auction (with a cap).

How in the world would that stand up to anti-trust scrutiny and not a draft? By agreeing to a spending cap, the exact same arguments that are used against a draft could be used against a capped auction.As to the original question, it would definitely dampen my enthusiasm for the NFL and as the Bills became even more and more less competitive as they are now, I'm sure it would ultimately kill my enjoyment of the NFL.

 

[roadkill1292]

An auction and salary cap doesn't have to satisfy anti-trust regs; it can be the result of bargaining. The players could agree to it under the presumption (not necessarily correct) that it would result in higher rookie salaries than under a draft.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

An auction and salary cap doesn't have to satisfy anti-trust regs; it can be the result of bargaining. The players could agree to it under the presumption (not necessarily correct) that it would result in higher rookie salaries than under a draft.

Why would current union members want high rookie salaries?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'd prefer a televised live auction (with a cap).

How in the world would that stand up to anti-trust scrutiny and not a draft?

We've had a draft for a zillion years. We can have an auction the same way. Make it part of the next CBA.

 

[roadkill1292]

An auction and salary cap doesn't have to satisfy anti-trust regs; it can be the result of bargaining. The players could agree to it under the presumption (not necessarily correct) that it would result in higher rookie salaries than under a draft.

Why would current union member want high rookie salaries?

If there's a cap, they probably wouldn't. But a cap/auction structure could still theoretically come to pass. I think this thread is exploring how you would like options other than the current draft, not what's feasible and what's not. There're two other threads where that discussion is taking place (and they're pretty good discussions, too).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I have to say, if they got rid of the draft, this would absolutely crush me. It's certainly my favorite non-football weekend of the year, and in a way it's more exciting than a normal football weekend.

I used to like the draft when it kicked off Saturday at noon. As far as I'm concerned, the NFL ruined it.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

It would become a case of the haves and have nots. The teams with the most money would, almost assuredly, always be competitive if not dominant.

This.

 

[cobalt_27]

I have to say, if they got rid of the draft, this would absolutely crush me. It's certainly my favorite non-football weekend of the year, and in a way it's more exciting than a normal football weekend.

I used to like the draft when it kicked off Saturday at noon. As far as I'm concerned, the NFL ruined it.

Yup. Totally agree. I miss rolling out of the rack on Saturdays to nonstop draft stuff.Dreamworld scenario would be a televised auction. On Saturdays!

 

[lynx4ben]

If they got rid of the draft it would definatly affect me. I would still watch football don't get me wrong. But I LOVE the draft. I host a yearly draft party with a gambling event based on mocking out the NFL draft in real time (guessing the picks). If it affected parity it would even moreso decrease my love for the game.

I think it might affect my interest in dynasty fantasy football formats as well.

Honestly, I could see myself going the way of many baseball fans after their strike.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It would affect my love of the draft, but not of watching the actual games.

Once they start to play, it's not really that important to me how the team was built.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

It would affect my love of the draft, but not of watching the actual games.Once they start to play, it's not really that important to me how the team was built.

If there are only 2 or 3 teams in the league that are any good it would effect your enjoyment of watching the games. Even if you are lucky enough to be a fan of one of the good teams. Most of their games would be boring.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It would affect my love of the draft, but not of watching the actual games.Once they start to play, it's not really that important to me how the team was built.

If there are only 2 or 3 teams in the league that are any good it would effect your enjoyment of watching the games. Even if you are lucky enough to be a fan of one of the good teams. Most of their games would be boring.

That would just affect my interest in the Super Bowl. No different than it is for the World Series. But the weekend to weekend enjoyment of football would still be there.

 

[shader]

I have to say, if they got rid of the draft, this would absolutely crush me. It's certainly my favorite non-football weekend of the year, and in a way it's more exciting than a normal football weekend.

I used to like the draft when it kicked off Saturday at noon. As far as I'm concerned, the NFL ruined it.

That is a good point. The Thursday night thing is horrible.

 

[Obie Wan]

I'd prefer a televised live auction (with a cap).

too bad the cap would be illegal as a restraint of trade

 

[WVU Alum]

I'd prefer a televised live auction (with a cap).

too bad the cap would be illegal as a restraint of trade

Adrian Peterson would not be a fan.

 

[belljr]

How can you get rid of the draft, they would be the only league without one

 

[eakfootball]

I get more exited for the draft than the super bowl. It would enrage me.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

if true armaggedon hit, there would be no trades, no draft, total free agency. Meh

 

[J Andersson]

It would impact the way I view the NFL.

I doubt I would quit following the sport but the one thing that makes it interesting is that the teams all have a chance at rebuilding through the draft with the lesser teams getting the earlier picks. There is a need for a rookie salary cap, since the salaries for rookies, especially those selected early, have gone through the roof.

If there is no draft and no cap it could severily impact my interest.

I would hate it if it turns into baseball, making a team the Yankees of football (is there any excuse for them not to win the World Series every year?).

 

[RobertBobson]

I always find it funny, how the last bastions of communism in this country are found in the heart of sports fans. Guys who are so conservative about all other aspects of their life, about economics, politics... the idea of players actually being able ply their wares on a labor free market sends them into a tailspin. Teams should have salary caps, teams should be equal.. in no other place in our culture and or economy is there such rampant and wide spread defense of this sort of thing.

Imagine what it would be like if you came out of college, with an economics degree. You were at the top of your class, and you are a highly prized college graduate. Instead of getting to chose what bank or consulting firm you got hired it, letting them bid against each other, getting your true worth at one of the premier institutions in the country, you got drafted by a small brokerage firm in toledo, who got to draft you because their business was so poorly mismanaged that they finished at the bottom of the pile. So you have to move to some terrible city, working for a terrible organization, with a salary that is artificially low and the best part is, you can't get a new job and move to someplace good with a good firm for... 6 years. In what world is that fair?

Yes, yes, I know. Players get paid a lot of money. So do owners. Players get paid a lot of money, because their business generates a lot of revenue. Yes, Yes, I know, players don't HAVE to play in the NFL, they can play for the CFL if they don't like the way the NFL operates. That doesn't make the way the NFL operates fair.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the draft, I think it's fun. But, philosophically, I think the draft is fundamentally unamerican and unfair.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I have to say, if they got rid of the draft, this would absolutely crush me. It's certainly my favorite non-football weekend of the year, and in a way it's more exciting than a normal football weekend.

I used to like the draft when it kicked off Saturday at noon. As far as I'm concerned, the NFL ruined it.

Agreed. I find it hard to believe that they're actually getting better tv ratings this way. Even when they went to Friday night for the first round (or was it two?) it wasn't completely awful. But this Thursday through Saturday stuff is ridiculous. I think there is one reason that it will stay this way though and it's that the extra time allows teams to make more trades. There has been a ton of draft movement between the first and second round and lots more picks changing hands. At least that's my perception (which could be totally off base).

 

[ZWK]

I wouldn't mind much if they got rid of the draft and made all rookies unrestricted free agents. There'd still be plenty of excitement over which rookies my team was going to sign.

The big question for parity is whether teams at least act like there is a salary cap. As long as all the teams continue to spend about the same amount as each other on player salaries, we'll continue to have about as much parity as we do now. But if some teams start spending big like the Yankees (or small like the Pirates), then that will be bad for the sport. But it doesn't really matter if that big spending is used to collect star rookies like Julio Jones and Marcel Dareus or to collect star veterans like Sidney Rice and Logan Mankins.

 

[coolnerd]

I would have to see what replced it in terms of play acquisition and how that influenced the week to week product.

 

[VTjkru]

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the draft, I think it's fun. But, philosophically, I think the draft is fundamentally unamerican and unfair.

I get what you're saying and you are probably right. The thing about the draft is that it's almost unanimous that it makes for a better product overall. And when the product is overall better, everyone (players, fans, owners, employees, etc) benefits in the long run.I cant imagine my love for the NFL waning but I'm sure it would if the draft was kaput.

 

[FUBAR]

abolishing slavery didn't affect my love of farming.

 

[_lurker_]

abolishing slavery didn't affect my love of farming.

I would love to watch old rich white guys bidding on young black men

 

[Andy Dufresne]

abolishing slavery didn't affect my love of farming.

I would love to watch old rich white guys bidding on young black men

Oh my.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

An auction and salary cap doesn't have to satisfy anti-trust regs; it can be the result of bargaining. The players could agree to it under the presumption (not necessarily correct) that it would result in higher rookie salaries than under a draft.

Why would current union member want high rookie salaries?

If there's a cap, they probably wouldn't. But a cap/auction structure could still theoretically come to pass. I think this thread is exploring how you would like options other than the current draft, not what's feasible and what's not. There're two other threads where that discussion is taking place (and they're pretty good discussions, too).

Please point me to these 2 topics. TIA

 

[roadkill1292]

An auction and salary cap doesn't have to satisfy anti-trust regs; it can be the result of bargaining. The players could agree to it under the presumption (not necessarily correct) that it would result in higher rookie salaries than under a draft.

Why would current union member want high rookie salaries?

If there's a cap, they probably wouldn't. But a cap/auction structure could still theoretically come to pass. I think this thread is exploring how you would like options other than the current draft, not what's feasible and what's not. There're two other threads where that discussion is taking place (and they're pretty good discussions, too).

Please point me to these 2 topics. TIA

Well now I'm afraid to. You're such a cranky old curmudgeon that you probably won't find them nearly as interesting as I did. But here they are. Lockout over and NFLPA officially decertifies. In that second one, you might just want to skip ahead to my stuff 'cuz it's really brilliant.

 

[renesauz]

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the draft, I think it's fun. But, philosophically, I think the draft is fundamentally unamerican and unfair.

I disagree. The players have other options, and they are extraordinarily well-compensated for the "unfairness" of it all.Even the idea that it's collusive and unfair is based on the presumption that the teams are 32 SEPERATE and INDIVIDUAL businesses. Although that is indeed their legal definition, the legal definitions are, quite bluntly, inadequate. They require a binary (yes/no or black/white) answer in a world which often contains significant shades of gray. Just because the courts have ruled that the NFL teams are seperate businesses doesn't make them fully analagous (sp?) to every other set of competing businesses, a distinction that has been acknowledged, but not not clarified adequately. The teams are indeed "gray", even if the courts have decided that they are more white than black (or more yes than no.)IE: ALL the players are playing for the NFL. It's is not remotely analagous (sp?) to Exxon and Mobil "drafting" college graduates who wish to go into the oil industry. It's only "fundamentally unamerican and unfair" if you honestly believe that the NFL teams are 32 uniquely individual companies, instead of what they truly are, a confederation of companies which could NOT exist independantly, under 100% seperate management. The NFL has a common management, they are inseperable. Exxon and Mobil are.

 

[RobertBobson]

I disagree. The players have other options, and they are extraordinarily well-compensated for the "unfairness" of it all.

Who are you to decide they are well compensated? In our system, the market should decide what fair compensation is. Just because they make a lot, doesn't mean they make what they deserve to be paid, or what the market would bear.

Even the idea that it's collusive and unfair is based on the presumption that the teams are 32 SEPERATE and INDIVIDUAL businesses. Although that is indeed their legal definition, the legal definitions are, quite bluntly, inadequate. They require a binary (yes/no or black/white) answer in a world which often contains significant shades of gray. Just because the courts have ruled that the NFL teams are seperate businesses doesn't make them fully analagous (sp?) to every other set of competing businesses, a distinction that has been acknowledged, but not not clarified adequately. The teams are indeed "gray", even if the courts have decided that they are more white than black (or more yes than no.)

Oh, yes, silly things like court rulings.

IE: ALL the players are playing for the NFL. It's is not remotely analagous (sp?) to Exxon and Mobil "drafting" college graduates who wish to go into the oil industry. It's only "fundamentally unamerican and unfair" if you honestly believe that the NFL teams are 32 uniquely individual companies, instead of what they truly are, a confederation of companies which could NOT exist independantly, under 100% seperate management. The NFL has a common management, they are inseperable. Exxon and Mobil are.

If you feel that the NFL is just one business, one management, that the teams aren't in compensation with each other, economically speaking, then it's unquestionably a monopoly that should be broken up. And I also think this system is fundamentally unfair for large market teams, or teams with national fan bases. I don't think in baseball, for example, it's fair for large market teams to pay "luxary taxes" to subsidize small market teams, allowing them to put out inferior products and still make money. And I don't think it's fair for teams like the Cowboys to get an equal share of the television profits with a team like the panthers or jacksonville. The panthers and Jacksonville do not add equal value to the league. The Cowboys, the steelers and other gold standard franchises get much larger ratings, yet they get no economic benefit from that. I understand the argument for it, that it's important for the health of the league for the Cowboys to subsidize teams with small or poor fan bases. But that doesn't make it a fair business practice.

I understand why fans like hard salary caps, profit sharing, drafts, base rookie salary caps, long tenures with a team before they are allowed to be free agents. It allows fans of small teams hope, and it is probably better for the league as a whole to have a measure of parody, and not turn into the EPL with a few major teams, and a bunch of also ran feeder teams. However, I think it goes against basic free market tenants, and is fundamentally unfair. I understand that fans don't have much sympathy since players are so well payed. But owners are well compensated as well. Goddell is well compensated. And they aren't sacrificing their bodies and life spans for this compensation.

Specifically, about the draft, if the league maintained a salary cap ( which I oppose)and just had free agency instead of the draft, I don't see how that would effect the product adversely. I think fans just like the draft, because of it's entertainment value. I don't think incompetent franchise like the Raiders should be rewarded for their incompetence with high draft picks every year. I think free agency (with a cap) wouldn't turn the leauge into haves and have nots, it would further seperate the competant and incompetent franchises.

 

[renesauz]

If you feel that the NFL is just one business, one management, that the teams aren't in compensation with each other, economically speaking, then it's unquestionably a monopoly that should be broken up.

If this is how you honestly feel, then why would even come to FBG's? I mean, why would you support ANY pro sports? For one, I (and most people) fundamentally disagree with the premise that EVERY monopoly should be broken up. For another, even if you consider the NFL as a asingle entity, that entity is still not a true monopoly. It is in the greater field of entertainment. People can opt for movies, OTHER SPORTS, or a bazzilion other entertainment options.

Face the simple fact that pro sports franchises don't easily fit under the normal rules and laws governing business. The superior product (and the public good) is not achieved by fierce competition in all aspects, but in competition in some aspects, and full cooperation in others. MOst of our anti-trust laws are based on the premise that collusion acts to the public detriment (usually in the form of higher prices for products and/or an inferior product). Specific provisions of the trust laws allow for CONGRESS to exempt companies whose monopoly is for the public good (such as electric companies....it is NOT in the public interest to have multiple power grids) OR whose businesses are fundamentally impossible/irreparably damaged by the application of the law. MLB was granted such an exemption...there is ZERO logical reason why the NFL has not been granted a similar exemption.

Even as a single entity, it's a stretch to call the NFL a "monopoly", but if you insist on doing so, it's in the public good to grant an exemption...IT GIVES US A BETTER PRODUCT. (and I'm sorry, but players making 2.7+ MILLION a year are not being done any "injustice" by the granting of such an exemption) "Breaking up" this monopoly would DESTROY the NFL. The individual teams CAN NOT EXIST INDEPENDANTLY.

To be perfectly blunt, I don't give a rats behind about "pure free market tenants". Such tenants, for example, would cause us to keep unions illegal in the first place. Much like Democracy, the "free market" has some very real limitations and inherent problems. Just because it's the "best" system does NOT make it perfect. If the NFL ever became like most European soccer leagues, where 3 or 4 teams are competitive andf the rest are nothing but "feeders", I (and millions like me) would stop watching. This is the very essence of "the public good". The public isn't interested in that type of free market.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I always find it funny, how the last bastions of communism in this country are found in the heart of sports fans. Guys who are so conservative about all other aspects of their life, about economics, politics... the idea of players actually being able ply their wares on a labor free market sends them into a tailspin. Teams should have salary caps, teams should be equal.. in no other place in our culture and or economy is there such rampant and wide spread defense of this sort of thing.Imagine what it would be like if you came out of college, with an economics degree. You were at the top of your class, and you are a highly prized college graduate. Instead of getting to chose what bank or consulting firm you got hired it, letting them bid against each other, getting your true worth at one of the premier institutions in the country, you got drafted by a small brokerage firm in toledo, who got to draft you because their business was so poorly mismanaged that they finished at the bottom of the pile. So you have to move to some terrible city, working for a terrible organization, with a salary that is artificially low and the best part is, you can't get a new job and move to someplace good with a good firm for... 6 years. In what world is that fair? Yes, yes, I know. Players get paid a lot of money. So do owners. Players get paid a lot of money, because their business generates a lot of revenue. Yes, Yes, I know, players don't HAVE to play in the NFL, they can play for the CFL if they don't like the way the NFL operates. That doesn't make the way the NFL operates fair. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the draft, I think it's fun. But, philosophically, I think the draft is fundamentally unamerican and unfair.

I totally understand this point of view. That said, the analogy, which is used frequently, isn't perfect. You can view the team as the employer or the LEAGUE as the employer. The truth really is somewhere in between. If the league is the employer, it's a highly specialized consulting firm (noted as by far the best in the country), with 32 branch offices. So they say to potential employees, we give hiring preferences to our branches that need the most help, and if you agree to work for us, you must "pay your dues" to the company by working in one of those branches for at least X years. Of course, you can leave the company at any time and go work for a smaller less reputable firm. Oh, and as it currently stands, the best prospects still get the most money, and can and often do earn more money than all but the most senior and accomplished current employees.The primary point is that the LEAGUE is an entity in and of itself. The teams are individual businesses, but they are also part of a larger organization. When discussing employer/employee relationships with the players, you need to look at the league both ways.

 

[RobertBobson]

The primary point is that the LEAGUE is an entity in and of itself. The teams are individual businesses, but they are also part of a larger organization. When discussing employer/employee relationships with the players, you need to look at the league both ways.

Either way you look at it, i don't see how its fair to a worker to have artificially lower salaries and restriction of employment to one city for 6-7 years. If the league is one entity, that this worker unfairness is a product of their monopoly on the market.

 

[RobertBobson]

If this is how you honestly feel, then why would even come to FBG's? I mean, why would you support ANY pro sports?

Because I view teams as individual businesses.

Face the simple fact that pro sports franchises don't easily fit under the normal rules and laws governing business. The superior product (and the public good) is not achieved by fierce competition in all aspects, but in competition in some aspects, and full cooperation in others.

And to who's benefit is it to artificially cap salaries and have a draft? It's done solely to maximize profits for the owners. If teams had to, say, bid on players, and build their teams through an auction format, or free agency, each team would have the same chance to make mistakes and make value picks as any other team. IT wouldn't be damaging to the league. by having a draft, capping salaries and making salary caps in general, the owners are ending the free market for player's labor, not for a benefit of the game, but for a benefit of their profits.

MOst of our anti-trust laws are based on the premise that collusion acts to the public detriment (usually in the form of higher prices for products and/or an inferior product). Specific provisions of the trust laws allow for CONGRESS to exempt companies whose monopoly is for the public good (such as electric companies....it is NOT in the public interest to have multiple power grids) OR whose businesses are fundamentally impossible/irreparably damaged by the application of the law. MLB was granted such an exemption...there is ZERO logical reason why the NFL has not been granted a similar exemption.

I don't think major league baseball would be irreparably damaged if the law was applied to it.

Even as a single entity, it's a stretch to call the NFL a "monopoly", but if you insist on doing so, it's in the public good to grant an exemption...IT GIVES US A BETTER PRODUCT. (and I'm sorry, but players making 2.7+ MILLION a year are not being done any "injustice" by the granting of such an exemption) "Breaking up" this monopoly would DESTROY the NFL. The individual teams CAN NOT EXIST INDEPENDANTLY.

I know exactly what it would do. But, since I view nfl teams as businesses in competition with each other, and not as one single business, I would not advocate breaking it up. What I advocate is the breaking up of their collusion to keep player salaries down. And how much the players make is irrelevant. The profits are massive in the nfl. Players make the money they do, because their labor is worth that. ( it's worth more than that, actually, but their contracts are kept artificially low)

To be perfectly blunt, I don't give a rats behind about "pure free market tenants". Such tenants, for example, would cause us to keep unions illegal in the first place. Much like Democracy, the "free market" has some very real limitations and inherent problems. Just because it's the "best" system does NOT make it perfect. If the NFL ever became like most European soccer leagues, where 3 or 4 teams are competitive andf the rest are nothing but "feeders", I (and millions like me) would stop watching. This is the very essence of "the public good". The public isn't interested in that type of free market.

What I don't understand is why the public is interested in keeping player salaries artificially low. I don't see how the elimination of the draft, and allowing players to have free agency, straight out of college, would destroy the league and cause 3 or 4 teams to dominate. NFL teams would still share Television revenues. I don't see how the draft, specifically, is for the benefit of the public good, other than it makes a nice television event every year. I think it would be tough to use "entertainment value" as a defensive in a court of law.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

The primary point is that the LEAGUE is an entity in and of itself. The teams are individual businesses, but they are also part of a larger organization. When discussing employer/employee relationships with the players, you need to look at the league both ways.

Either way you look at it, i don't see how its fair to a worker to have artificially lower salaries and restriction of employment to one city for 6-7 years. If the league is one entity, that this worker unfairness is a product of their monopoly on the market.

Well, I'm not sure how artificially low they really were. I'm not convinced that in a pure FA market some these guys would get any more than they already were. In some cases, I wouldn't be surprised if they got MORE than they would have on the open market, just because of the pressure their teams face to "sign their guys". They were already getting league record contracts without ever having played. The low first rounders and second rounders might be a different story.Keep in mind there were NO league restrictions on rookie salary at all - within the obvious restraint of one team, every pick was free to negotiate the best deal he could get (or opt not to sign at all).And as for the location restriction, like I said before, if the league is the company, that's just where the company has an opening (or wants to focus it's resources). And there were no restrictions on how long those rookie deals had to be. In most cases, the longer the deal, the bigger the bonus, and players in general want the biggest bonus they can get.Again, I get your position. It's just that I see the other side as well. There ARE other football leagues to play for, and there are a TON of other employment options for highly skilled athletes. You can still exercise your open market options, you just can't do it within one particular league.

 

[RobertBobson]

Again, I get your position. It's just that I see the other side as well. There ARE other football leagues to play for, and there are a TON of other employment options for highly skilled athletes. You can still exercise your open market options, you just can't do it within one particular league.

I think this idea is preposterous. There's only one league in the world where elite american football players perform. In order for an highly skilled athlete to be an nba or Mlb or other major sports league player, they would have had to have been focusing on those sports in high school and college, and achieved those skill sets. They are not world class basketball players, they are world class football players. And this isn't soccer, where there are many top level leagues a player can play at. There is only one league for an elite football player. The CFL and the arena league are not competing with the nfl for talent, or fan attention.Really, there is only one other football league that competes with the NFL for fan attention and revenues, and employs elite level football players. And if you think my views on the NFL are radical, you should hear how exploitative and unfair I think the NCAA is.

 

[RUSF18]

I wonder how the NFL's partners like ESPN...or even just the NFL Network...would feel about not having a draft. ESPN makes a ton of money and fills a lot of programming space with coverage of the actual draft, the buildup, the reaction, etc.

 

[bonesman]

Hypothetically if the draft was gone, it could kill my love for the game as an actual fan, and I may just go purely NCAA football.

Yea, because that NCAA draft of HS players is so awesome right?