Player Contracts & Holding Out

[Big Red]

I've noticed that there are two arguements going around that I think are exclusive of each other. How many times have you heard each of the following:

 

1- Terrell Owens (or anyone else) signed a contract. If he didn't like it, he should not have signed it.

 

2- Kevin Winslow Jr. (or anyone else) should not hold out for that much money, he's not yet worth it.

 

I can't see how we can have it both ways. You can say KW is full of himself thinking he's worth that much before playing a down, but once he signs, the other arguement is what is used to make him look bad. TO signed a contract and, after having a great year, wants to be rewarded beyond what he signed.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of either player, but I can't really see making a big deal out of both. Only one should be 'wrong'.

 

If I had to pick, I think I like T.O.'s approach a little better. You usually hear 'put up or shut up'. He's put up big time. I'm not saying Philly should give him a new monster deal, but maybe something is deserving. Perhaps the same contract with a roster bonus or new performance insentives.

 

Just my $0.02.

[Grits and Shins]

The problem with TO is that he signed a new contract just LAST year and told his new team he wouldn't be a problem.

 

I absolutely do NOT like the idea of players holding out when they are already under contract. But given that the owners don't have to honor the contract I'm not sure why we all expect the players to have to honor them. I'd like to see a salary system more like MLB ... where the money on a contract is guaranteed. This way both parties on the contract are obligated to the contract.

 

I also hate the way the NFL pays their rookies strictly for perceived potential and based on what previous players drafted in that position received. I'd sure like to see rookies paid a minimum and have to earn big money.

[Big Red]

I'd like to see a salary system more like MLB ... where the money on a contract is guaranteed. 

 

836972[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Uh, Albert Belle.

 

I don't know if there is a silver bullet cure, especially in a salary cap structure. Some teams in baseball can afford a bad big money contract. Some are destroyed for years by it. The Orioles just turned the corner at the end of last season. Last season was also the first season they where not paying for Belle since he left the team what, four years ago?

 

I do agree TO should play, but I can see his point much more than a rookie holdout. He was a stud on the field last year, AND he risked major injury trying to help his team. He wants a return on that now, although he is handling it in the wrong way.

[AtomicCEO]

Is TO not getting paid as he misses practice?

 

If not... what are they paying him for? He's hurting the team by not participating in the off-season. I'd be docking his pay for not showing up. I'd like to think that the courts would support that decision.

[Caveman_Nick]

I absolutely do NOT like the idea of players holding out when they are already under contract.  But given that the owners don't have to honor the contract I'm not sure why we all expect the players to have to honor them.  I'd like to see a salary system more like MLB ... where the money on a contract is guaranteed.  This way both parties on the contract are obligated to the contract.

 

836972[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Guaranteed money is not a good solution. The inherent problem with guaranteed money is that it does not come with guaranteed performance. NFL contracts are good for the league because a player that does not perform up to expectations can be thrown on the trash heap, whereas in baseball or basketball the team is screwed to pay the money for nothing.

 

What I would like to see is language developed that states that if a player plays within a certain level of other players in the league at their payscale, that their contract is protected and they can't be cut.

 

Another answer would be to establish league wide pay scales for each position with salary slots, and to have a player's pay be based on performance within the scale. This combined with a rework of the salary cap to allow teams some payroll flexibility could go a long way towards solving the problem. Give each team a certain number of contract exceptions in case they want to develop a separate deal for a player. Problem solved.

[BS Miscreant]

Comparing apples and oranges here.

 

TO was already a superstar before last year and the Eagles gave a him a contract that reflected that. Last year did not make him a star. Last year was expected. And if it wasn't, it should have been for the money he's making. He got a bunch of money up front and now the rest of the contract does not look all that big.

 

Winslow Jr had not played a down and he's a friggin TE for Pete's sake. My problem was not that he held out for more $$$ but that they offered him a huge sum of money for a TE, or anyone for that matter, and he said that the offer was insulting. My problem with him is that he is a jackass.

 

Actually, the more I look at these, I do see a hugh similarity. They're both big whiny jacknards!

[Bill Swerski]

Uh, Albert Belle. 

 

836998[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yeah, no kidding.

 

I don't think that guaranteed contracts are necessarily the answer, particularly since they get signing bonuses paid in full up front and they have the option of holding out anyway. I'd rather see the NFLPA bring to the next CBA a proposal for a mandatory higher percentage of contract money paid out as part of the signing bonus.

[sunysteelfly76]

I'm sure I'm in the minority saying that I have a problem with players not honoring their contracts but I don't have a problem with owners releasing players.

 

The relationship between owners and players is that of employer and employee. The employee signs a contract stating that these are the conditions I will work under for the agreed upon period of time. They agreed to it, they should stick to it. The owner is the employer. If he feels like the employee is not working to his satisfaction, he has every right to fire him. Both patries agreed that the contract is not guarenteed. Players get guarenteed money up front. Unless they break the contract, like Winslow, they will get that money even if they never step on the field. Its not like they are getting completelt screwed in this deal.

 

Or in the words of Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the King!"

[Grits and Shins]

I'm sure I'm in the minority saying that I have a problem with players not honoring their contracts but I don't have a problem with owners releasing players. 

 

The relationship between owners and players is that of employer and employee.  The employee signs a contract stating that these are the conditions I will work under for the agreed upon period of time.  They agreed to it, they should stick to it.  The owner is the employer.  If he feels like the employee is not working to his satisfaction, he has every right to fire him.  Both patries agreed that the contract is not guarenteed.  Players get guarenteed money up front. Unless they break the contract, like Winslow, they will get that money even if they never step on the field.  Its not like they are getting completelt screwed in this deal. 

 

Or in the words of Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the King!"

 

837112[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If it was an employer-employee relationship then the employee should be free to seek employment at any time with any other employer that will pay him. However, as we already know the "employer" has the liberty of terminating an employee without any negative consequences whereas the "employee" can not terminate his relationship with his "employer". So why is the "employee" locked into the years on the contract but the "employer" free to terminate the contract at his whim?

[Grits and Shins]

Uh, Albert Belle. 

 

I don't know if there is a silver bullet cure, especially in a salary cap structure.  Some teams in baseball can afford a bad big money contract.  Some are destroyed for years by it.  The Orioles just turned the corner at the end of last season.  Last season was also the first season they where not paying for Belle since he left the team what, four years ago?

 

I do agree TO should play, but I can see his point much more than a rookie holdout.  He was a stud on the field last year, AND he risked major injury trying to help his team.  He wants a return on that now, although he is handling it in the wrong way.

 

836998[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I don't believe it is fair to require the player to honor his contract until it expires but allow the owners free reign to terminate the contract at a whim. Either the contract is binding to both parties or binding to neither party ... how can it be binding only one one of the two parties?

 

Guaranteed money would be one way to make the contract binding on both sides. It may not be the best way because owners will still write big checks that they shouldn't write ... but there needs to be some way to bind the owner to the contract.

 

As to Albert Belle ... I have no sympathy ... it is entirely the owner's fault that they tied up that much money.

[Bill Swerski]

So why is the "employee" locked into the years on the contract but the "employer" free to terminate the contract at his whim?

 

837123[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Because the employee in this field is paid an absolutely ridiculous amount of money, much of which is guaranteed, and receives medical benefits and a pension plan that the rest of us with "real" jobs could only dream of.

[Grits and Shins]

Because the employee in this field is paid an absolutely ridiculous amount of money, much of which is guaranteed, and receives medical benefits and a pension plan that the rest of us with "real" jobs could only dream of.

 

837139[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Only a few of the "elite" players in the NFL get the really big money. Besides the amount of money involved in no way changes the fact that a contract was signed by BOTH parties and should be binding to BOTH parties. The owners make a manure load of money too. The fact that those of us with "real" jobs can only dream about that kind of money is totally irrelevant. Each job has it's own bennies and perks and again that has nothing to do with the contract.

 

In addition most players in the NFL play something like 5 years or less. The money they make during their career as a professional football player needs to be enough to carry them through more than that 5 years.

[Big Red]

It's what the players agreed to.

 

I do believe T.O. has a right to ask for more money. I don't believe he is handling it the right way. I'm not sure there is a right way to handle it. If he ask and they say no, hold out is about all that's left.

 

Very quietly, the Ravens are wondering how they will pay Ed Reed, Todd Heap and Jamal Lewis. All three have contracts up in the next year or two and all three quietly (so far) have their hand out. Once possibility is to redo Ray Lewis' contract. He's already said that if he has a great year in the 46, he will also have is hand out. The difference is these guys have not gone to the media, not made it public and are (for the most part) not holding out.

[Bill Swerski]

Only a few of the "elite" players in the NFL get the really big money.  Besides the amount of money involved in no way changes the fact that a contract was signed by BOTH parties and should be binding to BOTH parties.  The owners make a manure load of money too.  The fact that those of us with "real" jobs can only dream about that kind of money is totally irrelevant.  Each job has it's own bennies and perks and again that has nothing to do with the contract.

 

In addition most players in the NFL play something like 5 years or less.  The money they make during their career as a professional football player needs to be enough to carry them through more than that 5 years.

 

837148[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

They can't get "regular" jobs after they retire from the NFL?

 

If a player can make an NFL team's roster and play for two years in the league, he'll most likely make over $1 million. Those of us who actually studied in college and earned our degrees average, say, $50k/year. So, it'll take 20 years for the average college graduate to earn what an NFL player earns in just two years. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

 

As for contracts not being binding to both parties, that's what the NFLPA agreed to in the CBA. Given how much players make per year, I find it difficult to call it "unfair."

[sunysteelfly76]

So why is the "employee" locked into the years on the contract but the "employer" free to terminate the contract at his whim?

 

837123[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The employer and the employee are not equal in this relationship. The employer is in control in this relationship. The epmloyee is locked in by the contract, but both parties also understand (by signing the contract) that it can be terminated at the whim of the owner. Is is fair? Not really, but that is the reality of the situation.

 

Hence "It's good to be the king!"

[Grits and Shins]

They can't get "regular" jobs after they retire from the NFL?

 

If a player can make an NFL team's roster and play for two years in the league, he'll most likely make over $1 million.  Those of us who actually studied in college and earned our degrees average, say, $50k/year.  So, it'll take 20 years for the average college graduate to earn what an NFL player earns in just two years.  Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

 

As for contracts not being binding to both parties, that's what the NFLPA agreed to in the CBA.  Given how much players make per year, I find it difficult to call it "unfair."

 

837163[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately for the most part the professional football player's life has not prepared him for a life after football. Because of the extreme importance placed on football at all levels, the professional football player has focused on football his whole life and not on academics. So, yes, in most cases they are not prepared for "real" life after football. Sadly, the system fosters this type of development.

 

They are the best of the best, the elite at what they do. Unless you are the best of the best and the elite at what you do it is not fair to compare you annual salary of $50K to their salary. If you are an accountant and are 1 of the top 10 accountants in the United States do you suppose your salary is $50K per year? If you are one of the top lawyers or doctors in the country do you suppose your salary is $50K per year? If you are the top software developer in the country is your salary $50K per year?

 

It is also not fair to expect them to adjust from an annual salary of $850K to a salary of $50K. That would be like telling you that after you make a salary of $50K per year for 5 years you would have to drop to $5K per year for the rest of your life.

[Piranha]

So then would it be fair to say that

if they played much lower than their expectations, then they

should be paid less than what their contract states?

[Bill Swerski]

Unfortunately for the most part the professional football player's life has not prepared him for a life after football.  Because of the extreme importance placed on football at all levels, the professional football player has focused on football his whole life and not on academics.  So, yes, in most cases they are not prepared for "real" life after football.  Sadly, the system fosters this type of development.

 

837194[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

And after playing a couple years in the NFL, they have plenty of money to go back to college and learn what they didn't the first time around.

 

They are the best of the best, the elite at what they do.  Unless you are the best of the best and the elite at what you do it is not fair to compare you annual salary of $50K to their salary.  If you are an accountant and are 1 of the top 10 accountants in the United States do you suppose your salary is $50K per year?  If you are one of the top lawyers or doctors in the country do you suppose your salary is $50K per year?  If you are the top software developer in the country is your salary $50K per year?

 

I'm a Ph.D. who works under a non-guaranteed contract in academia. I make less money than my brother-in-law, who has a B.S. degree and a cushy government job where it's almost impossible for him to be fired. I'm a much more accomplished scientist than he is, yet he makes more money than I do and has a guaranteed contract. Yet, I don't boycott work and threaten my boss through my agent, using my brother-in-law's better salary and contract as leverage.

 

It is also not fair to expect them to adjust from an annual salary of $850K to a salary of $50K.  That would be like telling you that after you make a salary of $50K per year for 5 years you would have to drop to $5K per year for the rest of your life.

 

That's a completely ridiculous comparison, given that $5k/year is well below the poverty level. If grown adults can't adjust to go from $850k/year to a reasonable $50k/year, that's their problem, not the owners'.

[Grits and Shins]

That's a completely ridiculous comparison, given that $5k/year is well below the poverty level.  If grown adults can't adjust to go from $850k/year to a reasonable $50k/year, that's their problem, not the owners'.

 

837222[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You'd have them sell their home then, because they can't afford the taxes?

[Bill Swerski]

You'd have them sell their home then, because they can't afford the taxes?

 

837226[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

They should realize that their football career (and their $500k/year salaries) aren't going to last 30 or 40 years. It's not the NFL's fault that they spend their signing bonuses on 5000-square-foot homes in Miami Beach, Bentleys, and jewelry, instead of putting the money into IRAs.

[Grits and Shins]

They should realize that their football career (and their $500k/year salaries) aren't going to last 30 or 40 years.  It's not the NFL's fault that they spend their signing bonuses on 5000-square-foot homes in Miami Beach, Bentleys, and jewelry, instead of putting the money into IRAs.

 

837232[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So you believe that every NFL player should be wise enough to go into his career thinking that his career will only last 5 years and he should plan accordingly? You don't think that just about every NFL rookie believes he is the best and that his career will span at least 10 years?

 

If you had an accident tomorrow that prevented you from ever being able to function at your job again and you ended up on welfare would it be fair of me to say it was your fault because you should have planned on having a short career?

[Big Red]

So you believe that every NFL player should be wise enough to go into his career thinking that his career will only last 5 years and he should plan accordingly?  You don't think that just about every NFL rookie believes he is the best and that his career will span at least 10 years?

 

If you had an accident tomorrow that prevented you from ever being able to function at your job again and you ended up on welfare would it be fair of me to say it was your fault because you should have planned on having a short career?

 

837244[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Uh, is this not the exact logic the players use when validating their large bonus checks?

 

Swerski is right. They are adults, even if they are retarded in some cases. How many of us would be happy getting a $10,000 bonus from work? These guys make 6-7 figures a year. They should plan ahead. Not my fault if they don't. MC Hammer thought his career would last longer than it did. No one seems to think it's anyone's fault but his. Why is it different for NFL players?

 

Baltimore, like many 'old' NFL cities, have business all around town with the names of ex players (50s - 60s) on them. These guys understood that then, why not now?

[Grits and Shins]

Uh, is this not the exact logic the players use when validating their large bonus checks?

 

Swerski is right.  They are adults, even if they are retarded in some cases.  How many of us would be happy getting a $10,000 bonus from work?  These guys make 6-7 figures a year.  They should plan ahead.  Not my fault if they don't.  MC Hammer thought his career would last longer than it did.  No one seems to think it's anyone's fault but his.  Why is it different for NFL players?

 

Baltimore, like many 'old' NFL cities, have business all around town with the names of ex players (50s - 60s) on them.  These guys understood that then, why not now?

 

837251[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So if you career was cut short today due to an unexpected injury and you ended up on skid row it would be your fault for not planning ahead then?

[sunysteelfly76]

So if you career was cut short today due to an unexpected injury and you ended up on skid row it would be your fault for not planning ahead then?

 

837259[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If you made more money in one year than the average workers makes in his lifetime, yes.

[Bill Swerski]

So you believe that every NFL player should be wise enough to go into his career thinking that his career will only last 5 years and he should plan accordingly?

 

837244[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

 

If you had an accident tomorrow that prevented you from ever being able to function at your job again and you ended up on welfare would it be fair of me to say it was your fault because you should have planned on having a short career?

 

I'd find another career instead of going on welfare. Similarly, the RB who is forced out of the NFL after tearing his ACL could easily find a job as, say, a personal trainer or a phys ed teacher. Plus, NFL players also have pension plans.