Can someone explain contracts in the NFL? I don't get how they aren't guaranteed.. - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***MassPats38*** · 10-02-2007, 04:52 PM

Without throwing too much contract legalese, any contract is based on the expectation of the parties in making an agreement. In football, the contracts have been "if you play for this team, I will pay you x dollars for some number of years." In baseball, it is "I will pay you x dollars for some number of years." The difference is the condition placed on the payment in football, which means a team need not pay a salary when the player is released. A law suit by a Green Bay Packers players in (if I recall correctly) the 1950's or 1960's confirmed that interpretation on player contracts.

I once believed that the one-sided football contracts were a bad thing, but given the combined efect of the salary cap and bonuses offering non-refundable, up front money, I think the system works fine. Players know what to expect with the contracts, so it should come as no surprise. While some teams are rich, most are not, and 4-year deals to pay underperforming player salaries would kill many teams. Look at what San Francisco managed to do to itself for years by overpaying bonuses in the present system.

I have little sympathy for the billion dollar owners, but the game (and more importantly the Pats) benefit from a system that allows teams to opt out of bad deals.

Wildo7 · 10-02-2007, 04:57 PM

It all comes down to the mlb players union being an extremely strong, well organized, traditional union, that has represented players well. Which is why the MLB commissioner is traditionally softer than any of the other leagues when it comes to cracking down on players, steroids etc., because the MLB union wields such strong power. The NFL players union (the collective bargaining agreement) is a sham of a union run by an owners puppet named Gene Upshaw, who gets paid roughly 6.5$ mill a year v. the 1-2$ mill a year the other union heads get, basically so that he will do whatever owners want and continually screw over NFL players.

Wildo7 · 10-02-2007, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcbee

I think that's a stupid way to look at it. The "contracts" are structured so that management always has the option of cutting a player. Whether that's good or bad...it's NEITHER. The players KNOW this and for that reason, get as much signing bonus as they can. It's their choice.

Really the contract is that management has to pay them the stated amount to keep them off of the FA market. Management always has the option of cutting them and putting them on the FA market. That's the nature of the beast...as long as players know this going into a contract, there's nothing wrong with it.

It shouldn't "be changed". If it was all guaranteed teams wouldn't sign more than 1 year contracts with players. They couldn't afford to take the injury/talent risk. Ever think of that? Then there'd be no team cohesion whatsoever. Brilliant. Such is the price of "doing the right thing".

it's also structured so that if a player gets injured, he gets the shaft, no money, in the riskiest professional sports league in America, where the average career is about 3 years. And the salary cap means that these teams are paying their players a fraction of what they can afford to, so they should honor the contract if a player gets injured (i.e. gives their health for the team). The PATs are apparently fairly good about this (ala Robert Edwards) but other franchises? not so much.

***alamo*** · 10-02-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildo7

The NFL players union (the collective bargaining agreement) is a sham of a union run by an owners puppet named Gene Upshaw, who gets paid roughly 6.5$ mill a year v. the 1-2$ mill a year the other union heads get, basically so that he will do whatever owners want and continually screw over NFL players.

Yep, those poor players are so screwed, the union has only doubled their average pay THIS DECADE.

The reality is that the union has decided a less confrontational approach will benefit them more. And it has worked. If you were a MLB player in the years since their last strike you may well have made less total money than if there had been no strike, and salaries actually were down for a while. But average NFL player salaries have been rising every year without exception.

Pats726 · 10-02-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

It's lame and should be changed--the Pats are smart enough to not have a problem with it, while other, stupider franchises will be further destroyed.

Changed?? why?? I hate baseball and what they do..football is different..you also forget the bonus money given up front..which is ONE reason of the not guaranteed contracts..also..if someone gets cut..while the player will not get paid..there are salary cap implications..NO baseball analogies..baseball has gone down the tubes..and large guaranteed contracts are part of the reason why.

Pats726 · 10-02-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MassPats38

I once believed that the one-sided football contracts were a bad thing, but given the combined efect of the salary cap and bonuses offering non-refundable, up front money, I think the system works fine. Players know what to expect with the contracts, so it should come as no surprise. While some teams are rich, most are not, and 4-year deals to pay underperforming player salaries would kill many teams. Look at what San Francisco managed to do to itself for years by overpaying bonuses

I agree the system is fine...

***mcbee*** · 10-02-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildo7

it's also structured so that if a player gets injured, he gets the shaft, no money, in the riskiest professional sports league in America, where the average career is about 3 years. And the salary cap means that these teams are paying their players a fraction of what they can afford to, so they should honor the contract if a player gets injured (i.e. gives their health for the team). The PATs are apparently fairly good about this (ala Robert Edwards) but other franchises? not so much.

They don't get "the shaft", they had upfront money and they knew the risks going in. If they had to pay out contracts to injured players, there would be a lot of players injured right before they were going to get cut. And since the total amount of money is fixed, it would take money away from players who are actually plaing.

Teams are paying "a fraction of what they can afford to"? What are you a communist? They pay a very high fraction of total revenues. What should they pay? 100% of their revenues? No workers get 100% of revenues, what is left for running the show and heaven forbid, for profit?