Honoring the contract

[Jumbo075]

I believe there is a huge misconception about what "honoring the contract" means for both the players and the team.

Myth: There is a perception that if team cuts before the end date of the contract, the Cowboys hav not honored the contract.

Truth: The Cowboys sign contracts every year with 90-110 players over the course of an NFL season. Only 53 players can be on the Active Roster at any one time. The Contract that both parties sign determines the conditions under which the team can terminate the contract. If the team follows those conditions, it is NOT breaking the contract. It is simply terminating the contract according to the terms of the contract. This applies to players who never "make the team," and also to those whose contracts may have a term of multiple years, but which may be terminated early. In some cases (for example: Terrance Williams last year), the Team still has to pay out salary to the player because his salary is guaranteed. In other cases, the team doesn't owe the player any more money.
​

Myth: There is a perception that if a player signs a 4 year contract, if he holds out, he is "breaking his word," or "not honoring the contract.

Truth: A player contract spells out the terms under which he can receive compensation. This includes guaranteed money, unguaranteed salary, and even conditions where compensation is reduced due to suspension or injury. A player can withhold his services, and then the team is not obligated to compensate him - even if he's still under contract. We no longer live in a society where voluntary or involuntary indentured servitude is legal. A player who withholds his personal services is NOT breaking his word, or breaking his contract. He is simply foregoing any additional salary by withholding his services. And in some cases, he may owe the team money for past paid guarantees. But it is NOT breaking his contract to withhold services. It is simply withholding services with the understanding he won't get paid.
​

In some cases, a player holdout may result in the team decision to move on without the player. In other cases, they have the option of deciding to pay him more for his services. That is entirely up to the team. And it is up to the player to determine if he's willing to play for the amount of compensation contracted. No one is "refusing to honor their promises."

Fans need to understand that this is just business. It's not personal. And IF a team or a player violates their contract, the other party has legal recourse. If a team cuts or suspends a player in such a manner that violates the contract, they can be held accountable in a court of law. Similarly, a player may legally withhold his services, and the team then may legally withhold compensation.

None of that is a violation of the contract.

In the case of Ezekiel Elliott, the compensation limits and contract length agreed to between Elliott and the Cowboys were IMPOSED on both parties by the NFL - a 3rd party. Both parties had to abide by those externally IMPOSED limitation for a minimum of 3 years, after which either party is allowed to request a renegotiated agreement, within certain NFL guidelines. The Cowboys were not allowed to offer new contracts to ANY players drafted by the team in 2016 before the 2019 league year started on March 13, 2019 at 4:00 pm EDT. If the Cowboys or Elliott tried to renegotiate prior to that date, they would have been in violation of league rules. After that date, either party - Elliott or the Cowboys - could request or demand a renegotiation of employment terms. In this case, Elliott requested a renegotiation of terms, and he and the team began negotiations. Elliott continued to provide services up through the June mini-camp, after which he decided to withhold his services until the renegotiation was complete - smartly keeping himself from risking injury while negotiations were in progress. There is NOTHING in that decision which violates the contractual obligations of either party - Elliott or the team.

 

[Future]

So this is just another roundabout way of whining when players holdout?

 

[Ranching]

Ok. Moving on now.....

 

[lostar2009]

Zeke wanted his money now. Nothing wrong with that besides if ignoring is contract obligations putting this whole season out if wack.

 

[Jumbo075]

So this is just another roundabout way of whining when players holdout?

Nope. Read the whole post. It accidentally got posted before I was finished with it.

 

[Jake]

I believe there is a huge misconception about what "honoring the contract" means for both the players and the team.

Myth: There is a perception that if team cuts before the end date of the contract, the Cowboys hav not honored the contract.

Truth: The Cowboys sign contracts every year with 90-110 players over the course of an NFL season. Only 53 players can be on the Active Roster at any one time. The Contract that both parties sign determines the conditions under which the team can terminate the contract. If the team follows those conditions, it is NOT breaking the contract. It is simply terminating the contract according to the terms of the contract. This applies to players who never "make the team," and also to those whose contracts may have a term of multiple years, but which may be terminated early. In some cases (for example: Terrance Williams last year), the Team still has to pay out salary to the player because his salary is guaranteed. In other cases, the team doesn't owe the player any more money.
​

Myth: There is a perception that if a player signs a 4 year contract, if he holds out, he is "breaking his word," or "not honoring the contract.

Truth: A player contract spells out the terms under which he can receive compensation. This includes guaranteed money, unguaranteed salary, and even conditions where compensation is reduced due to suspension or injury. A player can withhold his services, and then the team is not obligated to compensate him - even if he's still under contract. We no longer live in a society where voluntary or involuntary indentured servitude is legal. A player who withholds his personal services is NOT breaking his word, or breaking his contract. He is simply foregoing any additional salary by withholding his services. And in some cases, he may owe the team money for past paid guarantees. But it is NOT breaking his contract to withhold services. It is simply withholding services with the understanding he won't get paid.
​

In some cases, a player holdout may result in the team decision to move on without the player. In other cases, they have the option of deciding to pay him more for his services. That is entirely up to the team. And it is up to the player to determine if he's willing to play for the amount of compensation contracted. No one is "refusing to honor their promises."

Fans need to understand that this is just business. It's not personal. And IF a team or a player violates their contract, the other party has legal recourse. If a team cuts or suspends a player in such a manner that violates the contract, they can be held accountable in a court of law. Similarly, a player may legally withhold his services, and the team then may legally withhold compensation.

None of that is a violation of the contract.

In the case of Ezekiel Elliott, the compensation limits and contract length agreed to between Elliott and the Cowboys were IMPOSED on both parties by the NFL - a 3rd party. Both parties had to abide by those externally IMPOSED limitation for a minimum of 3 years, after which either party is allowed to request a renegotiated agreement, within certain NFL guidelines. The Cowboys were not allowed to offer new contracts to ANY players drafted by the team in 2016 before the 2019 league year started on March 13, 2019 at 4:00 pm EDT. If the Cowboys or Elliott tried to renegotiate prior to that date, they would have been in violation of league rules. After that date, either party - Elliott or the Cowboys - could request or demand a renegotiation of employment terms. In this case, Elliott requested a renegotiation of terms, and he and the team began negotiations. Elliott continued to provide services up through the June mini-camp, after which he decided to withhold his services until the renegotiation was complete - smartly keeping himself from risking injury while negotiations were in progress. There is NOTHING in that decision which violates the contractual obligations of either party - Elliott or the team.

Myth: because the CBA allows teams to terminate player contracts the team is honoring the contract. This myth confuses what is legal (negotiated courtesy of the NFL's anti-trust exemption, aka legal monopoly) with what's honorable.

The word "honor" has a meaning: fulfill (an obligation) or keep (an agreement).

By terminating the player's contract - a separate agreement from the CBA - the team is not honoring the contract. Whether the CBA allows them to do it or is irrelevant to whether the behavior is honorable. It's not.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Pretty complicated argument. In some cases, no doubt, players know the out years won't be reached. They can see the balloon payment. Agents love these at the end of contracts because they can ballyhoo a huge number. "I got so and so a $100 million contract." It is a bid for a headline, and in many cases, they get the headline. The agents, rather than the players or the teams, benefit most from out-year inflation.

The CBA isn't entirely irrelevant. There would be no CBA if there weren't benefits to the players. They would disband the Players Association. That would surely benefit the top 10-15% of players. But it would be negative to most. Both the league and most of the players benefit. I don't think it is entirely dishonorable to utilize the mechanisms allowed through the CBA. The players certainly exercise their rights under collective bargaining. But I do think there are cases in which teams could act more honorably in dealing with these contracts. Of course, one could argue that a team has a fiduciary responsibility to utilize its legally bargained rights to the greatest benefit.

Complicated.

 

[OmerV]

I believe there is a huge misconception about what "honoring the contract" means for both the players and the team.

Myth: There is a perception that if team cuts before the end date of the contract, the Cowboys hav not honored the contract.

Truth: The Cowboys sign contracts every year with 90-110 players over the course of an NFL season. Only 53 players can be on the Active Roster at any one time. The Contract that both parties sign determines the conditions under which the team can terminate the contract. If the team follows those conditions, it is NOT breaking the contract. It is simply terminating the contract according to the terms of the contract. This applies to players who never "make the team," and also to those whose contracts may have a term of multiple years, but which may be terminated early. In some cases (for example: Terrance Williams last year), the Team still has to pay out salary to the player because his salary is guaranteed. In other cases, the team doesn't owe the player any more money.
​

Myth: There is a perception that if a player signs a 4 year contract, if he holds out, he is "breaking his word," or "not honoring the contract.

Truth: A player contract spells out the terms under which he can receive compensation. This includes guaranteed money, unguaranteed salary, and even conditions where compensation is reduced due to suspension or injury. A player can withhold his services, and then the team is not obligated to compensate him - even if he's still under contract. We no longer live in a society where voluntary or involuntary indentured servitude is legal. A player who withholds his personal services is NOT breaking his word, or breaking his contract. He is simply foregoing any additional salary by withholding his services. And in some cases, he may owe the team money for past paid guarantees. But it is NOT breaking his contract to withhold services. It is simply withholding services with the understanding he won't get paid.
​

In some cases, a player holdout may result in the team decision to move on without the player. In other cases, they have the option of deciding to pay him more for his services. That is entirely up to the team. And it is up to the player to determine if he's willing to play for the amount of compensation contracted. No one is "refusing to honor their promises."

Fans need to understand that this is just business. It's not personal. And IF a team or a player violates their contract, the other party has legal recourse. If a team cuts or suspends a player in such a manner that violates the contract, they can be held accountable in a court of law. Similarly, a player may legally withhold his services, and the team then may legally withhold compensation.

None of that is a violation of the contract.

In the case of Ezekiel Elliott, the compensation limits and contract length agreed to between Elliott and the Cowboys were IMPOSED on both parties by the NFL - a 3rd party. Both parties had to abide by those externally IMPOSED limitation for a minimum of 3 years, after which either party is allowed to request a renegotiated agreement, within certain NFL guidelines. The Cowboys were not allowed to offer new contracts to ANY players drafted by the team in 2016 before the 2019 league year started on March 13, 2019 at 4:00 pm EDT. If the Cowboys or Elliott tried to renegotiate prior to that date, they would have been in violation of league rules. After that date, either party - Elliott or the Cowboys - could request or demand a renegotiation of employment terms. In this case, Elliott requested a renegotiation of terms, and he and the team began negotiations. Elliott continued to provide services up through the June mini-camp, after which he decided to withhold his services until the renegotiation was complete - smartly keeping himself from risking injury while negotiations were in progress. There is NOTHING in that decision which violates the contractual obligations of either party - Elliott or the team.

While true that the player is not violating a contract by holding out, whether he is honoring the contract when he holds out with time remaining on his contract is a different point and a tougher question. For example, sure Zeke could have chosen not to play in 2019, and that would not have violated his contract, but saying he wants to play, but wont unless the teams changes the terms of the deal is something different.

 

[Jipper]

contract law sucks

beating the giants is awesome


that is all you need to know!

 

[buybuydandavis]

I believe there is a huge misconception about what "honoring the contract" means for both the players and the team.

Myth: There is a perception that if team cuts before the end date of the contract, the Cowboys hav not honored the contract.

Truth: The Cowboys sign contracts every year with 90-110 players over the course of an NFL season. Only 53 players can be on the Active Roster at any one time. The Contract that both parties sign determines the conditions under which the team can terminate the contract. If the team follows those conditions, it is NOT breaking the contract. It is simply terminating the contract according to the terms of the contract. This applies to players who never "make the team," and also to those whose contracts may have a term of multiple years, but which may be terminated early. In some cases (for example: Terrance Williams last year), the Team still has to pay out salary to the player because his salary is guaranteed. In other cases, the team doesn't owe the player any more money.
​

Myth: There is a perception that if a player signs a 4 year contract, if he holds out, he is "breaking his word," or "not honoring the contract.

Truth: A player contract spells out the terms under which he can receive compensation. This includes guaranteed money, unguaranteed salary, and even conditions where compensation is reduced due to suspension or injury. A player can withhold his services, and then the team is not obligated to compensate him - even if he's still under contract. We no longer live in a society where voluntary or involuntary indentured servitude is legal. A player who withholds his personal services is NOT breaking his word, or breaking his contract. He is simply foregoing any additional salary by withholding his services. And in some cases, he may owe the team money for past paid guarantees. But it is NOT breaking his contract to withhold services. It is simply withholding services with the understanding he won't get paid.
​

In some cases, a player holdout may result in the team decision to move on without the player. In other cases, they have the option of deciding to pay him more for his services. That is entirely up to the team. And it is up to the player to determine if he's willing to play for the amount of compensation contracted. No one is "refusing to honor their promises."

Fans need to understand that this is just business. It's not personal. And IF a team or a player violates their contract, the other party has legal recourse. If a team cuts or suspends a player in such a manner that violates the contract, they can be held accountable in a court of law. Similarly, a player may legally withhold his services, and the team then may legally withhold compensation.

None of that is a violation of the contract.

In the case of Ezekiel Elliott, the compensation limits and contract length agreed to between Elliott and the Cowboys were IMPOSED on both parties by the NFL - a 3rd party. Both parties had to abide by those externally IMPOSED limitation for a minimum of 3 years, after which either party is allowed to request a renegotiated agreement, within certain NFL guidelines. The Cowboys were not allowed to offer new contracts to ANY players drafted by the team in 2016 before the 2019 league year started on March 13, 2019 at 4:00 pm EDT. If the Cowboys or Elliott tried to renegotiate prior to that date, they would have been in violation of league rules. After that date, either party - Elliott or the Cowboys - could request or demand a renegotiation of employment terms. In this case, Elliott requested a renegotiation of terms, and he and the team began negotiations. Elliott continued to provide services up through the June mini-camp, after which he decided to withhold his services until the renegotiation was complete - smartly keeping himself from risking injury while negotiations were in progress. There is NOTHING in that decision which violates the contractual obligations of either party - Elliott or the team.

That a contract spells out penalties in the case of a material breech, such as refusing to deliver agreed upon services, does *not* mean that one is "honoring" the contract when one breeches the contract and those penalties are invoked.

There is also the concept of "contractual good faith", which includes fidelity to the spirit of the agreement.

Willfully withholding your services to squeeze the other side at the most opportune moment would fall under "contractual bad faith".

I think this is why a lot of people were pissed at Zeke. They're projecting themselves into this situation, and feeling that they wouldn't act as Zeke does, and they would be angry if a business partner acted that way too. They implicitly understand the concept of contractual good faith, and hold themselves and others to it.

Having said that, while we would not skip out on promised delivery of services, we are not the NFL either. The NFL is a cartel, exempt from some aspects of labor law, with a player's union that negotiates terms to benefit the league and existing players to the detriment of each new cohort of rookies. There's no "good faith" to rookies on the owner's or the union's part.

In particular, elite rookie RBs are getting the short end of the stick, because uniquely among player positions, most of their career economic value is consumed while on their rookie contracts. The owners and union are screwing elite RBs the most, and I see nothing objectionable in elite RBs using the leverage they have to engage in their own bad faith performance in response, particularly when they are just trying to renegotiate out of being screwed in the first place.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Ok. Moving on now.....

Are you like, the token bro they put in roadblocks and job fairs?