CFZ NFL Player Contracts and why star players feel the need to hold out

[Flamma]

I just don't understand why people can't see why the NFL structures their contracts the way they do. They structure them in a way to get out of bad contracts when a player isn't pulling his weight. How is that a bad thing? No other league does this. Does that somehow make them right? Paying out bad contracts is a good thing? The NFL is the only league doing it the right way. If you start to suck, you gotta go!

 

[jaythecowboy]

The players are allowed to holdout just like the owners are allowed to cut a player early or ask players for a pay cut.

 

[MyFairLady]

Guaranteed NFL contracts would be the end of the NFL. The players have shown time and again that they will basically pack it in if their money is guaranteed. they are not professionals. They belong to a union. They have collectively bargained for a guaranteed percentage of the revenue. They already get that. If you suck you will not get your money and someone else who deserves it will.

 

[kskboys]

The players are allowed to holdout just like the owners are allowed to cut a player early or ask players for a pay cut.

Owners don't ask players for pay cuts. Very very very seldom. So rare that you can say it just doesn't happen.

What you are referring to are the owners pushing salary down the road to fit players under the salary cap to try to become a super bowl contender. And quite often this salary that is pushed down the road has already been paid to the player, and is only being put off on paper.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of NFL player contracts. Too many of us fans believe if a player signs a 4 year contract, both the owner and player are locked in together. That is simply not true. In fact, here are some truths about NFL player contracts most fans don’t understand:

• Once the guaranteed money in an NFL contract is paid to a player, the team can cut the player BEFORE the length of the contract is completed. Obviously there are cap implications if a team cuts a player before the contract is completed but many teams still do it. In fact, here are a couple of former Cowboys marquee players who were cut before their contract years were complete:
  • Dez Bryant- in 2015, he signed a 5 year, $70 million dollar contract. He was cut in after 3 years of that deal and his guaranteed money was paid. In other words, the Cowboys didn’t pay him for 5 years. Fans don’t seem to understand this.
  • DeMarco Murray- signed a 5 year contract with the e-girls in 2015, was traded in 2016 to the titans and eventually finished his career in 2018 before his contract was complete.
  • There are several other star NFL players who were cut before their contract length was honored. Like Richard Sherman when he was in Sea, Navarro Bowman in SF also signed a multi-year contract and yet was cut before it was finished.
• NFL teams also have financial “outs“ when it comes to a player getting hurt or underperforming their contract, while not having any responsibility to increase a player’s pay when a player overperforms their deal.
• The NFL is the ONLY major pro sports league that does not guarantee their players contracts.
  • The NBA, NHL and MLB all have guaranteed contract for their players.

So…usually the only recourse a player has once their guaranteed money is paid is to hold out, which not only means they don’t get paid — but strongly shifts public opinion against them as the player is branded “greedy” or “not helping the team” by ownership that simply doesn’t want to pay more than is on the dotted line.

Why is Zack Martin holding out? No other pro spot, no other sports job allows for employment contracts to be torn up without paying the agreed amount and length of a contract. It’s ridiculous that owners keep requiring players in the NFL to compete without security.

Don’t fall for the verbal tricks from NFL owners. Don’t buy into their sob stories. They don’t honor the contracts they sign with players, so why criticize a player for holding out for their own protection? These billionaire owners will not be honoring their commitments and will still be raking in billions. Why fault a player for protecting themselves?

I just don't understand why people can't see why the NFL structures their contracts the way they do. They structure them in a way to get out of bad contracts when a player isn't pulling his weight. How is that a bad thing? No other league does this. Does that somehow make them right? Paying out bad contracts is a good thing? The NFL is the only league doing it the right way. If you start to suck, you gotta go!

Right! the team isn't breaking any contract, they pay the guaranteed money and they pay the specified base salary IF the player is still on the team. The contract does NOT say the player is guaranteed to not be cut, that's just stupid.

 

[CouchCoach]

So you say owners don't honor player contracts so don't feel bad for them yet we are supposed to feel bad for players when they don't honor the contracts they sign? Okay.

I don't feel bad for anyone, it's the nature of the game. Martin has already received what I consider obscene money for playing a game but that's the NFL. They do not have guaranteed contracts and if MLB and the NBA didn't have that, the woods would be full of holdouts.

Martin is a bit of a different case to me because he has played at such a high level his entire career and should be at the top of the pay scale.

 

[Bobhaze]

Right! the team isn't breaking any contract, they pay the guaranteed money and they pay the specified base salary IF the player is still on the team. The contract does NOT say the player is guaranteed to not be cut, that's just stupid.

I understand this. My point is the NFL is the only pro sports league that does not guarantee years along with payments. It completely favors the owners. This is why the NFL has way more holdouts than other any other pro sports.

Yes, I agree when the player signs a contract, they should understand that once the guaranteed amount is paid, they can be cut even if it’s before the end of the contract length. I get that.

I’m just saying that while technically, the owners are “honoring” the guarantees in the contract, it certainly does not give the player security that most contracts imply. For example, if the Cowboys wanted to, they could cut Zack Martin today because they have already paid his “guaranteed“ money. He’s probably seeking security as much as he is seeking more money.

I understand the points being made. They are “technically“ valid. But IMO, the players in the NFL deserve better protection than what these contracts they have to sign offer. Oh I know they don’t have to sign them…but what choice do they have if they want to play? The NFLPA is by far the weakest of the player’s unions and this is where it shows. I side with the players in about 95% of these disputes. I certainly don’t on all of them.

 

[Flamma]

I understand this. My point is the NFL is the only pro sports league that does not guarantee years along with payments. It completely favors the owners. This is why the NFL has way more holdouts than other any other pro sports.

Yes, I agree when the player signs a contract, they should understand that once the guaranteed amount is paid, they can be cut even if it’s before the end of the contract length. I get that.

I’m just saying that while technically, the owners are “honoring” the guarantees in the contract, it certainly does not give the player security that most contracts imply. For example, if the Cowboys wanted to, they could cut Zack Martin today because they have already paid his “guaranteed“ money. He’s probably seeking security as much as he is seeking more money.

I understand the points being made. They are “technically“ valid. But IMO, the players in the NFL deserve better protection than what these contracts they have to sign offer. Oh I know they don’t have to sign them…but what choice do they have if they want to play? The NFLPA is by far the weakest of the player’s unions and this is where it shows. I side with the players in about 95% of these disputes. I certainly don’t on all of them.

Unlike most unions, the members in pro sports get paid based on talent level, and what round they were drafted. These contracts are good for the game. Any player on a 2nd contract that still plays at a high level, they end up getting more money on top of their contract. It's only when the player starts to suck, or the unguaranteed portion of their contract doesn't make sense due to the decline of the player, that they get cut. Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing? Or why is it a good thing for the league to have dozens of players not living up to their contracts still on the team at an outrageous cost?

 

[doomsday9084]

Just in general, I'm a cowboys fan. I want the team to do well. In the NFL there is a salary cap that is pretty hard. You can pull salary forward with bonuses but for the most part, every team pays the same amount over time. The team that wins is the one that spends their money the best.

Martin isn't fighting to take money out of Jerry's wallet. He is fighting with other players to get a bigger piece of the pie. In doing so, he will make the team a little worse.

As such, I'm not on his side.

 

[jaythecowboy]

Owners don't ask players for pay cuts. Very very very seldom. So rare that you can say it just doesn't happen.

What you are referring to are the owners pushing salary down the road to fit players under the salary cap to try to become a super bowl contender. And quite often this salary that is pushed down the road has already been paid to the player, and is only being put off on paper.

No they ask players to take a pay cut with the implication that they otherwise might be cut. It just happened with D Law and he said to cut him but they ended up negotiating.

 

[kskboys]

No they ask players to take a pay cut with the implication that they otherwise might be cut. It just happened with D Law and he said to cut him but they ended up negotiating.

Not true at all.

DLaw was asked to take a restructure to push the money down the road. If I am wrong, prove it. I did not look it up, but that's simply how things are done.

 

[kskboys]

Unlike most unions, the members in pro sports get paid based on talent level, and what round they were drafted. These contracts are good for the game. Any player on a 2nd contract that still plays at a high level, they end up getting more money on top of their contract. It's only when the player starts to suck, or the unguaranteed portion of their contract doesn't make sense due to the decline of the player, that they get cut. Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing? Or why is it a good thing for the league to have dozens of players not living up to their contracts still on the team at an outrageous cost?

It's just hate the rich agenda stuff.

 

[kskboys]

I understand this. My point is the NFL is the only pro sports league that does not guarantee years along with payments. It completely favors the owners. This is why the NFL has way more holdouts than other any other pro sports.

Yes, I agree when the player signs a contract, they should understand that once the guaranteed amount is paid, they can be cut even if it’s before the end of the contract length. I get that.

I’m just saying that while technically, the owners are “honoring” the guarantees in the contract, it certainly does not give the player security that most contracts imply. For example, if the Cowboys wanted to, they could cut Zack Martin today because they have already paid his “guaranteed“ money. He’s probably seeking security as much as he is seeking more money.

I understand the points being made. They are “technically“ valid. But IMO, the players in the NFL deserve better protection than what these contracts they have to sign offer. Oh I know they don’t have to sign them…but what choice do they have if they want to play? The NFLPA is by far the weakest of the player’s unions and this is where it shows. I side with the players in about 95% of these disputes. I certainly don’t on all of them.

I was under the impression that Martin was complaining because he wasn't among the highest paid OG's in the league. No? I thought the holdout was about more money.

 

[Ranching]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of NFL player contracts. Too many of us fans believe if a player signs a 4 year contract, both the owner and player are locked in together. That is simply not true. In fact, here are some truths about NFL player contracts most fans don’t understand:

• Once the guaranteed money in an NFL contract is paid to a player, the team can cut the player BEFORE the length of the contract is completed. Obviously there are cap implications if a team cuts a player before the contract is completed but many teams still do it. In fact, here are a couple of former Cowboys marquee players who were cut before their contract years were complete:
  • Dez Bryant- in 2015, he signed a 5 year, $70 million dollar contract. He was cut in after 3 years of that deal and his guaranteed money was paid. In other words, the Cowboys didn’t pay him for 5 years. Fans don’t seem to understand this.
  • DeMarco Murray- signed a 5 year contract with the e-girls in 2015, was traded in 2016 to the titans and eventually finished his career in 2018 before his contract was complete.
  • There are several other star NFL players who were cut before their contract length was honored. Like Richard Sherman when he was in Sea, Navarro Bowman in SF also signed a multi-year contract and yet was cut before it was finished.
• NFL teams also have financial “outs“ when it comes to a player getting hurt or underperforming their contract, while not having any responsibility to increase a player’s pay when a player overperforms their deal.
• The NFL is the ONLY major pro sports league that does not guarantee their players contracts.
  • The NBA, NHL and MLB all have guaranteed contract for their players.

So…usually the only recourse a player has once their guaranteed money is paid is to hold out, which not only means they don’t get paid — but strongly shifts public opinion against them as the player is branded “greedy” or “not helping the team” by ownership that simply doesn’t want to pay more than is on the dotted line.

Why is Zack Martin holding out? No other pro spot, no other sports job allows for employment contracts to be torn up without paying the agreed amount and length of a contract. It’s ridiculous that owners keep requiring players in the NFL to compete without security.

Don’t fall for the verbal tricks from NFL owners. Don’t buy into their sob stories. They don’t honor the contracts they sign with players, so why criticize a player for holding out for their own protection? These billionaire owners will not be honoring their commitments and will still be raking in billions. Why fault a player for protecting themselves?

I was raised to be a man of my word....if Martin is pissed, he should be pissed at himself or his agent. I never fault a man for wanting to get paid his worth, but this crap is getting outta hand. We all learned from the Zeke holdout....we don't need to go down that road again. Martin needs to man up an play.

 

[kskboys]

I was raised to be a man of my word....if Martin is pissed, he should be pissed at himself or his agent. I never fault a man for wanting to get paid his worth, but this crap is getting outta hand. We all learned from the Zeke holdout....we don't need to go down that road again. Martin needs to man up an play.

It's not like his contract is paying him peanuts.

 

[Bobhaze]

I was under the impression that Martin was complaining because he wasn't among the highest paid OG's in the league. No? I thought the holdout was about more money.

Kev, do we have a public quote from ZM or his agent on the official reason he is holding out? If there is one, I haven’t seen it. We‘ve heard many speculate. There are several possibilities:

• Being worried about contract security since his current contract money guarantees have all been paid so he could theoretically be cut in the next year.
• Not being one of the top 5 paid guards in the league and feeling he deserves to be.
• In addition to the above, he could also just not want to be at TC. Not uncommon for some established vets to hate TC. (I don’t know whether he feels that way or not)

I don’t necessarily agree with all these possible reasons, but I also know none of us know the behind the scenes story or all of ZM’s motivations. Like I said, maybe there is a public “official” quote from Zack or his agent as to why exactly he is holding out. If so, I have not seen it.

 

[Flamma]

It's just hate the rich agenda stuff.

That's exactly what it is. Stick it to the billionaires mindset. Screw them. The billionaire owners do enough to screw up the game without help from the jealous, envious fans.

 

[Kevinicus]

The signing bonus/guarantees are an advance. Just because the dollars aren't as high in the latter part of the contract (because of bonuses/guarantees already paid), doesn't make the players victims where they should hold out.

The whole "honoring the contract goes both ways" argument falls apart because of this. The bonuses and guarantees are the owners honoring the contract.

 

[KingCorcoran]

I understand this. My point is the NFL is the only pro sports league that does not guarantee years along with payments. It completely favors the owners. This is why the NFL has way more holdouts than other any other pro sports.

Yes, I agree when the player signs a contract, they should understand that once the guaranteed amount is paid, they can be cut even if it’s before the end of the contract length. I get that.

I’m just saying that while technically, the owners are “honoring” the guarantees in the contract, it certainly does not give the player security that most contracts imply. For example, if the Cowboys wanted to, they could cut Zack Martin today because they have already paid his “guaranteed“ money. He’s probably seeking security as much as he is seeking more money.

I understand the points being made. They are “technically“ valid. But IMO, the players in the NFL deserve better protection than what these contracts they have to sign offer. Oh I know they don’t have to sign them…but what choice do they have if they want to play? The NFLPA is by far the weakest of the player’s unions and this is where it shows. I side with the players in about 95% of these disputes. I certainly don’t on all of them.

NFL players have the highest minimum per game compensation of any professional sports league in the United States. The NFLPA is not “weak”.

 

[Bobhaze]

NFL players have the highest minimum per game compensation of any professional sports league in the United States. The NFLPA is not “weak”.

Baseball players play 162 games. Hockey and Basketball play 82. The NFL plays 17. Doesn’t that just skew the math?