Upshaw Against Rookie Pay Scale

[Hoofbite]

[URL="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/union-opposes-rookie-salary-structure/"]UNION OPPOSES ROOKIE SALARY STRUCTURE

Posted by Mike Florio on April 22, 2008, 11:06 p.m.




NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw must be feeling a lot more secure in his position than he did a week ago. Because Upshaw is officially on record as saying that he opposes a salary structure for incoming NFL players.


“[/URL]Every year at this time, I hear it again,” Upshaw told Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports. “They don’t like how the rookies are paid. ‘They need some kind of pay scale.’ Well, I’m not going to limit how the rookies are paid because it has a huge impact on veterans. I’m not going to agree to it.”


So how does paying a skyrocketing windfall to ten or so players who haven’t worn an NFL helmet since Halloween when they were six years old (yeah, we use that one from time to time . . . because we’re as cool as the other side of the pillow) help veterans?

In two ways, according to Upshaw. First, the huge payments made to certain rookies give veterans more leverage. Second, lower rookie pay would make rookies more attractive than veterans, pricing veterans out of jobs.


As to Upshaw’s first point, we don’t buy it. The big free-agency contracts each year are driven by other recent veteran contracts, not by rookie deals. Sure, the rookie deals might be getting so out of control that they’re becoming a factor in the negotiations for veteran free agents. But the notion that providing a lot of extra money to a few rookies is a good thing for all veterans is ridiculous; at best, it will help only the few who are signed to big-money deals on the first day of free agency.
Upshaw’s second point, with all due respect, makes no f–king sense.


“We have to have a system where every player has an equal chance to get a job,” Upshaw said. “We don’t want to get into a position where the league is keeping four or five rookies because it’s cheaper than keeping one or two veterans.”


But, Gene, the problem isn’t with the second-day draft picks whose compensation won’t change at all if there is a formula used for setting the contracts for all rookies. Those guys will still get a signing bonus plus three or four years of minimum salaries. The focal point is the huge pile of money that gets paid to the small handful who happen to hear their names called early on the first day of the draft process.


Besides, Upshaw overlooks the system that was put in place earlier this decade to encourage teams to sign veterans. Though Cole makes reference to veterans “who make one of the varying minimum salaries,” the truth is that all players with four or more years of service are eligible to sign one-year contracts for increasing minimum salaries that entail an actual cost and a salary-cap charge of only $445,000 — even if the player is actually earning $820,000.


The reality is that a few agents (led by Tom Condon — who coincidentally represents Gene Upshaw) want to preserve their cut of these annual windfalls. Even if there’s merit to Upshaw’s argument that the huge dollars paid to a few rookies helps veterans, it will in reality help only a few of them each year, too.

Meanwhile, the interests of 90 percent of the players will be ignored. And, the last time we checked, it only took 50.1 percent of them to set policy for the union.

Upshaw won't be making many friends with this. Not that he had a ton to start.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

I am not surprised........

 

[kevwun]

Of course he doesn't like it. He hates logic.

 

[iceberg]

1. gives vets more leverage? why? after they've played for 2-4 years people know what they can do and they can set their own market value based on production and similiar contracts for like players. say mcfadden got the $30mil bonus.

how does that effect barbers deal? not squat. tomlinson if he were a FA? nada. any rb would be effected by that?

no.

2. buy rookies and ignore vets?

upshaw - NO TEAM ignores production. they don't always pay for it, but they don't ignore it. MOST TEAMS would pay going rate for known production. it all falls back to that vet proving his own value and that has nothing to do with what a 2nd year rookie is making who's not started more than a down or two, like carpenter, ya know?

upshaw is a moron.

 

[Doomsday101]

No doubt in my mind that the Owners have to get control over the rookie pay scale. This is bad business paying out these large contracts for players who no one even knows if they can play at this level regardless of what pick you were.

 

[iceberg]

No doubt in my mind that the Owners have to get control over the rookie pay scale. This is bad business paying out these large contracts for players who no one even knows if they can play at this level regardless of what pick you were.

i realize it sucks for the next couple of rookie classes coming in that their "payday" will have to wait, but that's the way it needs to be.

the question is - if it were up to you, how would you structure it?

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Not shocked, at all, that he's against a rookie pay scale.

 

[Doomsday101]

i realize it sucks for the next couple of rookie classes coming in that their "payday" will have to wait, but that's the way it needs to be.

the question is - if it were up to you, how would you structure it?

I like to see some type of flat rate given to rookies with set bonus based on where you were drafted. The higher you are drafted the bigger the bonus. I don't want to see rookies getting peanuts but to see unproven players getting Pro Bowl type money without even playing a single down is ridicules

 

[zeromaster]

Maybe because it affects the level of their union dues? Someone clarify here: are they based on a percentage of salary or are they the same for all?

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Upshaw is dead wrong because the PROVEN players/veterans should be getting the big time money... Rookies should prove their worth!

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Florio got this one right. Upshaw's arguments make no sense at all.

Veterans would get MORE pay if rookies got less. Teams aren't going to spend less overall if rookies make less; they're going to redistribute the same amount of pay to vets.

And like Florio says, the problem is really only with the top half of the first round or even top 10 overall anyway.

 

[Doomsday101]

Florio got this one right. Upshaw's arguments make no sense at all.

Veterans would get MORE pay if rookies got less. Teams aren't going to spend less overall if rookies make less; they're going to redistribute the same amount of pay to vets.

And like Florio says, the problem is really only with the top half of the first round or even top 10 overall anyway.

I agree. I think if teams were not forced to pay out as much for rookies they could afford to pay out more to retain vet players.

 

[kevwun]

You know there's a problem with rookie salaries when teams aren't excited to be picking in the top 5. That's starting to happen. It's insane to offer a potentially franchise crippling contract to a completely unproven player. If Gene Upshaw is against something, you know it's the right move and vice versa.

 

[theogt]

Well, it doesn't really matter what Upshaw thinks if he ends up getting booted out of the job.

 

[aikemirv]

i realize it sucks for the next couple of rookie classes coming in that their "payday" will have to wait, but that's the way it needs to be.

the question is - if it were up to you, how would you structure it?

First of all, I am not ones of these that thinks it should be dramatically reduced. Football is a sport in which your next game could be your last - much more than in Basketball.

Second, if I was going to structure it I would do it not just based on where they are drafted but what is the value of that position on the team. I think the scale should be tied to the same scale they use for deternmining the franchise number for the same position in the league. Maybe instead of the average of the top five, the average of 6-10 with an incentive base to get you into the average of the top 5.

These guys have worked on their craft since they were in gradeschool, worked their butts off to be considered as the best of the best coming out of college. They have earned their big payday IMO even though they have not played a down in the NFL - simple supply and demand - think about what deals they could get if there was no draft and each team had the same resources and the guy was able to make the best deal possible for himself after negotiating with all 32 teams. Would it be close to what they get on their slot? - I bet it would!

 

[aikemirv]

Florio got this one right. Upshaw's arguments make no sense at all.

Veterans would get MORE pay if rookies got less. Teams aren't going to spend less overall if rookies make less; they're going to redistribute the same amount of pay to vets.

And like Florio says, the problem is really only with the top half of the first round or even top 10 overall anyway.

What would be the driving factor to give Vets more if rookies got less?

Do you really think the owners are just going to say - " i have more money in my pocket - I think I will give it to Joe Blow". A lot of teams are not using their cap dollars as it is anyway.

 

[WoodysGirl]

PLAYERS WANT ROOKIE PAY STRUCTURE

Posted by Mike Florio on April 23, 2008, 12:23 p.m.

Contrary to recent comments from folks like NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw and ESPN’s Chris Mortensen, the players in the NFL want to change the manner in which rookies are paid.

The players don’t want to change the manner in which all rookies are paid, just the handful at the top of the board who get increasingly obscene amounts of money despite never having attended an NFL game without a ticket.

A veteran player who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue called us today, and said that the notion (perpetuated by Mort on Tuesday) that players don’t want to rein in the rookie wages at the top of the draft is “utterly absurd.”

“It’s the exact opposite,” the source said. “Players want it because it benefits them.”

Indeed, the only people hurt by the elimination of the huge contracts at the top of the draft are the folks who have not yet received such deals, and the agents who represent them.

And none of them have a vote.

It’s like putting the question of whether to raise the minimum age to receive Social Security benefits to 70 years of age only to people who are 70 or older. Raising the bar means more money for them, and less money for those who have no say in the matter.

As we hear it, even one of the players who received in the past few years one of those high first-round rookie windfalls is in favor of slamming the door. And why wouldn’t he be? The player in question is now a member of the group of players who would have more money available to them for veteran deals, if the huge contracts to an annual handful of rookies are reduced dramatically.

Another factor in all of this is the locker-room dynamic. As the source explained, a kid who has been paid $30 million in guaranteed money has no reason to listen to anyone. Not the coach, not the veteran leadership, not the owner. The kid is essentially bulletproof. As long as he doesn’t do anything that gets him suspended for conduct detrimental to the team, he can do whatever he wants.

And so what if he ends up being a bust? That $30 million will be more than enough to last as far into the future as the kid is inclined to peer, or to care. He doesn’t need to think about earning that big second contract. He really doesn’t need to think about anything. Before the chinstrap is fastened for a single training camp pratice, the kid is set for life.

With all that said, it’s possible that Upshaw is merely pretending that the union doesn’t want to change the current system as a bargaining ploy, since it’s obvious that the NFL hopes to address the problem. But we’re told that Upshaw has been pressed on the issue by players for several years, and that he continues to offer up flimsy excuses as to why the system should remain as it is.

The real winners (and thus the real potential losers) in all of this are the agents who routinely are in the mix for the top players. For a rookie deal that averages only $5 million per year (and Jake Long is getting more than twice that annually), the maximum fee is $150,000, per year. If a firm like CAA has multiple players who are earning that rookie-deal money (e.g., Long, Vernon Gholston, Matt Ryan, Adrian Peterson, Mario Williams, Matt Leinart, Alex Smith, Cadillac Williams, Eli Manning, Roy Williams), a lot of money that would evaporate from the annual budget if a reasonable formula for the draft picks were installed in its place.

And since Upshaw is represented by CAA, there’s the real answer (in our opinion) as to why Upshaw is resisting change.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

What would be the driving factor to give Vets more if rookies got less?

Do you really think the owners are just going to say - " i have more money in my pocket - I think I will give it to Joe Blow". A lot of teams are not using their cap dollars as it is anyway.

Of course. The driving force is a competitive marketplace.

They won't give it to "Joe Blow", but they'll give it to someone they think deserves it.

 

[aikemirv]

Of course. The driving force is a competitive marketplace.

They won't give it to "Joe Blow", but they'll give it to someone they think deserves it.

They have a competitive marketplace right now. The only owners who are going to participate in that marketplace are the ones that are doing it right now.

Once I see these teams use up their cap space I will be inclined to agree with you.

 

[notherbob]

Any way you look at it, this issue won't be resolved until the current CBA is dissolved and a new one hammered out a couple of years later. Might as well be patient because it is going to take a while to resolve it and I doubt Upshaw will be running the union at that time. I'm thinking there's going to be a lot of upheaval between now and then.