Why the NFL has more holdouts than any other pro league

[G2]

I agree. Let the owners and players duke it out on contracts. I just want to watch a quality product on Sunday.

Right? I wish they didn't make such a spectacle in the media, just report the game.

 

[Ranching]

Holdouts by players seeking a better contracts have driven fans crazy for years. The first one I remember as a fan was my first favorite Cowboy- Bob Hayes’ holdout in 1970 when the future HOFer was asking to be paid an annual salary of $40k to become one of the highest paid WRs in the league! Lol!

Here’s something to remember about the NFL: It’s the only one of the four major sports leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL) to not have guaranteed player contracts. The owners’ powerful “NFL Management Council” which negotiates the CBA with the NFL Players Association, has long negotiated labor agreements that do not allow players guaranteed contracts. NFL players have the least amount of financial security.

This is why so many more “holdouts” happen in the NFL as opposed to other sports leagues. Here are some other reasons for so many NFL player holdouts:

• NFL contracts do have some “guaranteed money” but it’s usually tied up in the bonus. After that “guarantee”, teams can cut a player at any time as opposed the other leagues where players have fully guaranteed contracts.

• NFL players’ careers are shorter on average, and have a much higher risk for injury. To have a higher risk for injury coupled with no guaranteed contracts make NFL players far less financially secure.

• NFL owners make exponentially more money than other leagues’ owners. The NFL’s net profits that go straight to the owners has approached $20 billion in recent years while NFL players share much less of the financial pie than other leagues’ players, yet have the most risk to their health.

• NFL players have had the least attractive health insurance and retirement packages than the other leagues.

• Zeke is of course under contract, but he’s also nearing a crossroads for his financial future. Going into this season, he probably has more leverage than he’s ever had. (The Cowboys don’t exactly have a solid backup behind Zeke currently)

Look, I’m not a big fan of player holdouts, especially when they have the time left on their contracts like Zeke does. But until the owners start being less cut throat about how contracts are done, we are going to continue seeing these type of situations with players like Zeke.

Holdouts suck. But IMO, the owners have the greatest responsibility in causing them and have the greatest opportunity in the next CBA to rectify this problem.

Wow! Who knew? Lol!!!!!

 

[G2]

Think about college football. Its a lower level of football but every bit as entertaining. Thats what the NFL would be for a few years if every player quit tomorrow. In 10 years, you wouldn't know the difference.

The only reason that I think the NFL is better is because of the talent level. Other than that, college is much more entertaining IMO.

 

[Trendnet]

I’m talking about contracts with a defined timetable for making a contractually defined choice. You equating that to an unknown event at some unknown time makes no sense at all.

Considering that you're completely wrong about how MLB contract works, absurd analogies are totally appropriate here.

When an MLB declines their Club Option, then they buyout the remaining contract. So different paths, different results.

Not same same

What you're probably thinking of is Non-Tendering, but that in itself is complicated.

 

[InTheZone]

I also can see this game in decline. I don't speak for everyone but no way I am letting my kids get their brains wrecked using them as battling rams.
I remember watching a night game not long ago where for the first time in my 40+ years I felt wrong watching it. It was the game where the Steelers and Bengals were taking head shots on each other all game.....not sure but may be the game the man became paralyzed, LB.

The modern day athletes seem to have a mentality that is uncomfortable to watch. I love good hits ect but each time I watch someone get their bell rung it triggers something in my soul that just makes this form on entertainment feel wrong. It's hard to watch people intentional injure others brains.

I may be the exception but almost everyone I know with small kids won't allow their children play tackle football.

There are many dangerous jobs in the world I never hear a parent say they don't want their kid working, except football.

If I ever had kids I wouldn't say no to them playing football, but it is up to me and the coaches to teach them safety and proper techniques. And if I see them continue bad habits I'll take them out. It's that simple.

I do see bad tackling all the time and am surprised more don't get paralyzed, but it doesn't mean to kill the sport.

 

[InTheZone]

The only reason that I think the NFL is better is because of the talent level. Other than that, college is much more entertaining IMO.

Lol nothing better than powerhouses buying their teams and stat padding on peasant teams.

 

[Kevinicus]

That's it, right there. If teams honored contracts it wouldn't be an issue, but they don't. They cut guys every year who are under contract, freeing themselves from the obligation of paying what they agreed to when they signed it.

Yet I'm supposed to be mad at a player for using leverage when he has it, to get more guaranteed money? I don't think so.

Cutting a player is not the same as not honoring the contract. The contract stipulates guarantees that even if the team no longer desires your services, you will get that money regardless. The player is the one getting a guaranteed salary up front, regardless of their performance. They are the ones under an obligation to honor the contract.

 

[superonyx]

There are many dangerous jobs in the world I never hear a parent say they don't want their kid working, except football.

If I ever had kids I wouldn't say no to them playing football, but it is up to me and the coaches to teach them safety and proper techniques. And if I see them continue bad habits I'll take them out. It's that simple.

I do see bad tackling all the time and am surprised more don't get paralyzed, but it doesn't mean to kill the sport.

I get what you are saying.
Part of the difference is football isnt really a job like most. You see your child has about a .01% (or lower) chance of making a dime from football. But they will take thousands of head to head shots while their developing brains are forming before they ever get to the point where they find out they will never make a cent playing football.
I played football for a good portion of my life and practices, drills, ect have you taking shot after shot where the head is jarred. You really can't avoid it. You have 22 guys running towards each other like a scene from Braveheart. You take damaging shots from people you never even saw and they probably didnt see you.
I'm not sure if you have ever played real football but its chaos and your field of vision is very limited. You can't imagine the sound of what a pile up sounds like even inside your helmet. It's something I wish most football fans could experience once. It gives you new respect for these guys for sure.

I have 3 sons. 7,10,16. None have and will play football. They are not born as freak athletes to where they would ever get much more than a bad knee or a bruised brain from the sport....i'm not counting cheerleaders....

 

[superonyx]

Cutting a player is not the same as not honoring the contract. The contract stipulates guarantees that even if the team no longer desires your services, you will get that money regardless. The player is the one getting a guaranteed salary up front, regardless of their performance. They are the ones under an obligation to honor the contract.

What obligation are they under?
The NFL doesnt have guaranteed contracts for anyone not named Kurt Cousins.

Lets stop pretending this one sided deal is anything more than a general framing of the pay structure for either sides. Neither side operates with some high level of honor. Neither side are good guys or bad guys. They are both using the leverage they have to make the most money they can.

Vilifying the millionaire and sympathizing with the billionaires due to a CBA that was agreed to long before these players were even in the league is elementary at best. Its nothing more than a way some wise *** tries to win an internet argument.

Stop it.

 

[atlantacowboy]

I do agree with you about Jerry, but Blank got $200 mill from the city and another $40 mil from the state (and I think $200 mil from the NFL). That's why he doesn't own the stadium, the State does. It's highly controversial as the hotel tax used to pay back the city runs in perpetuity, however once the bonds are paid off the excess goes into a fund that Blank can use for operations and improvements.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...a-taxpayers-paying-700m-for-a-new-nfl-stadium

The 200 million taxpayer money was in the form of bonds backed by the motel/hotel tax I referenced above. It costs folks like me who live here nothing. AND, it was only about 13% of what the stadium ended up costing. The city recouped its investment during the super bowl week alone.

The 700 million number is very misleading. It is an estimate of how much tax will be collected from the motel/hotel tax over the lifetime of the stadium. So, Blank still had to borrow and fleece PSL holders to get it built.

The state and local tax subsidies cost taxpayers who live here nothing. Its not a check drawn from the state treasury. Its literally new money to be collected with a new tax put in place.

 

[ArtClink]

That might be the single most moronic thing that I have seen on this site.

You can say that Jerry is a bad GM all day and I would agree, but to say that Jerry doesn't care about the game or his players is willfully ignoring 30 years of direct tangible evidence.

I mean that Jerry holds greed higher than the integrity of the game, higher than making the game the best it can be. You can have both, but the NFL owners' action indicate that it's greed at all cost, even if that threatens the future of the game.

 

[ghst187]

Good post. I hate it too. I don't blame Zeke one bit. Dallas would play hardball if he didn't do anything. They could franchise him in 2021/2022. He would be 27/28 when he hit the open market. Get your money while you can. What I don't like in other sports is guys like Russell Westbrook demanding a trade with all these years left on their current deal. Don't want to live/play in Oklahoma City? Fine. But don't sign a long term deal.

Paul George technically but your point is spot on.

 

[Longboysfan]

I would have hoped that the Teams could get a rebate from the league if a player goes down with an injury.
A sliding scale rebate. Based on total monies lost for player with injuries.
Where the rebate money goes back to their CAP and the teams must spend it.

Example:

Team A has two injured players out for the year or a carryover from last year.
Total monies for those players is 9 million for that playing year.
Team A get's CAP rebate of 9 million they must spend.

Team B loses their starting QB with a 21 million CAP hit.
Team A only gets a $16.25 CAP rebate they must spend.
The first 10 million is a full rebate.
The second 10 million is a 60% rebate.
Any number over the total of 20 million is a 25% rebate.

This would, or so I think, let teams sign players for guaranteed money without losing competitive advantage if a player goes down.

Also Veterans would be a pay scale for CAP. But not for what they can get.

 

[Kevinicus]

What obligation are they under?
The NFL doesnt have guaranteed contracts for anyone not named Kurt Cousins.

Lets stop pretending this one sided deal is anything more than a general framing of the pay structure for either sides. Neither side operates with some high level of honor. Neither side are good guys or bad guys. They are both using the leverage they have to make the most money they can.

Vilifying the millionaire and sympathizing with the billionaires due to a CBA that was agreed to long before these players were even in the league is elementary at best. Its nothing more than a way some wise *** tries to win an internet argument.

Stop it.

What obligation? The one they signed on for. To perform work for the agreed upon compensation. This is why they are fined for not showing up. They have a legal obligation. Of course, it is their choice to accept those fines as a consequence of failing that obligation, but the obligation remains. They were paid up-front for services to be rendered.

 

[superonyx]

What obligation? The one they signed on for. To perform work for the agreed upon compensation. This is why they are fined for not showing up. They have a legal obligation. Of course, it is their choice to accept those fines as a consequence of failing that obligation, but the obligation remains. They were paid up-front for services to be rendered.

Then why can they retire or walk away at any time?

so you would prefer a player show up fumble every time they touch the ball? Hey if showing up is all that needs to happen then why not?

Stop pretending it matters. This legal obligation is worth about as much as used toilet paper.
You may hate the reality but actions are loud and clear. The owners know it, the players know it, the fans know it.

any legal argument doesn’t mean jack squat when the games on happening and a player isn’t playing.
It’s just something for nerds on the internet to argue over. It changes nothing it means nothing and no one needs to do anything,

 

[IndianaCowboys1994]

Paul George technically but your point is spot on.

Sorry that is who I meant..

 

[IndianaCowboys1994]

Russell did not demand a trade, he only did it after the GM told him they were going young and cleaning house like the marlins after there world series wins. He gave them some teams he would like to play for. That was PG who requested to be traded to the clippers. Russell was going to stay until told by the GM.

I meant Paul George. Apologies.

 

[Kevinicus]

Then why can they retire or walk away at any time?

They can't, really. They can make that choice, but the contract usually has provisions for this requiring players to return money previously received.

so you would prefer a player show up fumble every time they touch the ball? Hey if showing up is all that needs to happen then why not?

That's kind of a rather large conclusion jump. Of course, I would not prefer a player do that. Showing up is not all that needs to happen. Players can be suspended for conduct detrimental to the team, and it would be difficult to make a case against that in a scenario you describe. Other players would also turn on that player, and teams would be unlikely to sign someone willing to do that sort of thing.

Stop pretending it matters. This legal obligation is worth about as much as used toilet paper.
You may hate the reality but actions are loud and clear. The owners know it, the players know it, the fans know it.

Pretending what matters? The legal obligation is worth as much as teams are willing to sacrifice performance and players are willing to suffer the financial penalties...just like any other legal contract obligation.

any legal argument doesn’t mean jack squat when the games on happening and a player isn’t playing.
It’s just something for nerds on the internet to argue over. It changes nothing it means nothing and no one needs to do anything,

Sounds like you are just wanting to argue for arguments sake now.

 

[OmerV]

Considering that you're completely wrong about how MLB contract works, absurd analogies are totally appropriate here.

When an MLB declines their Club Option, then they buyout the remaining contract. So different paths, different results.

Not same same

What you're probably thinking of is Non-Tendering, but that in itself is complicated.

You apparently are under the impression I said every NFL and MLB contract is identical in every way. I did not, and have, in fact, talked about them being structured differently.

It appears you have missed some of the context. The argument had been that all MLB contracts are fully guaranteed, however that isn't exactly true because some contracts commit the player to a longer term than the team is committed to. My comment was not that the contracts are identical, it was the that in both the NFL and MLB there are contracts in which the team has the choice to keep or release the player at some point, and in both cases the team is committed to paying the minimum guaranteed level, but not committed to paying the maximum level.

A option and a buyout is not a full commitment by the team, it is paying a minimum amount for the right to sever ties with the player without paying the maximum amount. Though structured differently, some NFL contracts also provide that a team has to pay at least the minimum amount, but has the right to sever ties short of paying the maximum amount. That was my point.

 

[superonyx]

They can't, really. They can make that choice, but the contract usually has provisions for this requiring players to return money previously received.

That's kind of a rather large conclusion jump. Of course, I would not prefer a player do that. Showing up is not all that needs to happen. Players can be suspended for conduct detrimental to the team, and it would be difficult to make a case against that in a scenario you describe. Other players would also turn on that player, and teams would be unlikely to sign someone willing to do that sort of thing.

Pretending what matters? The legal obligation is worth as much as teams are willing to sacrifice performance and players are willing to suffer the financial penalties...just like any other legal contract obligation.


Sounds like you are just wanting to argue for arguments sake now.

Its actually the opposite. I am saying that its pointless to argue over legal obligations because regardless of what either side says it doesnt change the facts that players can and do hold out. Arguing they have an obligation to report and play doesnt change a thing because they are not reporting and they are not playing. So to wrap it up it really doesnt matter who is legally right or wrong. The rules are written to favor the owners in a legal standard but the real world result is players can and will hold out, get fined, and end up with renegotiated contracts.

Btw.....a player cannot be fined if performance is the conduct detrimental to the team otherwise we would have a bunch of cowboys who owe the team money. Yes fumbling is a performance issue. Just like choosing to not run into the pile and stretch for that extra yard or running out of bounds and making business decisions. The players have ways to get what they want. I respect them for staying away to get what they want and most fans should also. Instead fans want to vilify them for not "honoring" their signature.... Sounds crazy doesnt it.