Point: Counterpoint; Are NFL Holdouts in the Right?

[Sascha]

http://www.pigskinheaven.com/gallery/files/7/pshlogoyellow6ad.jpg


<---Point:




Counterpoint: ----->


Curt4074


YoHoChecko









Point:



Every year a handful of NFL players threaten to hold out unless their contract demands are not met. Most are just bluffs, hoping the management will think they are serious when they skip a few voluntary work-outs (ex. Corey Chavous, Brian Williams and Javon Walker last year). The majority of players eventually report to camp when the organization refuses to fold, while others get their contract demands addressed. Only a select few have actually taken the hold-out into the regular season.


Every year we hear the same old tune from the fans of these hold-outs. "These millionaire athletes have no right to complain about http://checkraise.com/rants2/archive3/20041108ap_fbn_wardTDleapBGI_450.jpg"Hey!" "You signed it, you play it out." There are some guys who are concerned either with long-term stability (Ex. Donovan Darius, Hines Ward) who only want a contract with some years attached to it. Many players get tired of the instability that results from being franchised 2 or more years in a row. With those cases, there is little argument against the validity of their holdouts. But the vast majority have to do with players feeling they are underpaid. Which is where most of the objections to a player's right to hold-out is questioned.


These athletes have every right to hold-out. With the uncertainty of a NFL player's career, (one snap could end the career) players must be concerned about their long-term future. Many late first round players are forced into unattractive contract situations. They weren't good enough to warrant the big-contract, and are often pressured into accepting deals that last more than 4 years. If these talented players explode onto the scene, they are only left with one option to be paid their market value. In the case of Javon Walker, he seemed to be a clairvoyant when he made comments about how easily he could be injured prior to the 2005 season. He held out during most of mini-camp because he was unhappy about his contract that vastly underpaid him because of his 2004 performance. He eventually came back when it became clear that everyone in Wisconsin was against him. The ever-present Brett Favre felt compelled to tell Walker to play out his contract (completely ignoring the fact that he too had held out in his career). Soon after Walker agreed to come back, he was injured severely, and spent the rest of the season inactive. Now Walker is back to his same old tricks, but seemingly more stubborn despite a terrible bargaining position.


http://images.sportsnetwork.com/football/nfl/allsport/titans/george_eddie8.jpgWhy is it, in an era where nearly anyone who holds out is considered a traitor, do fans find it completely acceptable that teams in cap trouble can force players to take pay-cuts by using the threat of cutting a player? Or in the case of Eddie George, players were pressured into a pay-cut, and were still cut! Most of the players affected by this are veterans on the decline, Icons of teams such as Jerry Rice were forced to finish there careers in other places because teams could not find the money to keep them around.


My solution to the hold-outs and cuts would be guaranteed contracts. Most of the major sports in America give their athletes guaranteed contracts, and i believe it's time for the NFL to follow suit. Along with these guaranteed contracts, there should be a ban on hold-outs. Players would have the right to request their trade, or a contract buy-out, but not through the media. Players who demand trades put their teams in a considerable bind, when a player is disgruntled, his market value plummets, as most teams believe they no longer have to give a fair offer. Players could still be cut, but their salaries would still be guaranteed. This would force teams to offer fair contracts and level the playing field, no longer would teams be able to morgatge the future in an attempt to win now (cough...REDSKINS... cough).


-Curt4074








Counterpoint:







Should players be able to hold out? Should management be able to terminate contracts or demand pay cuts? The debate is refreshed every off-season. The majority of the debaters currently side with the teams and management in these disputes, but there seems to be a growing sentiment among fans and players that the players’ attempts to get more money are completely justified because the teams also fail to honor contracts. It is this growing sentiment that must be addressed.

The thing that is often forgotten is that the players are hired by the teams to perform a service (playing football). Just like in the real world, when an http://www.madison.com/images/articles/tct/2005/07/21/17468_thumb.jpgemployer hires an employee, usually a contract is signed to ensure that for the duration of the agreement, that employee will lend his services to the employer for the agreed upon compensation and not perform services for competitors. This agreement, however, never voids the right of the employer to terminate the contract—to fire the employee—if the services are not being executed up to standard.

In all walks of life, if an employer is not satisfied with their employee or the level of compensation has become too cumbersome to maintain, that employer has the right to fire that employee. Football is no different. The players are hired by the teams. The teams expect a certain level of performance, and if it is not met, they either cut pay or fire the player.

However, if an employee is unhappy with his level of pay, in no area of life that I know of is the appropriate response to stop showing up for work until they agree to pay you more (barring a strike). An appropriate response would be to ask for a raise, to try to earn a raise, or, if no agreement can be met, to quit the job once the terms of the agreement are reached. In football, that translates to either playing out the contract and then leaving or retiring from football altogether to pursue other ventures in life.

Only in sports, an industry whose workers make a great deal more money than most other industries, do employees ask for a raise by failing to perform their duties. Some players realize this, while others do not. This sometimes http://www.madison.com/images/articles/tct/2005/01/24/11946_thumb.jpgcreates tensions among players. The perfect example is last season when Javon Walker threatened to hold out and Brett Favre publicly criticized that course of action by simply stating that a hold out is going about things the wrong way. Many claimed that Favre should not speak up for a variety of reasons, especially including the fact that as a star quarterback, he had not been put in the same position.

However, Brett Favre, despite playing with a contract for a second-round pick, played all the way through his rookie contract, even though he had been a starting QB for three seasons by the time it expired, including two trips to the playoffs. After his contract expired, he missed one day of training camp prior to agreeing on new terms, but it should be made very clear that missing time while not under contract is far different from refusing to honor a contract in order to get a team to agree to new terms. So when a wide receiver on his team has one pro bowl season and immediately expects his contract to be altered, you can understand that Favre might not think that was the right move—especially considering that Walker had received approximately $5 million dollars over the course of his first two seasons, when his production was fairly limited, and he failed to consider that sum as part of his compensation for his pro bowl season.

However, I have digressed from the main point. The fact is that teams are under certain financial restrictions (salary cap), and they have to make sacrifices to remain competitive. Just as in the world of business, sometimes that means that employees have to take pay cuts or be let go, even if they do their job well. It is an unfortunate side of the business, but it does not give the players (employees) the right to stop showing up for work when they are unhappy.

Players do face the very real danger that an on-field injury or non-football injury could cut short their playing careers and, with it, future earnings potential, so their concern is legitimate. My solution to the situation would be for the players union to stop demanding more money for salaries and to drastically improve the benefits package for players after retirement including special benefits for those who have their careers ended by injury. With the guarantee that they will be able to survive financially regardless of injury or early retirement, fewer players will have to worry so much about “feeding their family” in the long run. Therefore, the validity of the players embodying the role of victims in this debate would be greatly limited. This solution avoids affecting the teams’ salary cap, so they can remain competitive and active in free agency despite making mistakes with a few bad contracts, which could decimate a team if contracts became guaranteed.

-YoHoChecko

[myshkingfh]

when an

employer hires an employee, usually a contract is signed to ensure that for the duration of the agreement, that employee will lend his services to the employer for the agreed upon compensation and not perform services for competitors. This agreement, however, never voids the right of the employer to terminate the contract—to fire the employee—if the services are not being executed up to standard.

In all walks of life, if an employer is not satisfied with their employee or the level of compensation has become too cumbersome to maintain, that employer has the right to fire that employee.

A lot of this is just not true, especially for highly qualified employees or union employees.


An appropriate response would be to ask for a raise, to try to earn a raise, or, if no agreement can be met, to quit the job once the terms of the agreement are reached.

This is also not very accurate. In most other professions an employee can quit before the terms of the contract expire with no consequence. Professional atheletics is a rare circumstance where if you quit there isn't anywhere else you can go to practice your profession.

Finally, its hyporcticial to castigate players who want renegotiated contracts and over look the teams (all of them) who cut tons of players who are under contract. No one ever gets their nose out of joint about the inequity of ownership failing to honor contracts.

[lawdog93]

A lot of this is just not true, especially for highly qualified employees or union employees.



This is also not very accurate. In most other professions an employee can quit before the terms of the contract expire with no consequence. Professional atheletics is a rare circumstance where if you quit there isn't anywhere else you can go to practice your profession.

Finally, its hyporcticial to castigate players who want renegotiated contracts and over look the teams (all of them) who cut tons of players who are under contract. No one ever gets their nose out of joint about the inequity of ownership failing to honor contracts.

I disagree. when I sign a contract to do my job, I can't just stop coming to work and expect to get paid more, unless I gather everyone up for a strike. Big difference. Plus, my boss can fire me at any time with good reason. Why should the NFL be any different?

[Sascha]

A lot of this is just not true, especially for highly qualified employees or union employees.



This is also not very accurate. In most other professions an employee can quit before the terms of the contract expire with no consequence. Professional atheletics is a rare circumstance where if you quit there isn't anywhere else you can go to practice your profession.

Finally, its hyporcticial to castigate players who want renegotiated contracts and over look the teams (all of them) who cut tons of players who are under contract. No one ever gets their nose out of joint about the inequity of ownership failing to honor contracts.


That should be more incentive to live up to your boss' demands. And there are a few other options, like CFL or AFL, but you'll be taking a massive paycut. Again, more incentive for an NFL player who wants to stay in the NFL to honor a contract.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Just like in the real world, when an
employer hires an employee, usually a contract is signed to ensure that for the duration of the agreement, that employee will lend his services to the employer for the agreed upon compensation and not perform services for competitors. This agreement, however, never voids the right of the employer to terminate the contract—to fire the employee—if the services are not being executed up to standard.

In all walks of life, if an employer is not satisfied with their employee or the level of compensation has become too cumbersome to maintain, that employer has the right to fire that employee. Football is no different. The players are hired by the teams. The teams expect a certain level of performance, and if it is not met, they either cut pay or fire the player

This is very inaccurate. The vast majority of the population doesnt sign a contract when they get hired at a new job so to say that usually a contract is signed simply isnt true. The part that is especially untrue is that in all walks of life the employer has the right to fire that employee or cut their pay if the level of pay has become too cumbersome.

That is 100% inaccurate. As a matter of fact there are labor laws that are enforced by the state labor board in every state that prohibit employers from simply cutting someones pay or firing them because they have become too expensive. There are only a certain number of reasons that you can fire an employee and none of them are because he was costing too much money. In the end the employer agreed to give him that money so he had better prove an incompetance in the work place where the employee fails to live up to the agreed-upon expectations of the job.

In NFL contracts though we arent talking about players who arent living up to their expectations. We are talking about teams cutting players simply because of their financial burden to the organization. Players who reach the end of a backloaded contract are often told to renegotiate for lesser money or be cut, regardless of their talent level. In the real world that would be against the law. There are only 2 ways you can legally force a pay cut in the real world, restructure the company by eliminating the current position the guy works in and offer him a new position that pays less money, or relocate the company to a location where the the cost of living is lower and hit EVERY EMPLOYEE with a cost of living pay cut. Any other type of pay cut is against the law in the real world, even if the employee isnt living up to his potential you cannot legally lower his pay or threaten to fire him if he doesnt take lesser pay.

[Sascha]

This is very inaccurate. The vast majority of the population doesnt sign a contract when they get hired at a new job so to say that usually a contract is signed simply isnt true. The part that is especially untrue is that in all walks of life the employer has the right to fire that employee or cut their pay if the level of pay has become too cumbersome.

That is 100% inaccurate. As a matter of fact there are labor laws that are enforced by the state labor board in every state that prohibit employers from simply cutting someones pay or firing them because they have become too expensive. There are only a certain number of reasons that you can fire an employee and none of them are because he was costing too much money. In the end the employer agreed to give him that money so he had better prove an incompetance in the work place where the employee fails to live up to the agreed-upon expectations of the job.

In NFL contracts though we arent talking about players who arent living up to their expectations. We are talking about teams cutting players simply because of their financial burden to the organization. Players who reach the end of a backloaded contract are often told to renegotiate for lesser money or be cut, regardless of their talent level. In the real world that would be against the law. There are only 2 ways you can legally force a pay cut in the real world, restructure the company by eliminating the current position the guy works in and offer him a new position that pays less money, or relocate the company to a location where the the cost of living is lower and hit EVERY EMPLOYEE with a cost of living pay cut. Any other type of pay cut is against the law in the real world, even if the employee isnt living up to his potential you cannot legally lower his pay or threaten to fire him if he doesnt take lesser pay.


Actually, the guys focused on holdouts, not all players. I agree that the rules are different in professional sports than in the real world, but still, when a contract is signed, you should be able to live up to it, or you may have to suffer consequences. If a player really has a problem, and he is of enough value to a team, then maybe he should ask for 1 or 2 year deals, instead of asking for a new contract 4 years into a 7 year deal.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Actually, the guys focused on holdouts, not all players. I agree that the rules are different in professional sports than in the real world, but still, when a contract is signed, you should be able to live up to it, or you may have to suffer consequences. If a player really has a problem, and he is of enough value to a team, then maybe he should ask for 1 or 2 year deals, instead of asking for a new contract 4 years into a 7 year deal.

Thats all part of the problem though. Holdouts occur because of the way these contracts are designed in the NFL. They HEAVILY favor the team and leave the player with very little wiggle room. Sure, in a perfect world the player should have to honor a contract he signed, but so should the team if you ask me. The Bufallo Bills made a contractual agreement to pay Eric Moulds $10 million this season and now they arent going to honor it. How many players this offseason were FORCED to renegotiate their contracts or be cut simply because the teams INTENTIONALLY backloaded their contracts to avoid actually having to pay them the money? If a player signs a $40 million contract because that is his market value, how much of that does he actually see? Half? Three quarters at best? And what can the player do about it? NOTHING.

Thats the point, its all interlaced. The teams arent forced to honor the contracts they give, so why should the players be? If a team isnt happy with the contract situation of a player they can just cut him and the problem goes away. But the minute a player, whose actual livelihood is on the line playing for that team isnt happy with his contract he has very little options. He cant just walk away so he is forced to find alternate means of getting his point across.

[Sascha]

I agree, but that's why I said that if someone has a problem with it, they should seek 1 year contracts. If they're a valuable commodity, then trust me, there will be teams offering one-year deals. Also, maybe they could ask for less overall money, then the player and the team can worry less about backloading.

[Soel v25]

Eaglephil:

That is 100% inaccurate. As a matter of fact there are labor laws that are enforced by the state labor board in every state that prohibit employers from simply cutting someones pay



This is simply not true. As long as it doesn't go below current minimum wage restrictions, an employer can lower your salary as long as he/she notifies you before that work period has begun. As you mentioned in your opening paragraph, the vast majority of the population does not sign a contract, so they are stuck with this situation.

[myshkingfh]

I disagree. when I sign a contract to do my job, I can't just stop coming to work and expect to get paid more, unless I gather everyone up for a strike. Big difference. Plus, my boss can fire me at any time with good reason. Why should the NFL be any different?

You can if you're important enough to the company, and you can always take your valuable skills to the competition. The NFL is different because every contract is different depending on the terms contained therein. The NFL contract allows both sides some remedies - the team can cut the player, the player can hold out. It could certainly be designed better, and I agree that guaranteed contracts would be the way to do it.


I agree, but that's why I said that if someone has a problem with it, they should seek 1 year contracts.

I believe that they would, but signing bonuses couldn't be spread out over the course of the contract in that situation and the teams wouldn't be prepared to take the salary cap hit. NFL contracts are still best viewed as a series of one year contracts - or even one game contracts, at the end of which the player may choose to hold out and the team may choose to cut the player.


This is simply not true. As long as it doesn't go below current minimum wage restrictions, an employer can lower your salary as long as he/she notifies you before that work period has begun.

Most labor laws (not the big civil rights laws) are state laws and vary from state to state. In right to work states you have the right to get fired at any time. If you live in one of those states, I suggest you move ;) You are all also assuming the hypothetical average guy doesn't have a union job. Then, obviously, such things are subject to a collective bargaining agreement just as they are in the NFL.

Having a union job changes everything, and there are still many many average guys who have union jobs. I wish there were more.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Eaglephil:

This is simply not true. As long as it doesn't go below current minimum wage restrictions, an employer can lower your salary as long as he/she notifies you before that work period has begun. As you mentioned in your opening paragraph, the vast majority of the population does not sign a contract, so they are stuck with this situation.

They most certainly cannot unless the job itself changes. I know because I am an employer and I have literally hundreds of pages worth of documentation on state labor laws that tells me what I can and cannot do with my employees. It happens everyday in the real world but that doesnt mean it is legal. A significant amount of the companies out there in the real world break labor laws and the reason they get away with it is BECAUSE there is no written contract. Verbal contracts are legally binding BUT if you dont have a 3rd party witness to testify to the content of said contract they are nothing but heresay.


I agree, but that's why I said that if someone has a problem with it, they should seek 1 year contracts. If they're a valuable commodity, then trust me, there will be teams offering one-year deals. Also, maybe they could ask for less overall money, then the player and the team can worry less about backloading.

Ruuuuuuuuudiiiii, thats another part of the problem. Who doesnt want the long term stability of a long term contract? You wouldnt want to be looking for work every year or every 2 years would you? Athletes careers are short enough as it is without having to look for a new job every couple of years. But here is the larger problem with your proposal.....

Throughout all of this uncertainty surrounding players contracts there have developed certain "trends." One of these trends is that teams in the league commonly renegotiate contracts when a player greatly exceeds his current one. Obviously this usually happens with younger players, Javon Walker being an example. This trend has become so commonplace that teams now use that as a bargaining chip to get these players to sign long term/low paying deals. Draftees used to sign only a 2-3 year contract, but the new trend of making renegotiations commonplace and teams promising players that they CAN renegotiate a couple of years down the line when they exceed the expectations of their current contract has forced players to sign longer, 5-6 year contracts. Then what happens when (much like with Javon Walker), the player outperforms his expectations and the team REFUSES to give him the same renegotiation that most other players are given? The player got hit with the double edged sword being convinced to take the longer term and lower paying contract with the ideal of a commonplace renegotiation down the road, but then was refused the opportunity and forced to stick with a deal that the club itself isnt sticking to.

All of this stuff so drastically favors the team that it is ridiculous. This is why the players union supports player holdouts and fought against T.O.'s suspension. The way that the rules of player contracts are set up in the NFL today there is very little room for a player to make sure that his best interests are taken into consideration. The team holds all of the cards and risks very little loss whereas the player is constantly at a tremendous risk and can experience tragic loss at any moment and not be compensated fairly for it. Drastic times call for drastic measures. A holdout is no different than a public protest, and protests have been proven to be some of the most effective ways to implement change in history.

Of course as with some protests, some holdouts are just ridiculous greed but that doesnt mean that they should be outlawed on a league wide scale. I said it last offseason when Owens, Boldin and Walker were all holding out for more money, the only one who had a case was Walker because he was the lowest paid and had the most to lose. And lose he did. If Owens or Boldin went down in game 1 last season they still would have made millions of dollars each. Walker risked his entire career and livelihood for a meager $500,000. That isnt going to feed his family and pay his bills for the rest of his life if his football career is ruined. And I dont know too many people in this world who could just pick up and change careers and end up in a very comfortable financial position when they have trained in their specific field all of their life. To take away Walkers right to protest simply because a few others abuse their right to protest and have used it simply based on greed would be irresponsible. You cant let a few bad apples ruin the bunch.

[Sascha]

Well, I'll be the first to admit that the system is flawed, but I kinda see it as a case of you can't have your cake and eat it too. If players want long term security, they'll have to live with the terms of the team, plus their up-front money should make up for a lot of problems they may find in the contract. In the NFL with its non-guarantees, there really isn't such a thing as long-term security. If you want to paid market value every year, well, then you have to accept yearly contracts with probably no or a very small signing bonus. But really, once the contract is signed, honor it.

[Soel v25]

They most certainly cannot unless the job itself changes. I know because I am an employer and I have literally hundreds of pages worth of documentation on state labor laws that tells me what I can and cannot do with my employees. It happens everyday in the real world but that doesnt mean it is legal. A significant amount of the companies out there in the real world break labor laws and the reason they get away with it is BECAUSE there is no written contract. Verbal contracts are legally binding BUT if you dont have a 3rd party witness to testify to the content of said contract they are nothing but heresay.



Well, that may be tha case in your home state, But I guarantee it isn't in most others. I checked the websites of 4 states in different parts of the country, and all four say an employer can indeed do this if he notifies you before it goes into effect,and if it keeps your wages at or above minimum wage. I took the further step of calling the Labor Dept. in my home state (Massachusetts) and was told the exact same thing.

[myshkingfh]

The problem is there IS no long term security, becuase the player can always be cut.


But really, once the contract is signed, honor it.

Apply that principle to the team please.

[Soel v25]

Most labor laws (not the big civil rights laws) are state laws and vary from state to state. In right to work states you have the right to get fired at any time. If you live in one of those states, I suggest you move ;) You are all also assuming the hypothetical average guy doesn't have a union job. Then, obviously, such things are subject to a collective bargaining agreement just as they are in the NFL.

Having a union job changes everything, and there are still many many average guys who have union jobs. I wish there were more.


If you read my entire quote I was referring to his original premise that most people are not working under such contracts. Also, in a subsequent response to phil, mentioned that in his state his statement may be valid,but not so in many others.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Well, I'll be the first to admit that the system is flawed, but I kinda see it as a case of you can't have your cake and eat it too. If players want long term security, they'll have to live with the terms of the team, plus their up-front money should make up for a lot of problems they may find in the contract. In the NFL with its non-guarantees, there really isn't such a thing as long-term security. If you want to paid market value every year, well, then you have to accept yearly contracts with probably no or a very small signing bonus. But really, once the contract is signed, honor it.

But the team gets to have its cake and eat it too. My point is just that. These contracts today are so grossly imbalanced into the organizations favor that the only bargaining chip the players have left is to stage holdouts. If you take that away it leaves them with NOTHING. They are stuck in a situation where they are forced to honor a contract that doesnt live up to their real value that often times was signed under the pretense of a raise at a later date that the team itself isnt responsible for honoring.

Here is a real world scenario. Lets say you took a job on a low paying salary that was grossly below the industry standard because you were inexperienced. A carrot was dangled in front of your face though that if you performed highly enough that you would gain a raise in pay to even you out with the industry standard. That dangling carrot wasnt written in the contract but it was the standard procedure for everyone in the industry. So a couple of years go by and you nailed it, you are amongst the best at what you do. Right around the time in your deal that everyone else is getting their review and a proportionate raise you get nothing. When you inquire about it you get the cold shoulder. What would you do?

[myshkingfh]

I'd quit :)

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

I'd quit :)

In the NFL you cant. Case in point Ricky WIlliams. The Dolphins got a legal order to reclaim $8 million of his signing bonus when he decided to quit and even though he has come back to the NFL they retain the right to go after that money AT ANY TIME THEY PLEASE. He could play for the next 3 seasons and they could randomly decide to make him pay the money.

Oh, and Soelman you need to check the differences in the laws between part time and full time employees. Part timers get the shaft for the most part, all of the major labor laws are in regards to full time employees. Part time employees have very little for legal rights. For arguments sake we would have to consider the NFL players to fall under the full time category.

[Sascha]

The problem is there IS no long term security, becuase the player can always be cut.
Actually, the reason there is no long term security is the fact that NFL contracts are not guaranteed.


Apply that principle to the team please.
I do! I'm not singling out the players here, I do believe that contracts should be honored by both sides, at least as long as the player is in condition to do so. If you suffer a career ending injury in year 2 of a 5 year deal, then that contract should be greatly reduced, or the players inusrance policy should kick in.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Actually, the reason there is no long term security is the fact that NFL contracts are not guaranteed.


I do! I'm not singling out the players here, I do believe that contracts should be honored by both sides, at least as long as the player is in condition to do so. If you suffer a career ending injury in year 2 of a 5 year deal, then that contract should be greatly reduced, or the players inusrance policy should kick in.

The only way to fix the problem is to guarantee the money. That eliminates the teams ability to just cut a player for cap saving purposes. What would need to happen though to protect against cap problems for injured players is that if a player suffers a career ending injury in year 2 of a 5 year deal, all of that future money is still guaranteed, but since he is out of the league it doesnt count against the teams future salary cap or only counts for half or something. The team still has to pay it to the player, but its not dead money holding the team back. Lets face facts, its a cap issue is what it is. There isnt a team in the league who is on such a financial budget that they couldnt afford to pay a player what they have promised him. Its that they dont want the huge cap number holding back their ability to acquire new talent or re-sign existing talent.

[myshkingfh]

Well then, it seems like everyone (with the possible exception of Soelman) is in agreement! The motion Passes! :D

[Soel v25]

Well then, it seems like everyone (with the possible exception of Soelman) is in agreement! The motion Passes! :D


Lmao, I agree with the other points, such as the guaranteed contracts. I just took exception to that one point.:p

[YoHoChecko]

Ok, I have read most of the responses (I've been gone all day; apparently I missed a lot). I can't address everything, but let me make some points here. First of all, when I said "in the real world," that does not imply I mean for everyone in the real world. It simply states that these things go on on a regular basis, and I will give some examples:

1. When GM or Ford lay off 10,000 employees at a time, without closing a factory, that is due to financial cutbacks. On a smaller scale, small businesses that cannot stay afloat often decide that they can no longer afford that consultant. Speaking of consultants, when "efficiency experts" come in and eliminate positions within an office, people are laid off. The technical reason is that their job title has been eliminated or their job description has been deligated, but these changes are made to improve the bottom line.

2. As far as regular joe's signing contracts, I know for a fact that when my mother got hired full-time at the Community College, she had to sign a contract. My father, who is a sports writer, signed a contract with the paper. Even when I got a job as a waiter... yes, a waiter, at Applebees and CPK towards the end of college, I had to sign a contract. Now, the terms of the contract at my waiting job stated specifically that I could leave whenever I wanted... the contracts vary from job to job. The purpose of my father's contract, primarily, is to ensure that so long as he is employed by one newspaper, he does not write articles and work for rival newspapers. In other words, the contracts limit you from offering your services to the competetion.

3. I understand that most real-world contracts do not have a time limit attached to them, but that's not to say that none do. Many MANY contracts are termed for certain projects. For instance, a contracter who is building a house. The contract states that $X will be paid for the completion of the house. If the house is not completed, the contractor isn't going to get paid. If the contractor does a really good, fast job on the first floor, I highly doubt that he will say that he won't build the second and third floors unless he gets more money to do so. That just wouldn't make sense.

And again, if the contractor fails to complete to work required of him, the developer will likely replace the contractor (and of course, a lengthy court case would ensue). I'm not saying that EVERY man or EVERY job can be compared to playing in the NFL... but just that some can. And the situations I have listed above are the situations I was referring to. These things can and do happen within the workplace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, addressing a couple of other issues... the back-loaded contracts do not rob the players of anything. The players know full well, at least they would if they or their agents had any brains, that the $12 million base salary in year 6 is basically a dummy year. It's not that the players' value at the time is $40 million. The player's value at the time is reflected in the signing bonus and what they recieve over the first 3-4 years... and EVERYONE involved in the proces knows that.

So why, then, are these contracts formulated? There are a number of reasons, a couple of them are FOR the player and the agent. I'm sure teams would MUCH rather sign a player to a 4-year, $14 million deal than a 7-year, $50 million deal that won't be fulfilled. However, often the agent/player want the gigantic dollar amount. It helps the agent recruit clients, it helps the player gain publicity. For that reason, they inflate the numbers with years and dollars that everyone knows will not be paid.

Another reason, of course, is to spread out the signing bonus. This is the only way in which longer, back-loaded contracts benefit a team... the only thing is that once they cut the player early, the signing bonus is accellerated, so even then, it doesn't help the team much.

Another point is that often, players/agents WANT a huge bonus or salary put into the contract knowing it will never be paid because that forces the team to make a decision about the player's future by that point. Trust me, this goes on. A player wants to know where he stands with the team after three years... if he's going to get a big money extension from them, he's going to get it before that absurd salary cap number kicks in. If he's not, he wants to be let go so another team that might pay him more has a shot at him.

Back-loaded contracts are not just teams promising money and then ripping it away. It is a useless system (I admit, I hate it) of promoting the player, letting the team make headlines, puffing up the agent's ego and forcing teams to make decisions about players. If contracts were guaranteed, you can bet that the teams will offer significantly less money and shorter contracts and the stability and continuity of the game will be worse than it currently is.

A bad contract or a mistake in a guaranteed-contract worls would be so difficult for a team to overcome, with a 53-man roster, that most teams would limit contract length and would offer significantly less money in the later years of contracts. Players won't make any more money off of it, and they would most certainly be held to a higher standard as far as honoring their contracts. For instance, if you sign a 4-year guaranteed contract for small money and then become a star after two years, you can bet that the team will not deal well with any hold-out threats. By guaranteeing a contract, you're forcing the team to honor it's side of the contract without exception, and they will hold the same standard to players.

Now that I've written a second article about this stuff.... I think I'm done for now

[chiefzilla]

Here's one plain and simple point: in the NFL, the players hold out. In other sports, you almost NEVER see holdouts.

THe fact is, players wouldn't hold out if teams guaranteed contracts.

Also, keep in mind that most other sports offer arbitration. Players get compensated for improved level of play. Antonio Gates and Javon Walker likely wouldn't have to hold out in major league baseball, because arbitration would likely kick in and give them a "fair" compensation for their performance. This is the biggest reason why players MUST hold out. A player only has so many years to make the money they deserve. Why should Antonio Gates have to hold out? Or Boldin have to wait till the very last minute to get a huge contract? These players shouldn't have to fight to get out of a rookie contract where they get paid well less than a million dollars, while their fair value is actually worth millions of dollars. Another point: remember when Priest Holmes signed a long term deal with the Chiefs for under a million dollars per year? Perhaps one of the biggest steals in KC history. Imagine if he didn't threaten a holdout and had to live under his lousy contract. Why would KC restructure that if there were no pressure?

Also, let me add in that players can renegotiate because they have leverage. I can't compare NFL players with myself, because I am easily replaceable. My guess is, sorry to say, but most of you that work can easily be replaced too. Not true in the NFL. If you lose a Terrell Owens, it's very difficult to replace that level of talent, because arguably there is no receiver in the league that can match his talent.


If you want to end holdouts, then the owners have to stop fighting for revisions that limit players' rights. Guarantee contracts. And allow fair compensation for improved performance.

[YoHoChecko]

Here's one plain and simple point: in the NFL, the players hold out. In other sports, you almost NEVER see holdouts.

THe fact is, players wouldn't hold out if teams guaranteed contracts.

Also, keep in mind that most other sports offer arbitration. Players get compensated for improved level of play. Antonio Gates and Javon Walker likely wouldn't have to hold out in major league baseball, because arbitration would likely kick in and give them a "fair" compensation for their performance. This is the biggest reason why players MUST hold out. A player only has so many years to make the money they deserve. Why should Antonio Gates have to hold out? Or Boldin have to wait till the very last minute to get a huge contract? These players shouldn't have to fight to get out of a rookie contract where they get paid well less than a million dollars, while their fair value is actually worth millions of dollars. Another point: remember when Priest Holmes signed a long term deal with the Chiefs for under a million dollars per year? Perhaps one of the biggest steals in KC history. Imagine if he didn't threaten a holdout and had to live under his lousy contract. Why would KC restructure that if there were no pressure?

Also, let me add in that players can renegotiate because they have leverage. I can't compare NFL players with myself, because I am easily replaceable. My guess is, sorry to say, but most of you that work can easily be replaced too. Not true in the NFL. If you lose a Terrell Owens, it's very difficult to replace that level of talent, because arguably there is no receiver in the league that can match his talent.


If you want to end holdouts, then the owners have to stop fighting for revisions that limit players' rights. Guarantee contracts. And allow fair compensation for improved performance.
So you're saying the answer to hold-outs is guaranteed contracts? Imagine for me, then, that contracts WERE guaranteed, and Priest Holmes signed that low-budget, long-term deal. If that low-budget, long-term deal were completely 100% guaranteed, wouldn't he still have wanted to renegotiate. ANd, as I said, if teams were required to honor a contract 100% of the time (guarantees) then wouldn't they be much less willing to allow players to get out of contracts?

Bottom line, guaratees would not end hold-outs from players who think that they are in contracts that under-compensate them. It would muddle the financial waters and leave teams with so much dead money that the effective salary cap would, in fact, be lowered, which we all know is not good for the majority of the players, especially the minimum-contract veterans who can be replaced with lower-compensated rookies.

I'm not trying to make the ridiculous argument that guaranteed contracts are really bad for players... but they ARE bad for the financial stability of the teams, which of course will hurt some players... AND they won't solve the hold-out problems because players will still sign contracts that they beleive they have out-performed. And players still will never repay money when they under-perform...

[chiefzilla]

Yoho, well, I'm not suggesting that guaranteeing contracts is the right thing to do. Just suggesting it's a way to end holdouts. You look at baseball: if Priest Holmes had that kind of a season, his contract would likely be sent to arbitration and an independent arbitrator would give him a contract more representative of his value.

I don't like that, because you're right, it leads to a lot of dead money. So the NFL is doing something that's better for the game, by allowing teams some flexibility to get rid of players in mid-contract. But like any profession, there has to be some protection for players and holdouts are really the only way to do it.

Just saying that the only way to get rid of holdouts is to guarantee contracts. And we, as fans, don't want that. So we, as fans, will have to live with holdouts, knowing that they're a necessary evil.



So you're saying the answer to hold-outs is guaranteed contracts? Imagine for me, then, that contracts WERE guaranteed, and Priest Holmes signed that low-budget, long-term deal. If that low-budget, long-term deal were completely 100% guaranteed, wouldn't he still have wanted to renegotiate. ANd, as I said, if teams were required to honor a contract 100% of the time (guarantees) then wouldn't they be much less willing to allow players to get out of contracts?

Bottom line, guaratees would not end hold-outs from players who think that they are in contracts that under-compensate them. It would muddle the financial waters and leave teams with so much dead money that the effective salary cap would, in fact, be lowered, which we all know is not good for the majority of the players, especially the minimum-contract veterans who can be replaced with lower-compensated rookies.

I'm not trying to make the ridiculous argument that guaranteed contracts are really bad for players... but they ARE bad for the financial stability of the teams, which of course will hurt some players... AND they won't solve the hold-out problems because players will still sign contracts that they beleive they have out-performed. And players still will never repay money when they under-perform...

[YoHoChecko]

Yoho, well, I'm not suggesting that guaranteeing contracts is the right thing to do. Just suggesting it's a way to end holdouts. You look at baseball: if Priest Holmes had that kind of a season, his contract would likely be sent to arbitration and an independent arbitrator would give him a contract more representative of his value.

I don't like that, because you're right, it leads to a lot of dead money. So the NFL is doing something that's better for the game, by allowing teams some flexibility to get rid of players in mid-contract. But like any profession, there has to be some protection for players and holdouts are really the only way to do it.

Just saying that the only way to get rid of holdouts is to guarantee contracts. And we, as fans, don't want that. So we, as fans, will have to live with holdouts, knowing that they're a necessary evil.
But what you're saying is that an arbitration system would end hold-outs, not that guaranteed money would. Simply guaranteeing the contracts would not grant more money to players who outperform their contracts.

And for the record, the NFL does have a low-level program of rewarding players with very modest contracts who out-perform their deals. While it's not a huge amount, it gives money to the players who really could use it, sometimes awarding over $200,000 extra to players... and for early-career, minimum-contract players, that's a heck of an increase.

And really, in the argument about Priest Holmes' situation, why did he sign such a long contract? He was not a rookie at the time with no leverage. He came to the Chiefs after being a back-up for the Ravens. He was immediately inserted as the starting RB. If you're agreeing to sign as a starting RB for the first time, and they are only willing to pay you modest money because you're unproven, you don't go longer than 3 seasons, in my opinion... So while I agree that it sucked that he was so under-paid, at the same time, he agreed to a long-term deal, and that was a bad decision on his part. Had he signed a 3-year deal, then after two seasons, he would be in a great position to renegotiate. If you remember, that's when he threatened to hold out.

It's not that I have NO sympathy, but at the same time, it's hard for me to forget that the players did, in fact, decide that they wanted X amount of dollars over X number of years. I feel badly for rookies trapped in long-term contracts after 3 or 4 years... but the new CBA has already begun to adress that by limiting some rookie contracts to a maximum of 4 years...


One possible solution to hold-outs (though not to the liking of the players) is to alter the distribution of player salaries. Given that training camp and mandatory mini-camps are part of their job, why aren't they paid for them. Currently, salaries are paid out in weekly checks during the regular season, each worth 1/17th of the total salary. Why not include training camp and minicamps... therefore, missing training camp costs the players missed pay in addition to fines.

I would attempt to institute this plan, as well as my previously mentioned plan of a state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line (hyphen-laden) injury-protection program so that players have guarantees that they will be partially compensated for their lost income if they suffer a severe injury. (see, I like players, too)

anyway, we all know how I feel here