Should NFL contracts be guaranteed?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vincen...s-potential-work-stoppage-looms/#48dec7c02b76
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vincen...s-potential-work-stoppage-looms/#48dec7c02b76
NFL: NFL CONTRACTS guaranteed?
- Thread starter cycopath25
- Start date
I'm undecided. The guaranteed contracts in the NBA are annoying. Guaranteed contracts with a hard cap could really put teams in a bind -- they may need to find some workarounds. But then you end up with the same mess the NBA has with all of their strange rules.
Last edited:
Guaranteed contracts are just bad business
See: MLB and Bobby Bonilla
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...la-day-mets-deferred-payments-2035/749342002/
See: MLB and Bobby Bonilla
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...la-day-mets-deferred-payments-2035/749342002/
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
guaranteed how exactly? Technically, there's nothing stopping a player from negotiating a guaranteed contract right now. Kirk Cousins did it. Many current NFL contracts already have guaranteed portions. Sometimes the years are guaranteed. Sometimes the guaranteed money comes in the form of a big signing bonus. In fact, that's really the only part of an NFL contract that really matters. They like to throw out big numbers like "we offered a 5 year, $100 million dollar contract" but those numbers don't really mean anything without knowing the signing bonus and guarantees. Everything else is just window dressing.
I'd be in favor of more guaranteed deals, but there would definitely be some effects
1) There would be much shorter contracts. You'd rarely see a contract over 3 years.
2) There would be no more holding out, or its effectiveness would be greatly diminished anyway
3) signing bonuses would be reduced or even eliminated
I'd be in favor of more guaranteed deals, but there would definitely be some effects
1) There would be much shorter contracts. You'd rarely see a contract over 3 years.
2) There would be no more holding out, or its effectiveness would be greatly diminished anyway
3) signing bonuses would be reduced or even eliminated
Until free agency, players have no say in their whereabouts, team-wise. For the first four years, they are exclusively the property of their owner(s), and so have no say in much of anything. I would think a contract should be guaranteed for at least its first year, after that there would have to be conditions. This would give the player some assurance that they will have a livelihood to rely on.
But loyalty - since free agency became widespread - is fleeting, if not nonexistent. I can't say it troubles me, because for many years teams held all the cards, and players were their chattel. It's more like free enterprise now. But I can also see the team's side, as a catastrophic injury (READ: Career ending) is the troubling part in any long-term or guaranteed contract.
But loyalty - since free agency became widespread - is fleeting, if not nonexistent. I can't say it troubles me, because for many years teams held all the cards, and players were their chattel. It's more like free enterprise now. But I can also see the team's side, as a catastrophic injury (READ: Career ending) is the troubling part in any long-term or guaranteed contract.
I feel so bad that these millionaires' contracts aren't fully guaranteed. What a travesty.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
I'm with you to a point. I realize that it's complicated, but on principle, I don't like that contract years can be binding to one party, but not to another, especially when the league has the Franchise option which prevents a players from hitting the open market, even after they've fulfilled their contract. To me, it seems like it should be one or the other. Perhaps if your expiring contract was fully guaranteed, then a team can choose to exercise the franchise tag on you, but if you've been playing on a non-guaranteed contract, they can't, or it's more like a restricted free agency tag, where the team has the right to match. It would reward teams for making guaranteed investments in their players by allowing them to control their rights longer, while rewarding a player who took a risk by accepting a non-guaranteed deal, by allowing them to test the market without fear of being franchised. I'm sure there are several "but what if's" to that idea, but I'm mostly just brainstorming
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
The amount of money can make it hard to wrap your mind around the concepts being discussed, but really it shouldn't matter. If you or I were making that amount of money, we'd be concerned about such things as well. It's easy to sit here on the sidelines and say "They should just be happy with what they have" but that doesn't really play out in reality. People can be concerned with making as much money as possible no matter what amount we're talking about. And that's not wrong at all. That's just reality.
Yeah, it seems like it would be better for all parties involved if there was a sense of fairness for both. Teams can get hamstrung on a bad contract, but without a guarantee, it doesn't hurt quite so bad.
It's just that the unmitigated greed has eroded loyalty on both sides, and that's sad....because there's more than enough money to go around.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
As long as there’s a hard cap, all that any of this does is shift money from some players to others. By far, the most important issue they can negotiate about is the overall percentage of revenue that they receive.
How do you feel about the billionaires who get to cut bait on those "millionaires" whenever they feel like it without it costing them a dime?
And most players aren't millionaires. A large percentage of them make the league minimum, and they're lucky to stick around for 2-3 years. And as Janny pointed out, the amount doesn't really matter anyway. For as short as NFL careers are, players should be doing all theyt can to max out their earnings.
I don't know if fully guaranteed contracts are the answer. It's such a violent game and seasons and careers can end with one snap of the ball. I doubt the owners want to assume that risk, especially as long as they always have a hundred guys who would kill to take an injured player's spot. Maybe what the NFLPA should be pushing for is abolishing the franchise player tag to allow guys to get to the market and cash in sooner, and/or eliminating the fifth year team option on first round picks.
I think what we might see as a new template for NFL contracts is fewer years and more fully guaranteed money, no strings attached.