Jump to content

Bills Projected at $25 Million Under the Cap


T master

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I will admit that I find the entire definition of what the NFL considers a contract very odd. A player and a team enter into a contract whereas the player plays for the team for 3 years for 1 million dollars a year (no mention of "guaranteed" money). The next day after the contract is signed the team decides they no longer want the player and cut him. The contract is unilaterally dissolved and it is like it never happened. No money is paid to the player, there is no breach of contract or anything. However if the player the next day decides he wants to play for a different team, he cannot dissolve the contract. If he doesn't report/play there are repercussions.

 

I understand it is legal because that's how the lawyers draw up the contract, and is the reason there is guaranteed versus non-guaranteed money in the first place. But it is ridiculously one sided. The NFL is given special considerations to allow their monopoly in the first place. This contract inequity should not be tolerated in my opinion. Why the players union allows it is mind boggling.

 

If you and I enter into a contract where you agree to pay me $X a year for Y years for something and I fulfill my part of the contract you are not getting out of paying me, you can bet that :)

 

/soapbox

 

There are plenty of heavily one-sided contracts like that in the world. I believe Campbell's created the first contract for food crops with a pre-arranged carrot deal early in the 20th century. It remains a model for commodities contracts purchased for processing.........and essentially the processor can simply not use the contracted product by claiming it was in some way unsatisfactory and not have to pay a dime. It can be fought, but those contracts are tough to defeat and then the producer gets a reputation as litigious which makes them an undesirable vendor to that and other purchasers. The constant in the matter is supply and demand. There is an abundance of producers for most commodities the same way as there is an abundance of football players. It isn't really a matter of talent.......the NFL proved this point by using scabs in the past. If the players don't like it, most will jump the fence from the union back to the NFL and the rest the NFL could live without. The players union is often blamed for the lack of guaranteed contracts, but the NFL owners have an additional advantage because when you put a bunch of scab football players together they still look like two teams of players playing football. When you put scab basketball and baseball players together.......they look like a bunch of guys who can't make shots or hit the curve ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...