Could (should) NFL contracts be fully guaranteed and how?

[Guest Mike147]

The way I see it is that if the players want fully guaranteed contracts, fair enough, that is their choice and it is up to them to fight for them on the next CBA. However, I suspect that in some instances the contracts would not be as large as they currently are, and also they might not be as long length wise as they currently are.

 

For example Jimmy G signs a huge deal with the 49ers, 5 years, 137.5m with roughly 71m guaranteed. Would Jimmy G get more money if deals were to be fully guaranteed? Nope. In fact would he get a five year 71m guaranteed deal as his first pay day? Maybe not because they have a get out after three years. So potentially a fully guaranteed deal might only be 2-3 years in length and the value might not be the same as his current one because teams will arguably be taking on a greater risk with a fully guaranteed deal. 

 

The other thing that is worth consideration here is the knock on effect for the players from the middle down. What happens to the player that signs a deal that's worth potentially $4 million with $1 million guaranteed and the rest is bonuses for hitting certain markers (e.g. 16 games, a thousand yards etc). Does that player now get 4 million guaranteed? No. How much would they get? I'd say they'd probably be looking at a million, maybe two depending on who they are. So those players that sign incentive based contracts and come good on them could see some earnings taken away from them because they'll get less due to fully guaranteed contracts.

 

At the end of the day fully guaranteed deals can be great, but they can also be a negative because some players will get paid less. Now granted someone these players that sign 100 million deals with 40 to 50 guaranteed might never seen the other money, but some do see some of that money and that's money they might not get on guaranteed deals. So the players need to be careful to a certain extent because fully guaranteed deals in the NFL would for me be shorter in length (ie more 2-3 year deals than 4-5 year deals) and potentially be lower in total amount.

[xxxxxxxx]

38 minutes ago, mead107 said:

They are all over paid for playing a game.    

Jealous, much.

[mead107]

2 minutes ago, MURPHD6 said:

Jealous, much.

Nope.  I own meadcoin.  ?

Edited July 28, 2018 by mead107

[xxxxxxxx]

Any man has the right to provide the best that he can for his family. I believe that, its an opinion, for some reason its controversial.

[mead107]

1 minute ago, MURPHD6 said:

Any man has the right to provide the best that he can for his family. I believe that, its an opinion, for some reason its controversial.

Make the most you can.  Just  put out for it. 

Production is important. 

 

[Augie]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

So, you don’t think that the players should make half of the money generated by the league? They aren’t just employees; they are the assets. If you were to compare them to your job the players are closer to the cars than they are the employees. They ARE what people pay for. The league generates billions of dollars selling the talents of the players. It’s the same reason that the movie industry hires A list actors. Better talent drives better revenues and they are paid commensurate with that. 

 

There IS no cash for the owners without the players. If you replaced the top talent in the world with replacement players you’d have the XFL. If you think that the owners would make 1/2 as much money with that kind of talent then it would be a could deal for them. Of course that notion is absurd. The revenue comes from the players. 

 

The whole idea that they are “overpaid” is asinine. The league generated $8B in TV revenue last year!! That’s $255M per team JUST from the TV deal!! If you think that the $177M salary cap is too much we disagree. There are a ton of other revenue streams as well. The players salaries are not out of line at all. 

 

To me, it’s not really about how much they get paid, but how they earn it. Yes, the players fully deserve roughly half the total revenue. They risk their bodies, and they are the stars. Having said that, I’m generally owner leaning as they have the billion dollar investments. They could deploy their dollars elsewhere. The players could....look for new lines of work. 

 

Having said THAT, I think the players deserve every penny they get, but they need to earn it. Incentives should be critical. Pay the guys who deserve it based on their play. Sure, they’d get a guaranteed amount, but if you have a great year, you should kill it. You don’t produce? Not so much. My family puts food on the table from the sales world. Everybody gets a very healthy base. If you have a great year, you get the big bucks. You come up short a few years in a row and that base goes away while you look for a new job. 

 

Fully guaranteed is a horrible idea in my opinion. 

[xxxxxxxx]

6 minutes ago, mead107 said:

Make the most you can.  Just  put out for it. 

Production is important. 

 

Production is never paid what its worth. Thats the problem. Case in point, Bell is one of the most productive players in the league. The incentive for management is to underpay high producers. Thats how business always works. Thats how owners make money.

Edited July 28, 2018 by MURPHD6

[mead107]

Just now, MURPHD6 said:

Production is never paid what its worth. Thats the problem. Case in point, Bell is one of the most productive players in the league.

Lot of other players are.  Pittsburgh is playing hardball.  He will get his. 

[xxxxxxxx]

2 minutes ago, mead107 said:

Lot of other players are.  Pittsburgh is playing hardball.  He will get his. 

Not when you consider league revenues and compare them to other sports. 

[mead107]

1 minute ago, MURPHD6 said:

Not when you consider league revenues and compare them to other sports. 

Most companies do not share the wealth.  Why should NFL be different.   Or other sports teams.  

How much money do you make doing curling?

 

GE did not guarantee my pay.  

 

[Beast]

If they are to be fully guaranteed there should be a limit on the term.....say three years.

[xxxxxxxx]

33 minutes ago, mead107 said:

Most companies do not share the wealth.  Why should NFL be different.   Or other sports teams.  

How much money do you make doing curling?

 

GE did not guarantee my pay.  

 

Different industries have different standards. The NFL is below industry standard. If your cool with massive wealth divides thats your perogative, but history shows that they aren't sustainable.

And your thinking is pretty typical and negative, in my opinion. My pay aint guaranteed so no one elses should be. Its siding with managment, really. I never side with management. I side with workers. Its how I roll. If a worker can get more money for his family, good for him.

Isn't Buffalo supposed to be a Blue Collar town?

Edited July 29, 2018 by MURPHD6

[Augie]

The answer to this question is simple: Marcel Dareus. 

[Buddo]

While there are obviously a whole heap of variations that both have applied in the past, and could apply in the future, the area where I would like to see guarantees be actively made, is in instances where careers are done through injury.

 

Somewhere along the llines, the NFL needs to come up with a method whereby teams get cap relief from this. Teams are effectively getting hit twice, once by losing a player, and the second time by losing cap. Eric Wood being a prime example of the sort of situation I'm referring to - but it could be any other team in similar circumstances.

 

If a player and his agent can manage to negotiate full guarantees, then good luck to them, and more fool the team who gives them. Far too many talented guys have got the big bucks, then simply not bothered much, or decide that because they are getting theirs, they no longer need to put out the necessary efforts in practise etc.

 

I'm not too sure how well it might work, but I would like to see guarantees linked to incentives. So, for example, hit your incentives this year, and you get next years' money guaranteed, or a good chunk of it anyway.

 

AS to the idea that players (especially QBs) should be looking at getting a percentage of the cap, I think that that is a nonsense. There are very few QBs who are capable, or have been capable, of taking a team on their backs without talent around them.  Some teams have had some limited success despite their QB (e.g. the Bills last season).

 

 

[dollars 2 donuts]

1 hour ago, Buddo said:

While there are obviously a whole heap of variations that both have applied in the past, and could apply in the future, the area where I would like to see guarantees be actively made, is in instances where careers are done through injury.

 

Somewhere along the llines, the NFL needs to come up with a method whereby teams get cap relief from this. Teams are effectively getting hit twice, once by losing a player, and the second time by losing cap. Eric Wood being a prime example of the sort of situation I'm referring to - but it could be any other team in similar circumstances.

 

If a player and his agent can manage to negotiate full guarantees, then good luck to them, and more fool the team who gives them. Far too many talented guys have got the big bucks, then simply not bothered much, or decide that because they are getting theirs, they no longer need to put out the necessary efforts in practise etc.

 

I'm not too sure how well it might work, but I would like to see guarantees linked to incentives. So, for example, hit your incentives this year, and you get next years' money guaranteed, or a good chunk of it anyway.

 

AS to the idea that players (especially QBs) should be looking at getting a percentage of the cap, I think that that is a nonsense. There are very few QBs who are capable, or have been capable, of taking a team on their backs without talent around them.  Some teams have had some limited success despite their QB (e.g. the Bills last season).

 

 

 

 

Great post and really great second paragraph.

 

just to clarify, though, if you comments is based upon my OP I was referring to the fact that the salary cap is based upon league revenue (47% I believe right now?).  I would also have the league come a little more clean on providing their revenue, which has been an issue in the best.  The reason for lowering it is due to the new optics that these dollars would become a little more actual as to what is getting paid out, as opposed to just being accounted for.

12 hours ago, Augie said:

The answer to this question is simple: Marcel Dareus. 

 

 

In the new era of doing it the contract likely would have been different, maybe as some have suggested here.

 

Lower and shorter to make a player's actions more in play.

 

For example: 3 years at 10-12 million and maybe you get a different player.

Edited July 29, 2018 by dollars 2 donuts

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

I like the idea of 100% guaranteed contracts. It works for the other big sports leagues, why should the NFL be any different? 

 

Sure there are examples of players signing huge contracts and then they get lazy (Dareus, Haynesworth, etc.), but there are a lot more examples of guys that are worth the mega contracts they sign.

[Buddo]

It's more about (to me) trying to find fairer solutions to general contract 'issues', and attempting to see if there can be better approaches to it.

 

I would say that my gut feeling would be, that should the rules regarding cap relief for guys who have career ending injuries alter, then attitudes from ownership would also alter. If they can get cap relief, then I'm sure they would be far more inclined, and obviously able,  to use guarantees against career ending injury in contracts, quite possibly to the benefit of both sides.

 

 

[Mango]

I think this discussion is less about incentives v. guaranteed, and more about getting paid if you’re cut or released. I get you have signing bonuses, and roster bonuses that are built in, and come off the table, but base salary should be paid out. 

 

If you are cut, I still think you should get paid out, unless you break some morality clause. 

 

I also think in situations like Eric Wood and Kevin Everett, those guys should get paid out, but not count against the cap. Eric Wood, nor the Bills, should be punished because of a career ending injury. (For the franchise, I mean punished as money towards the cap) 

[jr1]

"dead money" shouldn't count. just active 53 players

[bobobonators]

There is nothing in place that prevents a fully guaranteed contract. 

 

Problem is, as we all know, football is a sport where even the really good players (non-QB) may only be good for 3-5yrs. 

 

In a salary cap league there is simply too mucch risk to invest a lot of $ into an unknown future which can cripple your team for years. 

 

If players want more frequent fully guaranteed contracts they’re going to have to be willing to accept less money and much shorter “real” contracts of 1-2 yrs. 

 

as much as it sucks for players in the NFL compared to MLB and NBA, I think the current system keeps competition at a premium. 

 

One thing we could do to help alleviate the problem in my opinion is increase the cap substantially and increase salary minimums. 

 

There should also be something in place (maybe there already is?) where if you play in the league for a minimum number of games - let’s say 16 games, which would be a full season, you are entitled to an NFL-paid health insurance plan for the rest of your life. The pension plan the NFL has is also very weak and should be improved. 

 

I know the majority of players don’t want a health insurance plan or don’t care about pension plans -  they want millions of $$$. I get that. But I would start there if I was the NFLPA bc those improvements would be more attainable than restructuring the entire current NFL salary cap system, and they would also benefit the majority of NFL players and not just the elite 5%.