NFLPA claims Owners colluded to not give out fully guaranteed contracts

[MJS]

1 minute ago, Big Turk said:

 

Of course it is...otherwise there wouldn't be free agency. Players would just be stuck with whatever team drafted them like it was backcin the day before the courts got involved and ruled in favor of the players.

 

Except it's not really. If nothing comes from it, it will because they don't have definitive proof, not because it isn't illegal.

The courts are fickle things.

[Big Turk]

41 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

Serious question.  How is collusion different than forming a union and making decisions together?

 

Unions were made necessary due to collusion and poor work conditions. If businesses didn't collude back in the day for many decades prior to the advent of unions, there wouldn't have been a need for them.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Big Turk

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Scott7975 said:

I’ve always thought player contracts should be guaranteed. They made a contract with the player. If they cut the player I think they should still be paid. 

 

You wouldn't feel that way if you looked at the system thru the free market lens.

 

The unguaranteed multi-year contracts actually greatly benefit the players as a whole.

 

It's something that fans can't understand because no players union would allow it...........but if every player were to become a free agent after the season the owners would have a massive hammer over them.   The overall size of the pie that the players earned would be a mere fraction of what it is under the current system and it would be extremely difficult to keep them unionized.   In a sport with a 100% injury rate, as players say,  nobody would get multi-year deals.  

 

Nobody.

 

When Marvin Miller and the MLBPA first pushed for free agency........MLB owners dangled that "total free agency" to them hoping they'd take it.   But Miller wasn't that dumb.   

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by BADOLBILZ

[thenorthremembers]

1 minute ago, Big Turk said:

 

Unions were made necessary due to collusion. If businesses didn't collude back in the day for many decades prior to the advent of unions, there wouldn't have been a need for them.

Right but how is q group of people with the same interest voting on something to force the hand of someone they are in business with different than collusion?

[Big Turk]

5 minutes ago, MJS said:

The courts are fickle things.

 

That's true, but in large part they go by precedent.

3 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

Right but how is q group of people with the same interest voting on something to force the hand of someone they are in business with different than collusion?

 

They aren't forcing their hand, the company could tell them to kick rocks and then the employees could decide to walk out. Neither employers nor employees are obligated to continue a working relationship in most cases, unless they have employment contracts.

 

That is a solution that benefits no one.

 

So both sides try to work out something fair that is a compromise. 

 

Unions aren't perfect, but help corect certain things businesses won't correct on their own.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Big Turk

[Saxum]

9 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:

Not having guaranteed contracts allows players to hold-out/tweet about their disrespect to get back to the negotiating table. Many players play 2-3 years into a 5 year contract, then start complaining. Guaranteed contract will guarantee they have no recourse to get a raise. It’ll also put big time constraints on the salary cap. No more restructuring. 

 

Players will get guaranteed contracts and if they feel their value exceeds contract will hold out especially in last year of contract just like now.

 

NFLN is NOT a partner as they claim.  More like a ex-wife constantly asking for more alimony and support even though she is shacking up with another guy and selling it on the side.

[That's No Moon]

2 hours ago, clayboy54 said:

Of course they did. But, where is illegal to decide how you can run your private business. This is not a government institution. It’s the NFL. If they make a rule to have a salary cap, is it illegal? If they make a rule that you cannot trade players after the deadline, is it illegal? If they make a rule that no fully guaranteed contracts are allows, it is likewise not illegal.

 

Neither was player rights ownership, until the government decided to meddle and make it so. I suppose they could do the same thing here. But, if they do they could also say that all tailgates are illegal, or all seats must be priced at $300. Or that no drinking is allowed at NFL games. Do you want them to continue down this path, or just leave things alone?

The salary cap is collectively bargained as is the trade deadline and all things governing contracts and player movement. That's what keeps those things from being illegal.

[Southern bills]

First I wonder how much of this comes from seeing the MLB players association win one and now bringing a second case  that fist reactions were a lot of people thinking they might win. Wildly different situations but enough to get others thinking could they also win one?

 

If these do become the norm it will completely change the landscape of contracts. No more backloading deals that both sides fully know will not be paid but look good. Also less long term ones since player injury will become a much bigger risk to teams. On the other hand it would stop the holdouts when a player outperforms the contract.

[BuffBillsForLife]

In the unending battle between the millionaires and the billionaires, I still don't give a ****.

[BarleyNY]

56 minutes ago, MJS said:

I guess my question is whether or not the NFL as a whole is one business, or at least a multiple businesses underneath one umbrella business. That could mean the owners can get together and decide whatever they want and it wouldn't be collusion. If they are separate businesses, that's where collusion comes in.

The NFL is 32 separate businesses with some antitrust exemptions that allow it to act as one entity for certain things. IIRC those things are spelled out in laws that Congress passed that specifically pertain to the NFL, a Supreme Court decision and in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The existence of the NFLPA and a CBA are  required for the antitrust exemptions to remain in place. That’s why when CBA negotiations get contentious, the NFLPA threatens to disband.

[Billzgobowlin]

3 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

Yes of course, but collusion implies all of the owners got on a call or in a meeting room and agreed not to do it again.

 

If they have proof of it, that's illegal.

Not sure I would consider illegal or dishonest.  To me it's work product and a nonissue

[The Wiz]

So I'm curious, if found and proven to be true, what's the penalty???

 

Will they be required to sign someone to a fully guaranteed contract ever season?

 

Or will the owners just get a drop in the bucket fine and that's the end of it?

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, Billzgobowlin said:

Not sure I would consider illegal or dishonest.  To me it's work product and a nonissue

 

Unfortunately it doesn't matter what you think, it's illegal.

[nedboy7]

2 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

I don't agree with guaranteed contracts. The player will just pretend like they are hurt and collect game checks. It's a physical game, it's not like other leagues. I think it should be a pay for play system. You don't play or play poorly then you make less. All contracts incentive based

 

The lack of guaranteed contracts in football – the sport with one of the highest risks of injury and the shortest careers – in light of the league's estimated $15 billion in revenue, reads as morally indefensible.

[Augie]

2 hours ago, DasNootz said:

Guarantee them for injury - but not for laziness.  You shouldn't have to pay a player like Albert Haynesworth that eats himself out of the league after getting paid.

 

I don’t mind paying them…….as long as they earn it. Guaranteed contracts don’t force the player to work hard. It’s bad enough already with huge signing bonuses. 

[plenzmd1]

3 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

NFL deals should absolutely be fully guaranteed. I hope they get it. To offset they should also reduce or eliminate the concept of dead cap.

 

1 hour ago, Rock'em Sock'em said:

This is a bit silly.  Players and teams can each negotiate for the guarantees that want.  Many contacts include enormous guarantees already.  Taking away all of the non-guaranteed portion of a contract does not necessarily make it better for either the player or team.

 

2 hours ago, Scott7975 said:

 

 

I’ve always thought player contracts should be guaranteed. They made a contract with the player. If they cut the player I think they should still be paid. 

Couple of points to be made here.The NFL DOES have guaranteed contracts

 

NFL is the only league, i think, that regularly hands out signing bonuses. So one needs to take the amount of the bonus, the amount of fully guaranteed money in the contract, add that together and come up with the number of years that dude is for sure getting paid.

 

For instance, Player x sign a deal for 4 years  with $10M at signing, $10M per year. 1st year fully guaranteed , 2nd year guaranteed for injury at $10M, $6M fully guaranteed, last two years non guaranteed salary of  $10M per. All told what would be described as a $50M contract by the press and agent, but is more accurately a 2 year $30M contract with two club options at the end.

 

The club options are what the club gets for guaranteeing this dude $26M for two years. That is the contract they have made with the player. Now, the mistake the NFL makes is they call them non guaranteed contracts, instead of just calling guaranteed contracts with club options on the end. In this case a two year guaranteed contract, with a two year club option. 

[Scott7975]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

You wouldn't feel that way if you looked at the system thru the free market lens.

 

The unguaranteed multi-year contracts actually greatly benefit the players as a whole.

 

It's something that fans can't understand because no players union would allow it...........but if every player were to become a free agent after the season the owners would have a massive hammer over them.   The overall size of the pie that the players earned would be a mere fraction of what it is under the current system and it would be extremely difficult to keep them unionized.   In a sport with a 100% injury rate, as players say,  nobody would get multi-year deals.  

 

Nobody.

 

When Marvin Miller and the MLBPA first pushed for free agency........MLB owners dangled that "total free agency" to them hoping they'd take it.   But Miller wasn't that dumb.   

 

 

 

fair. ok you change my mind

[plenzmd1]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

You wouldn't feel that way if you looked at the system thru the free market lens.

 

The unguaranteed multi-year contracts actually greatly benefit the players as a whole.

 

It's something that fans can't understand because no players union would allow it...........but if every player were to become a free agent after the season the owners would have a massive hammer over them.   The overall size of the pie that the players earned would be a mere fraction of what it is under the current system and it would be extremely difficult to keep them unionized.   In a sport with a 100% injury rate, as players say,  nobody would get multi-year deals.  

 

Nobody.

 

When Marvin Miller and the MLBPA first pushed for free agency........MLB owners dangled that "total free agency" to them hoping they'd take it.   But Miller wasn't that dumb.   

 

 

total free market system I would love

 

Eliminate the draft, cash to cap "cap" ..give out whatever in the hell contract ya want. 

 

You want to sign Zac Wilson as the number 2 QB prospect even though you just won the Super Bowl? Give him whatever you want to give him... Cap is a hard cap. Only thing that counts towards cap is actual money paid out to players that year. No back loading of contracts.

 

Elite management and coaching will shine, rewarding of failure no longer a thing

[Ethan in Cleveland]

It's the same money whether you give it in a guaranteed contract or a signing bonus.  The players won't get both.  The players are better off with large signing bonuses instead of guaranteed contracts. Its a straight time value of money calculation.  

[Billzgobowlin]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

 

Unfortunately it doesn't matter what you think, it's illegal.

Interesting.  Owners discussing and coming to a like mind of how they want to run their teams is illegal?