NFLPA claims Owners colluded to not give out fully guaranteed contracts

[ExiledInIllinois]

5 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.

Tacit Collusion: Tacit collusion is a collusion between competitors, which do not explicitly exchange information and achieving an agreement about coordination of conduct.

[HOUSE]

Who ultimately pays for failed or disastrous Guarantees ?

Let me think 🤔 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

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

 

 

And subsequently a toothless union or none at all.......so you can make them practice a ton if they like having a job! 

 

You might like that but there wouldn't be parity and the league wouldn't be able to pick it's own number in TV negotiations without parity.    Pete Rozelle knew that NFL football couldn't reach it's potential without parity.    People say "any given Sunday" but in truth none of the major sports is as easy to dominate when you have superior personnel than football.   

[The Wiz]

6 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

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.  

You are correct with this, the issue is related to FULLY guaranteed contracts.  So yes, it still doesn't matter how they are given the money guaranteed contracts or signing bonuses, but I think they are more concerned with other teams jumping on the dumbass wagon (Cleveland) and starting to do this and breaking how the league has been able to massage the salary cap for however long they have.

[Big Turk]

18 minutes ago, Billzgobowlin said:

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

 

Not sure what part of anti-competitive behavior is illegal you don't understand.

 

I suggest you read up on it.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Big Turk

[plenzmd1]

4 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

And subsequently a toothless union or none at all.......so you can make them practice a ton if they like having a job! 

 

You might like that but there wouldn't be parity and the league wouldn't be able to pick it's own number in TV negotiations without parity.    Pete Rozelle knew that NFL football couldn't reach it's potential without parity.    People say "any given Sunday" but in truth none of the major sports is as easy to dominate when you have superior personnel than football.   

there was no cap, or even one envisioned, when Rozelle was commish. Now, if you went to a total free market system, with non  non shared revenues etc, i agree, parity out the window. But keeping shared revenue, elimanting the draft, and going to a HARD cash to cap system, parity is prolly more realistic in that scenario that uts current state. Sure we always here about the "1 team always worst to first" , but look at the playoffs in the AFC this year. Ya see much difference than last outside subbing Miami for Pittsburgh?

 

Not sure hwy you feel a union would go way by eliminating the draft and going to a hard cap system..please explain

[RocCityRoller]

3 hours 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.

It is technically a franchise model

[BullBuchanan]

4 hours ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

That's just stupid.  Nothing should be guaranteed.  You play well, you get paid.  You don't play well, hit the bricks and go work on a loading dock or drive for UPS.  

How does it benefit you to be anti-worker?

4 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.

There's a simple solution to that - don't offer him a contract you can't afford.

Edited November 22, 2022 by BullBuchanan

[The Frankish Reich]

5 hours ago, clayboy54 said:

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?

1. If the salary cap and other things are negotiated with the NFLPA - the players’ collective bargaining union - then it’s perfectly legal. 
2. If not - and the NFLPA seems to be saying that they never bargained for standard contracts being non-guaranteed - then it is illegal. Execs from Walmart, Target, Costco, Home Depot, etc. aren’t allowed to all get together at a private meeting and agree that nobody will pay a starting sales associate more than $10 (or $20, or whatever) per hour. That’s illegal and it has been illegal for a century or so.

As to whether they can prove it? That’s a different story. But the baseball player’s association - a much stronger and better run union - has been able to prove collusion before, most recently proving that teams colluded to put a ceiling on salaries of free agent players. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by The Frankish Reich

[Southern_Bills]

6 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.

 

I'll never let human beings shock me, but I'd hope men with that much money and business sense would obviously not do it where there was proof.

 

I guess Dan Snyder could burn them all now, what does he care lol

[Saint Doug]

2 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

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.

But I don’t think the players can have it both ways. If they signed a guaranteed contract, it will be legally binding for both parties. The owner will be obligated to pay every cent. Likewise, if a player asks for more, the owners will remind him of this contract. It can’t be a one-way street in favor of the players. If the player thinks they are worth more, they can sign a new contract, but it won’t kick in until the end of the previous one. At least this is how it works in the NHL. 

[BullBuchanan]

4 hours ago, clayboy54 said:

I think you’re taking it a little too deep. Not having long-term guaranteed contracts is not at all fixed wage scales. These guys can earn as much or even more with the current way the contracts are incentivized for production. That would all go away with guaranteed contracts. Also, it goes both ways which would not be good. On a guaranteed contract, the ability to renegotiate would not be as available. Plus, the no-cut, no-trade clauses and similar verbiage would probably not apply. Plus, what does that do to the salary cap? Signing bonuses and other incentives? 

 

Okay, I understand that a guaranteed contract is a hedge against serious injury. Other than that, it is not what it is made out to be for the players. This would open the door to re-designing The Whole Enchalada. As I see it, the only thing that would do is guarantee a player strike. (And rightfully so.)

Are you aware that other sports exist already with fully guaranteed contracts? The NFL is the last of the major 4 that don't. basketball is a bit weird in how they do it, but it's mostly handled through options and voids.

[Nephilim17]

Questions for a lawyer (Shaw66?)... if it's not done in secret — that seems to be a criterion for collusion — but owners openly shared their views that fully guaranteed contracts were bad for the sport, would it then be legal? 

[Saxum]

17 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:

But I don’t think the players can have it both ways. If they signed a guaranteed contract, it will be legally binding for both parties. The owner will be obligated to pay every cent. Likewise, if a player asks for more, the owners will remind him of this contract. It can’t be a one-way street in favor of the players. If the player thinks they are worth more, they can sign a new contract, but it won’t kick in until the end of the previous one. At least this is how it works in the NHL. 

 

I have never known NFLPA to ever follow what they signed.  They will take what they do not like to court even with guaranteed contracts.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

7 hours ago, clayboy54 said:

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?

 

Simple... no free agency, drafted players tied to their team for life, and to REALLY tie them to teams they have to stay in team owned houses and shop only in team owned stores. Let's go back to the old days back when George Preston Marshall of the Redskins set the standard. 🧐

Edited November 23, 2022 by EasternOHBillsFan

[boyst]

8 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.

If they get fully guaranteed contracts I surely hope they come down millions of dollars. If they get this then the players should have much, much more on their contract in language and be held to it. Any practice you're required to show up with bells on, a team chairty your ass is there serving hotdogs, any of it.

 

I can't stand that it is illegal for the owners as a collective unit to say they won't allow a fully guaranteed contract. It's a private business. Let it be so. 

[The Frankish Reich]

3 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

People say "any given Sunday" but in truth none of the major sports is as easy to dominate when you have superior personnel than football.  

Well…no. There’s still a fair amount of randomness in football - weird bounces, perfectly thrown balls that bounce off a receiver and turn into interceptions, etc. The NBA season is too long and teams take certain games off, but you aren’t seeing a team without 2 or 3 legitimate stars ever losing to a team of replacement level players when it counts.

[BADOLBILZ]

14 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Well…no. There’s still a fair amount of randomness in football - weird bounces, perfectly thrown balls that bounce off a receiver and turn into interceptions, etc. The NBA season is too long and teams take certain games off, but you aren’t seeing a team without 2 or 3 legitimate stars ever losing to a team of replacement level players when it counts.

 

 

It's not really disputable by the numbers.    The NFL only seems *somewhat* random at times because the talent is more evenly distributed than in other sports.   Even with the systems in place to create parity there have been multiple seasons in the past 50 years where NFL teams have had entirely undefeated AND winless regular seasons.   That's effectively impossible in MLB, NBA and NHL.   The inherent competitiveness in their seasons allows those sports to maintain a level of fan interest without the full range of parity inducing measures in place.    Trying to qualify and extract "season is too long" only serves to emphasize the point.   The NFL can't play long seasons........so they can't operate like those sports.   If they did the product would take a massive hit in popularity and LIKELY even have to contract.   

[Big Turk]

18 hours ago, Southern_Bills said:

 

I'll never let human beings shock me, but I'd hope men with that much money and business sense would obviously not do it where there was proof.

 

I guess Dan Snyder could burn them all now, what does he care lol

 

You'd be shocked at how often this isn't true or not even cared about 

9 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

It's not really disputable by the numbers.    The NFL only seems *somewhat* random at times because the talent is more evenly distributed than in other sports.   Even with the systems in place to create parity there have been multiple seasons in the past 50 years where NFL teams have had entirely undefeated AND winless regular seasons.   That's effectively impossible in MLB, NBA and NHL.   The inherent competitiveness in their seasons allows those sports to maintain a level of fan interest without the full range of parity inducing measures in place.    Trying to qualify and extract "season is too long" only serves to emphasize the point.   The NFL can't play long seasons........so they can't operate like those sports.   If they did the product would take a massive hit in popularity and LIKELY even have to contract.   

 

Well...to a point I agree but when the playoffs start in the NBA you already know the champion is going to be one of 2 or 3 teams because the other teams have virtually no chance at winning. Maybe winning a round in an upset? Sure...but getting the championship as an 8th seed and winning? Never happening.

 

Contrast that to the NFL when you have had 6th seeds win the Super Bowl. In the NFL it matters more on how you are playing when the playoffs start than in other sports where their talent gaps are still too large in multi game series.

 

In the NFL it's only one game and in a single game a bad bounce, bad call, muffed punt or fumble could mean the difference between winning and losing, whereas if it was a best of 7 series it would be unlikely for that team to win the majority of the games.

 

In the NFL you have a team win the Super Bowl that nobody would argue was actually the best team in football that year far more often than other leagues.

 

Hockey might be the closest to that where lower seeds can make the finals but they rarely win them when they do and usually get smoked 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Big Turk

[BullBuchanan]

On 11/22/2022 at 7:25 PM, boyst said:

If they get fully guaranteed contracts I surely hope they come down millions of dollars. If they get this then the players should have much, much more on their contract in language and be held to it. Any practice you're required to show up with bells on, a team chairty your ass is there serving hotdogs, any of it.

 

I can't stand that it is illegal for the owners as a collective unit to say they won't allow a fully guaranteed contract. It's a private business. Let it be so. 

That's collusion to price fix a market. It's an inherent defect of a "free-market" system, and we've decided as a society that's not acceptable and in some cases illegal.

If contracts become fully guaranteed then yes it's likely offers get reduced a little bit to compensate and I'm sure most people would take that trade.

I can't see this as anything but a net positive.