http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_obit_upshaw Upshaw was the player rep for the NFL. He has been under heavy criticism for years for caving into the owners and not taking care of the retirees. I suppose those criticisms will fade now but if the replacement is more aggressive the peaceful days for the NFL may be over.
Football players will probably fight for guaranteed contracts. The retirees will be after a better pension. It could be interesting.
I predict that he will decompose.
His heirs will mourn.
But seriously, I have to think that, assuming (rightly or wrongly) that the new rep will stand up to the overpowered owners, there will be labor unrest. The owners have been suckling at his teat for so long, they will NOT submit to - gasp - guaranteed contracts without some strike time.
But I’m a casual football fan, and may be wrong.
Joe
Years of labor peace is at risk. The money is huge but many of the old vets are dying poor and crippled.
Does football owe the old guys anything? Is it the responsibility of the players association or the owners.?
I wouldn’t assume that his replacement will be much more aggressive. He had a bit of a reputation because the NFLPA in general is weaker than other players’ unions, but the last contract with the owners was a big step forward for the players – it’s telling that it was the owners who recently decided to opt out of that deal and renegotiate.
There might be a lockout in 2011. The owners want to make big modifications. I am sure the players would like to see guaranteed contracts. I see a conflict in the future.
How would a lockout affect football fans. ?
I’m sure that would be their preference, but I doubt it will be anywhere near a deal breaker. Roughly half of the money in most large contracts is guaranteed already, and if contracts were entirely guaranteed they would be structured differently and, ultimately, smaller.
About as expected, I suppose.
Whats guaranteed is the signing bonus. That is how they get a player to sign . These long term contracts are a joke. Sign a 6 year contract and you get cut all that you have is the bonus.
It’s true that the back end of long term contracts is generally fictional – a way to give the team flexibility in dealing with the salary cap – but that doesn’t make the contracts “a joke,” as the players and their agents understand the deals will be voided or renegotiated before ridiculous salaries on the end become real. Furthermore, for most long-term deals (excluding rookie contracts for non-1st Rounders), about half of the nominal value of the contract is paid up front in the signing bonus (or in the signing bonus and a roster bonus paid before the start of the contract’s second season), which means that most of the “real” money in long term contracts is already guaranteed.
Take a look at the structure for Asante Samuel’s new contract. Officially, it’s a six-year, $57M contract. Realistically, the Eagles can’t cut him until after the second season, so he’s realistically guaranteed to make $22.5M in the first two years. After that he essentially has a series of team options on his contracts, some of which will very likely be picked up. It’s actually possible for this particular contract to be played out until the end, but the most likely scenario is that the Eagles will want to renegotiate it after the 2011 season, meaning that the deal is probably, for all intents and purposes, a four-year, $37.5M contract, with a little flexibility built in for the team. Samuel knew this going in, so it’s not like the team will be pulling a fast one on him in 2012.
All that said, the NFLPA would probably still prefer guaranteed contracts, but the main reason it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a huge sticking point is that there’s only so much money to go around. With guaranteed contracts, there would be more money going to players who have been cut (as well as to players who are ineffectice and would have been cut if the team could void their contracts). The more money that goes to the ineffective and the unemployed, the less money there is to pay everyone else. The practical effect of guaranteed contracts would be to make all contracts smaller, so there’s a real downside for the players.
So if Samuel gets 22,5 out of a 57 mill contract that is ok. He may get 37 out of the 57. So what does the 57 mill contract mean? Nothing. The real contracts are already smaller.
Right. So?
Smaller than what? I’m saying that if contracts are 100% guaranteed more money will be paid to players who have become injured and/or ineffective, therefore less money will be paid to everyone else. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s not as simple as “non-guaranteed contracts = players getting screwed.”
Football 101: The Salary Cap heres a rundown on the salary cap subterfuge.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Never mind, I think you’re barely reading my posts.
Your posts are not logical. A 57 million dollar contract is not a 57 mill contract. it is perhaps 23 maybe a little more. But if the contract was for an actual 23 ,it would be holding back the pay system. But that is what it is, that is what it costs.
Yes, NFL contracts are generally mis-labeled by the press, which defines them in terms of their theoretical maximum value. This fact is completely irrelevant to whatever you’re talking about.
Seriously, what are you talking about? You seem to be disagreeing with something I’ve said, but I can’t figure out what. What does this mean: “But if the contract was for an actual 23 ,it would be holding back the pay system.” ?
You’re going to have be a little more clear.
The contracts are not mis-lableled by the press. They are reported as given. But everybody knows the contracts will not be met. These long term deals are not worth the paper they are printed on. The reason they do not push up the cost of football is because is is well known they wont be met. When a player gets a 60 million dollar contract you immediately discount it in your mind. Then you check the signing bonus. That is all you can be sure he will get.
Guaranteed contracts would not bring down the overall salary structure. They could simply reflect the true cost of the contract.
I’m not sure why players would want “guaranteed” contracts. It’s only a difference in how the contracts are structured. Why should it matter if a team decides not to exercise an option? That just means a player can renegotiate a new contract sooner.
Actually, I’d think the players would be in favor of more flexible contracts. Didn’t the players push hard for free agency? Are they no longer in favor of that?
I’m confused.
Do you not think a 5n year contract should be a 5 year contract. If you get hurt ,do they owe you nothing. If the team has you for 5 years do you not have them too.
Right, hence they are mislabeled. It’s more exciting for agents to declare, and for news outlets to report, that a huge deal has been reached rather a merely very large deal, so they define contracts according to their theoretical maximum value.
Like I already explained, the players collectively receive a fixed percentage of league revenue. If all contracts were completely guaranteed, would players who are injured and/or ineffective receive more money than they do now? Yes, of course. Where would that money come from? From the only place it can: the other players. Therefore actual (not theoretical) salaries in general would be lower.
I’m guessing this is something you don’t yet understand. When a team cuts a player midway through his contract, the money they saved by not paying him doesn’t go back to the team: it goes to other players.
Team options are almost never good for an individual player. The team will pick up the option if the player is still worth that value or decline it if the player isn’t. There is no upside for the player and a ton of risk particularly in a sport with such a high attrition rate.
I don’t know too much about NFL finances, but percent of revenue numbers can be murky depending on definitions of revenue. I certainly believe that if there were guaranteed contracts and no salary cap, players would be paid more in general.