Gene Upshaw dies ,what will happen ?

[VarlosZ]

@Hawkeyeop

I certainly believe that if there were guaranteed contracts and no salary cap, players would be paid more in general.

That’s probably (though not definitely) true, but I doubt the salary cap is going anywhere.
Also, while we’re on the topic, I’m sure Ellis Dee would want me to point out that there’s no reason an NFL contract can’t be guaranteed, they’re just non-guaranteed by convention: ESPN.com: NFL - Vinatieri deal gives kicker plenty of security

Most likely, the teams leave a little bit of equity on the table in exchange for the roster flexibility that comes with being able to void future contract years.

[Omniscient]

@Hawkeyeop

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.

You can’t look at it in isolation. A team option for a given year is simply one facet of the overall deal. A big part of the reason why players get such a huge proportion of their money in a lump sum at the start of their deal is because teams are able to install team options on the rest of the deal to mitigate risk. That said, since the contracts are not guaranteed pretty much ever year of every contract is a club option.

All in all the point is moot though. We’re talking about the NFLPA which is making decisions for the players as a collective, not on an individual basis. Every time a team cuts a player or “declines a club option” that money gets distributed to another player which makes the transaction a even-sum for the players as a whole. Therefore it can be seen as upside for the “players” in that it means ineffective players aren’t using up money that effective ones deserve.

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.

Well that’s no doubt true, but the salary cap in the NFL isn’t going anywhere. A non-capped league would mean the end of franchises in Kansas City, Green Bay, Indianapolis, Minnesota, Tennessee, New Orleans, Jacksonville, Oakland and would probably make competing very difficult for any team not in Chicago, New York, Dallas or Boston. You know, like the MLB.

[gonzomax]

@VarlosZ

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.

Actually it does not. They get a cheaper player or one that does not have a big payment due. Salary caps are part of the reason teams cut players that are still good. They have to juggle the finances. Often a very good player loses his position because they don’t want to put that much money in that position. When he is cut ,he gets zip. They will replace him with a cheaper player that fits into their salary structure. But they dump him and owe him nothing even though they have a contract that would bind him.

[Omniscient]

@gonzomax

Actually it does not. They get a cheaper player or one that does not have a big payment due. Salary caps are part of the reason teams cut players that are still good. They have to juggle the finances. Often a very good player loses his position because they don’t want to put that much money in that position. When he is cut ,he gets zip. They will replace him with a cheaper player that fits into their salary structure. But they dump him and owe him nothing even though they have a contract that would bind him.

What in gods name are you talking about?

Teams spend up to the salary cap on 53 players, period. If they are cutting a player it’s to free up money to spend it on another player, either at the same position or a different one. Hell, 75% of the time a veteran is cut it’s so that the team can afford to increase the existing contracts of other veterans who are holding out.

[gonzomax]

Veterans = long term contract. Ergo the point that long term contracts are meaninglesss to the player but help the team. I would like to see one year contracts across the board. That would at least even the field.
Back to the big point. Upshaw was panned as being an owners man.
NFL Former Players: Upshaw rejects criticism Heres a mostly Ditka criticism.