NFP»Columns»The Players Page
RSS

The Debate: Player Contracts II

This morning, Andrew Brandt, my fellow NFP contributor, laid the groundwork for our debate on player contracts in the NFL. Now it’s my turn — as a former player — to explain why every contract in the league should be negotiable. Matt Bowen

Bookmark and Share Print This Send This May 07, 2009, 03:28 PM EST
26 Comments

This morning, Andrew Brandt, my fellow NFP contributor, laid the groundwork for our debate on player contracts in the NFL. Now it’s my turn — as a former player — to explain why every contract in the league should be negotiable.

The Debate: Player’s Contracts 2- The Player’s View

The Precedent

In his post, Mr. Brandt filled your minds with his opinion on this topic, and although he makes a very good argument (he does have multiple postgraduate degrees), I’m here to tell you that this is indeed a “me first” league — and players are out for themselves first and foremost.

Why? Let’s think about it. Andrew brings up the “team” factor and how ripping up a previous contract with years left on it can have lasting effects in the locker room for the guys who are actually playing out the last year of the their deals or who have honored their contracts.  

But today’s player just doesn’t care — at all. There are only so many years he has to play in this league and make top money, so the first opportunity he gets -- usually after a big season -- he’s going to call his agent and ask for a new deal. Is it selfish? Is it arrogant? Is it unbelievably immature?

Of course it is — but this is still the mindset of every single player in the league. Get the most while you still can because sooner or later (usually sooner), the NFL is going to kick you out the door with a big foot. There’s only so much money to go around a locker room, and it ends up being “every man for himself.”

Players think, “I’m going to get them before they get me.”

The Sanctity of Contracts

There is no sanctity when it comes to player contracts in this league.

Believe what you want, but I know for a fact that every contract — even the big ones we read about — is a one-year deal. That’s why we see so many players holding out for huge signing bonuses, because they know that after one season they could be on the cutting room floor — and that multiyear deal will be utterly worthless.

Andrew says a team can cut a player at any time — since none of the player contracts is guaranteed — and he’s absolutely correct. But this topic (one that’s talked about every day in NFL locker rooms) is why players don’t believe anything — besides the signing bonus — once they put their names on the dotted line.

I can’t tell you how many times I heard players talk about MLB contracts with a sense of jealousy in their voices, because all players want to know that they’re guaranteed a roster spot every season. But this is the NFL, and you have to prove yourself every year -- and once you have that big season, you want that “new big money” before they decide to cut you in the near future. Every player takes the field on Sundays knowing that he’s playing for an opportunity to stick it back to the club — and turn the tables on the owner.

Thus, the holdout begins in the offseason.

“I’ve Outplayed My Contract”

This is something I was never able to say in my career (except when I played Madden Football on Xbox), but I’ve seen it firsthand in the locker rooms of the NFL.

Every player thinks he’s outplayed his contract, just as the Bears’ Brian Urlacher thought before Chicago agreed to redo his deal last year. Sure, Andrew brought up Anquan Boldin (who is trying to take this route a second time), and I even wrote last week that Boldin was asking for too much money. But where do we draw the line?

As I discussed above, when do we say that this player is greedy or that player has broken the trust of the team? Because from my vantage point, and from my experience seeing this in the league, it’s never going to stop.

Why? Because players don’t trust either the NFL or the front office. They know the minute they sign a deal, that team begins looking for their replacements. Is it harsh? Is it cutthroat? Sure it is, and the players know it. And because of that, they will hold out, bitch to the media, complain in the locker room and use every tool imaginable to get their way.

Because at the end of the day, they want to play football. They love this game, but they also want to feel appreciated by the suits that are paying them.

But I’m afraid to say it’s never going to change, because as players we all know that each and every one of us is very, very replaceable.

And because of that, players — not owners — will continue to run this league, whether we like it or not.

Who’s ready for a holdout?

Comments

Add a Comment
dunciano
May 07, 2009
03:41 PM

Terrell Owens is the smartest guy in football.
He signs a contract with a big signing bonus, acts up to get released, signs a new contract with another big signing bonus.

Like you say, it's all about the bonuses so the more new contracts that you sign the better off you do - not necessarily the one "big" contract.

Men of Troy
May 07, 2009
04:00 PM

Like this side of the argument too after I read Andrews...

It makes sense to have two opposite sides, and I can see where it really comes down to the owners vs the players

Da Coach
May 07, 2009
04:02 PM

Urlacher held the Bears at ransom... no different than Boldin is doing right now..

Don't see a solution at all...

NFPfan
May 07, 2009
04:07 PM

Not a very good arguement for the players side, as far as for not honoring a contract. You know the deal when you decided to purse this as a career. Seems like they want best of both worlds, big signing bonus, and garunteede years.

Why not sign a one year deal for Max money every year?

Plus, I think in football there is more of an incentive to slack off once you've gotten the big dollars. I am not saying it doesnt happen in other sports, but clearly the psyicall nature of football seems like that could happen more. I think Matt is right on the money when he alludes to the upcoming CBA negotiations, and holdouts.

John R.
May 07, 2009
04:26 PM

"They know the minute they sign a deal, that team begins looking for their replacements."

I don't agree. A team that signs a player, and pays a large signing bonus, hopes that player will play for them a long time. If not, the team lost its "bet" by paying the bonus.

Mr.Murder
May 07, 2009
04:33 PM

Samarjidza(*spelling?) would be the one to look at, one of the best college WR, pro style offense, chooses thew Cubs?

If someone threw supplemental cash his way on a seventh rounder would it be worth a look? It was arugably a thin draft at the position....

Jayme
May 07, 2009
04:59 PM

If players know ahead of time that their contract is essentially a one year deal, then why don't they sign for just one year? There's a benefit to having a long term contract; if there wasn't, players wouldn't sign them. The players know what they are getting into when they sign the dotted line.

My solution? Get rid of prorated signing bonuses and guarantee a portion of every contract. Then, laden the contracts with incentives. These would be identical league-wide incentives. Catch a touchdown pass, there's 100 grand, catch 10, you get an addition 500 grand. Obviously, these are speculative, but it guarantees that players do not outplay their contract. Ideally, there would also be some sort of measurable compensation for the whole team's production, ie. a d-lineman would get a few thousand dollars if a linebacker gets a sack, or something to that effect.

The first portion will be subject to salary cap while the second portion will not. Also, there will still be movement of free agents because of the guaranteed portion of the contract, and also because players will know how they would fit in with certain schemes.

Anyway, I just thought this up off the top of my head, so feel free to poke away at it. There are probably a ton of holes and reasons it wouldn't work.

Men of Troy
May 07, 2009
05:26 PM

John R,

I tend to disagree... every player is replaced at one point or another... Will happen to Manning and Brady in their careers too

Scott M.
May 07, 2009
05:28 PM

See - here is where the player's side of this debate plays it entirely wrong. Not saying that I disagree with you Matt, but the issue that players need to emphasize in order to make progress on this topic is that every player in the league is one play away from being out of football, or possibly even maimed for life.

This is why it really isn't arrogant or selfish to constantly be looking for the best deal and more money. Mark Tauscher is a great example - wasn't even a major knee blowout but the timing of it makes his future in the sport VERY shaky.

This is why I hate the players union - the fact of the matter is the union and the agents keep pushing for these monster bonuses and when the player gets further into the deal, they get hosed. The unfortunate reality is that for every Boldin and TO out there, there's about a dozen guys getting royally screwed.

Romo4MVP
May 07, 2009
05:31 PM

Not sure what side I am taking, as I can see the argument for both here...

Would probably side with the players though

like the debate idea though...

Matt Bowen
May 07, 2009
05:34 PM

Scott M,

Pretty solid argument you present, and I would agree that most players do believe they are one play away from never walking the right way again...ever,

Scott M.
May 07, 2009
06:23 PM

Matt - and as you learned from experience, they SHOULD feel that way because it's very real. Even if the injury itself doesn't end your career, the reality is that with the current system of IR, even a relativly minor injury can force a team to put someone else on the field in your place as a starter for multiple games and force the team to demote or cut one of the two, usually whichever is older when all other factors are even.

A union that is truely supporting the best interests of it's members should be pushing to overhaul the IR system. It should be promoting some sort of minor league to give players the best chance to get into the sport and to remain in the sport (what logic came up with a practice squad only having first and second year guys - a wiley vet would be handy to have around and test your starters much better). It should be pushing for contract clauses that pay a player a certain amount if the team terminates employment - termination fees and buyout clauses are standard fare in the business world, why not here?

Next 1 - 12 of 26 Prev COMMENTS

Add a Comment

* Required - Keep track of your comments Login or Register with NFP
(will not be published)