Unfortunately for the NFL and its teams, these cases have largely gone in favor of the players. The Special Master in this case ruled similarly to previous bonus forfeiture cases involving Ashley Lelie and Michael Vick in deciding that even unlawful activities by the player do not trigger the loss of bonus payments, whether they have already been received or are still due. Andrew Brandt
Why did Plaxico Burress and Larry Johnson win their grievances against the New York Giants and Kansas City Chiefs and maintain their ability to keep their bonus money? Unfortunately for the NFL and its teams, these cases have largely gone in favor of the players. The Special Master in this case ruled similarly to previous bonus forfeiture cases involving Ashley Lelie and Michael Vick in deciding that even unlawful activities by the player do not trigger the loss of bonus payments, whether they have already been received or are still due.
The 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement outlined restrictions on bonus recovery, limiting the forfeiture to percentages of prorated amounts in the contract. These grievance precedents, however, have taken the limitations to new levels. It’s now hard to fathom situations – outside of blatant holdouts or retirements – in which clubs can recover previously paid bonus money to players as a result of bad behavior or immoral conduct.
This appears to be a problem that’s not going away any time soon.
Why did Larry Johnson lose the other part of his grievance – regarding future guaranteed salary – against the Chiefs?
Special Master Stephen Burbank distinguished future salary from “bonus” money, although both were guaranteed. Due to the fact that the future salary guaranteed amounts were not “earned” as the bonus monies were, the Chiefs would not be liable for such guarantees in the event they terminate the contract prior to the operation of these guarantees.
Guaranteeing future Paragraph 5 (salary) has become a popular trend with NFL clubs, made necessary by the operation of rules that limit Cap spending in the pending uncapped year. In light of these decisions on bonus recovery, or the lack thereof, future guarantees may become even more widely utilized in the future.
Why does Johnson, after publicly stating he wanted out of Kansas City, now want to stay with the Chiefs?
Well, because of the above, the stakes have changed. Now the Chiefs, if they choose, can release Johnson without the specter of $3.5M of guaranteed money, so Johnson is being a bit more contrite about his future there.
As stated many times in this space, the NFL offseason is the longest of the major sports leagues; things have a way of changing direction one or more times over the course of the seven months that games are not being played. The Larry Johnson-Chiefs drama has yet to fully play out.
Why would the Lions, or any team at the top of the draft, let their allotted time expire and pass on the pick?
Theoretically, a team at the top of the draft would let the time pass to move to a lower “slot” and pay less in guaranteed money and overall contract value as per the Rookie Pool allocations.
However, the theory ignores the reality of the top agents and top players in the draft demanding that the player be compensated where the team should have picked the player rather than where they did pick the player. Agents stake their reputations and recruiting efforts on the contracts of these high-profile top picks in the draft.
If the top of the draft is so detrimental to a team's financial situation that a team (or multiple teams) "pass" until someone finally steps up (large market teams like NY and Dallas), then the NFL has a MAJOR problem. Hopefully this will be the last non-slotted year for rookies. Salaries should be slotted as they are in the NBA. I'd be all for the early part of the 1st round going down in salary, but the later part of the 1st round going up. Rounds 2-4 could go up a bit as well.
ROOKIE SALARY. Incentive ladin of course, but our teams need to be secure financially AFTER the draft and for the future also. If our teams miss on top picks, it sets them back later for free agency etc. Have a rookie salary with incentives for the first year or two, then take care of him after. END OF STORY
One of the pressing needs of the NFL is to regulate rookie contracts. The NBA has done that and has avoided a huge escalation in salaries for unproven players. Consider the Oakland situation where the team is committed for $29 million with Russell and after two modest seasons they had to take Garcia as an insurance policy. Ditto for Alex Smith that signed a contract with $24 million guaranteed and in 32 games had a awful 63.5 rating.
Minnesota "passed" on their pick a few years ago during the Mike Tice tenure (actually they may have done it twice), although I don't think it was on purpose. I don't think they paid their eventual pick for a lower slot though (Kevin Williams 2003).
This is the part of the NFL (like the Rookie salaries and the first pick of the draft being impossible to trade because of the cost) that makes it a laughing stock.
Get this right and have it behave logically rather than allowing players (or for that matter teams/owners) to exploit loopholes like these players obviously have done.
I think there is something to be said for the special master's ruling. I'm not sure that it is right for the team to be able to recover bonus money already paid as a result of team-imposed "conduct detrimental to the team" discipline, at least under the language of the CBA as it now exists. The player already forfeits salary for those games, and it seems exceptionally punitive to allow the teams to also recover bonus money. This is especially true because the concept of "conduct detrimental to the team" is inherently subjective and elastic. If these decisions had gone the other way, I think its fair to say that you would have seen an attempt by ownership to drastically expand the concept of "conduct detrimental to the team," in order to hold the threat of such discipline and the drastic financial consequences over the player's head.
Fair to say that these issue's will be hammered out with more specificity in the next CBA, which seems the appropriate way to address them.
As for the concept of teams "passing" on their pick, I think Andrew is right in stating that, in any isolated incident, the chosen player's agent will argue that the player's contract should be based on the teams original draft slot. If I were an agent, that is certainly what I would do, because as noted by Andrew, the agent's reputation depends upon it.
But what happens if multiple teams pass before the first pick is chosen? At that point, you have a functional revolution by the teams against the financial obligations imposed at the top of the draft. It would be complete chaos. It would at least hammer home the point that an adjustment needs to be made in how rookies are paid.
The Special Master in Burress' case thought Plax did not WILFULLY engage in conduct which prevented him from being available to play for his team, regardless of the intent to carry an unlicensed/unregistered and loaded handgun. Intent not to play was the key to the decision, not whether he engaged in conduct detrimental to the team. I am surprised that the owners' attorneys did not do a better job of drafting (or advocating?)in reference to the CBA last time around. Was there no criminal activity involving NFL players pre 2006?
Mel, do you really think the NFL is a laughing stock? It seems to me that its the gold standard in professional sports leagues. That doesn't mean its perfect, but I think Hockey, Baseball and Basketball would laugh to have the NFL's revenue, fan base and media positioning.
Issues like rookie salaries are part of the CBA. They don't exist in a vacuum, they get negotiated and compromised on as part of the entire labor agreement. Its not ideal, but the player's union doesn't seem to want it to change. That means both sides need to decide how much of a priority it is to fight for, and how much of a bargaining chip it is to move other changes.
Would most fans like to see it fixed, of course! Its really hurting some of the teams that have been stuck in a decade long rebuilding phase. That said, it helps differentiate teams with savvy coaches and owners from those that cannot make wise decisions with high stake player investments... which really is a big part of the game of football in the modern era.
Scot,
you said "I’m not sure that it is right for the team to be able to recover bonus money already paid as a result of team-imposed “conduct detrimental to the team” discipline, at least under the language of the CBA as it now exists."
I would have to say they have every right to try and get their money back (pro-rated per games played) especially concerning the Plaxico case. He was paid a large bonus with the intent of playing an entire season. HE SHOT HIMSELF IN THE LEG!!!!! At that point you have not only violated conduct detrimental to the team, you have violated your contract. What if I were a player that was also a woodworker and cut my fingers off? I should still get bonus money because I am a complete idiot that would put myself in a stupid situation? Should I run someone over, go to jail and still get a bonus? There is common sense and there is a contract. Burbank should pull his head out of his rectum and look at it for what it is and players like Burress should be forced to hand over the money they have stolen from their team.
I love the ruling in both of these cases precisely because it places a premium on character evaluations. If the Giants or the Chiefs had been able to recover any part of these bonus monies, it would have lowered the risk assumed by NFL teams when offering bonuses to players with histories of questionable behaviour. With this ruling, teams are even more motivated to be sure a player is a good citizen before doling out the dough. This is a good outcome for the players who never find themselves on the wrong side of the law-- and shouldn't there be more ways to reward them financially?
| powered by TheSeats.com |
NFP's President was featured on...
Vikings and Dolphins probably...
Packers washout now starts for...
DeMaurice Smith lays out the stakes....
As uncapped year approaches, both...
Apr 08, 2009
09:47 AM
Millionaire criminals, grievances, whining about which team they play for, greedy agents for top rookies.....the NFL just keeps getting better and better.