OT: Rookie Salaries and Free Agency only thing holding the NFL lockout up
It appears the rookie contracts and free agency appear to be the only stumbling blocks to ending the NFL lockout. It appears if they can get passed the rookie contracts the free agency disagreement should be settled quickly.
I personally believe the rookie contracts are ridiculous, and that money should go towards proven players and the benefits of players who proved themselves day in and day out before they retired. That money shouldn't go to some kid coming out of college who never proved a single thing in the NFL. Let that rookie earn his own pay.
A rookie wage scale and free agency for veterans appear to be the biggest stumbling blocks to ending the NFL lockout.
Several people with knowledge of the talks tell the Associated Press that such key issues as splitting total revenues -- the major reason for the dispute -- the salary cap, fewer offseason workouts and the length of a new collective bargaining agreement are close to being completed.
http://www.cbssports.com/#!/nfl/story/15310724/free-agency-rookie-wages-remain-nfl-stumbling-blocks
The issue isn't that rookies are getting paid too much. It's that veterans are getting screwed.
ftom my understanding the league wants a wage scale and 5 year contracts. the wage scale would be ok if the players who excel can get out of these contracts as they become proven...especially at positions like rb where their careers are shortest
An automatic opt-out clause if specific goals are met, would work well. They would have to build in protections however. Possibily similar to the Type A/B/C free agents in baseball?
Thought the current players and owners would both be in favor of rookie scale. Seems like high rookie contracts hurt the vets and the team if they don't pan out and eat up cap space. Why would vets be ok with rookies being the highest paid at a lot of positions?
Same reason why the NBA players union fought the suggested minimum age rule of 20 for entering the draft (it ended in a compromise which lead to one-and-done's). In every way a thinner draft pool helps veterans, but the players union isn't really run by players. It's run by agents.
If the younger players are that good they should be able to clean up in endorsements.
I have not been keeping up with the lockout so much. So what is the rumor with 18 game schedules? Is it a go or completely off the table now?
is off the table.
Good to hear. Players realy didn't want to play 18 games and hurt their bodies even more. 16 games is enough.
I like the phrase "only thing"
The connection between the two things are agents. And agents are the only group in this that won't be willing to compromise one for the other. (Remember, the NFLPA doesn't represent rookies until they sign contracts, so membership has little interest to continue on with a system that benefits a handful of high draft picks this year to the detriment of vets).
So this may seem like an easy compromise, but that would understate the agents' influence in the NFLPA.
Agents always seem to be the sticking point. My understanding is that their influence is even stronger in baseball, where they were the driving force behind the MLBPA's longtime resistance to drug testing. Who cares if a player jeopardizes his long-term health by juicing up? A juiced-up slugger hitting 60 homers will earn more money (and thus get the agent a bigger cut) than a clean guy hitting 45.
Oh, the rookie issue is simple. Reduce them by a significant margin; if you don't bust you'll get escalators that kick in and reward you. The current system highly rewards busts like JaMarcus Russell with huge amounts of bucks. It's ridiculous. You have to earn your money instead of getting a ton based soley on potential that may not necessarily work out.
I remember hearing about how Chris Johnson is woefully underpaid despite his stellar play, due to his contract. Those things should be addressed too, he should be making a lot more than what he is making now.
Can't comment on FA.
From the sports law class I took at Michigan my understanding is that it is actually a little more complex. Since it would seem obvious that both the current players and owners would agree on a rookie pay, there is more to it. As a union legally they have to negotiate in the best interest of current and future employees. Therefore the NFLPA can't just be like well the current players would like a pay scale to get them more money therefore its fine if the rookies get less. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that would be an antitrust violation and there could be law suits and the likes.
Considering how short most NFL careers are, it makes sense for the players to try to guarantee as much money as they can up front--especially if they're obligated to negotiate in the best interests of future players.
While I agree with the OP that proven vets probably deserve more money, there'd be even more absurd money available to lock up top rookies if the NFL didn't have its anti-trust exemption and couldn't run a draft. Besides, the top rookie contracts are weirdly inflated by BS incentive clauses and base salaries that are relatively low until the last year of the contract.
I don't think the NFL has an anti-trust exemption. That's why the NFLPA decertified and Manning and Brady are suing the NFL. Major League Baseball is the only sport in America with an anti-trust exemption.
I know that the current rookie wage scale is pretty unpopular, but I'm not so sure the current salary structure is that unfair. NFL players peak a lot earlier than many think - age 24-27 are usually the prime years. The normal rookie contract will cover that. I know that the players haven't proven themselves, but thats the time they usually perform at their best. And I really don't think that talented NFL vets aren't getting paid well. The guys getting stuck are those that areclose to 30 and can very easily be replaceabled by younger, recently-drafted, players. Sure, that #1 pick QB may flame out and not be worth 50 million, but the guys picked taken outside the top ten or so picks that contribute to the team are frequently criminally underpaid.
The solution seems fairly simple: have a rookie wage scale (to prevent the Ryan Leaf-type busts from breaking the bank), but have the rookie contract be short - like 2-3 seasons. Then a player who has proven himself can sign a market-level contract with time remaining to cash in.
IMO what could work is if a team and player could opt out of their contract after year 3. (only for the rookies)
<br>That way after 3 years of J. Russell did not work than Oakland could either redo his contract or let him go without losing the 60 million? they owed him. Or it could work that Chris Johnson who blew up could opt out and get a new contract after year 3 and eliminate somewhat of a holdout. Also adding something like only the team can opt out on 1st round picks e that is who makes the most money and players drafted in the 2nd and later(make significantly less) can opt out and restructure for more money
<br>
<br>
<br>
Can they add a clause that FORCES players to save 25% of their salary and also a clause that says NO to real estate, car dealerships, or restaurants?
just ask Congress.