Re: Why does the NFL players union suck at protecting its players?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Guaranteed contracts alone are fine in sports. It's the combination of guaranteed contracts + salary cap that can kill a team in the NBA. I may be wrong though, but aren't there injury exceptions in the NBA? I thought I remember the Heat trying to get one for Zo when the kidney stuff started up.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in the NFL is the player insured by his union, or does he have to insure himself against injury?

What are the rates on this type of insurance? I would think it would be quite high.

Regards,
Woodguy

Re: Why does the NFL players union suck at protecting its players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, the NFL has a much higher atrition rate than the 4 other major sports, plus they have 53 guys on a roster instead of the 12-25 that the other three sports have. Therefore, that makes it critical for the NFL owners not to owe guaranteed money to everyone on the roster when half of them will be out of football in three years.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point if I'm an owner, but why would the NFL players union care?

They are they to help the players not the teams right?

Regards,
Woodguy

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the main reason why NFL owners have been able to stay so committed to not giving out guaranteed contracts. The players union only has so much say. Also, I think players in NFL are more interchangable than in the other 3 sports. Besides quarterback, the most important players based on value over replacement players are probably the non-skill positions, the lines and defensive backfield and such, and they don't have the same bargaining power as the more glamourous positions simply because fans won't be as outraged if they get lowballed on contract offers and leave.

Maybe I should ask a different question
 

"What did the NFL player's union receive from the owners in the CBA in exchange for no guaranteed $$$ and labour peace?"

Everyone seems to be given owners arguments for no guaranteed $$$, and those are obvious.

I want to know why the union has agreed to this when its obviously not in the players' best interest, and the union exisits to promote the players' best interest.

Regards,
Woodguy

Re: Why does the NFL players union suck at protecting its players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think players in NFL are more interchangable than in the other 3 sports.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this was weakened the player's union then?

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I want to know why the union has agreed to this when its obviously not in the players' best interest, and the union exisits to promote the players' best interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it is in the player's best interest.

The simple truth is that the NFL's economic system works. It works far better than the economic systems of the other major sports. Guarenteed contracts hurt the stability of the economy because they punish teams too harshly for giving out bad contracts. That hurts the economy as a whole. The NFL's sucessful economy generates far more revenue than the other leagues, and in turn, that revenue ends up in the pockets of the players, coaches, owners, and everyone involved.

Futhermore, the players are trading guarenteed contracts for more guarenteed money up front (in the form of a signing bonus) that they can invest and profit off of, as well as trading gaurenteed contracts for a more stable economy as a whole (see above paragraph).

Re: Why does the NFL players union suck at protecting its players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think players in NFL are more interchangable than in the other 3 sports.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this was weakened the player's union then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think so. It's a lot easier to justify not giving Terrell Davis a guaranteed contract when he gets hurt and you can plug in Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, then Clinton Portis, or Priest Holmes gets hurt you can turn to LJ, or even should Ladanian get hurt you can turn to Michael Turner. Compare that to a guy like Pujols or Bonds, and the complete stiff that would be forced to replace him. So, if they want a guaranteed contract, I think that have a lot more leverage to go to the owners and demand one. Certain positions in the NFL, most notably quarterbacks, also have the same scarcity, and for the elite players at that position, they get enough in guaranteed bonuses to make up for the lack of guaranteed salaries. But, for your average middle linebacker or running back or wideout, they can be so easily replaced with a minimal salary that they don't really have a leg to stand on should they demand guaranteed contracts.

Re: Why does the NFL players union suck at protecting its players?
 

-- If all NFL contracts were fully guaranteed, then salaries would be lower across the board. The players would get the same overall share of the lerague's profits; it would just be distributed differently, with more money going to injured and/or ineffective players and less going to young players and those in their primes.

-- The lack of a meaningful signing bonus is the exception and not the rule. Generally only a fringe player will have to settle for a signing bonus less than $50-$100K (e.g., 3rd string journeyman Safeties, undrafted/late round rookies, etc.). Of course, there may be 15 or 20 such players on a given team, but that's just the free market at work.

-- If contracts were fully guaranteed, teams would generally not be able to replace disappointing backups and special teams players with better, more promising fringe players. This would lead to a somewhat lower talent level, which would hurt the league as a whole (and ultimately, the individual players).

Re: Why does the NFL players union suck at protecting its players?
 

Nice post Varlos. Those are all good reasons why the "NFL economic system works."

Re: Why does the NFL players union suck at protecting its players?
 

It's becoming clear from this thread that the NFL players union is doing a great job.

The NHL Players Union OTOH was doing an awful job under Goodenow - throwing the majority of the union under the bus for the sake of the best 40 players. What a disgrace.

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

[ QUOTE ]
"What did the NFL player's union receive from the owners in the CBA in exchange for no guaranteed $$$ and labour peace?"

Everyone seems to be given owners arguments for no guaranteed $$$, and those are obvious.

I want to know why the union has agreed to this when its obviously not in the players' best interest, and the union exisits to promote the players' best interest.

Regards,
Woodguy

[/ QUOTE ]
What does they players union have to offer in return for guaranteed contracts? Nothing.

If they insisted on it they would get all one year deals which would lead to increased money for the superstars but much less money for the lesser tiered guys.
Look at how much money a guy like Randle el was able to get last year because there weren't a bunch of FA WRs. He'd get way less money if there were all 1 years deals.