Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

also, salaries are guaranteed for the year if the player is on the roster for the first regular season game.

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they do. The players could offer a reduction in the salary cap. They never will, but its their leverage.

This came up when they re-did the CBA. TO and Drew Rosenhaus whined about guaranteed contracts durign his SF/Eagles days and Drew Rosenhaus really tried to make an issue of it but the players association realized 1) the owners would demand a lower cap percentage and 2) most new contracts would just end up being one year deals.

Injuries in football occur more frequently, and are often more severe, than in other sports. Football players also age more quickly than in other sports, turning a good player into a non-factor almost overnight.

These are big reasons, but the biggest is that the NFL broke the Union, locked them out and used scabs in 1987. The NFLPA has never had the leverage that MLB union had or has. The NFLPA spent a lot of time playing catch-up from an inferior position, and that can be seen even in the current CBA. Some blame Gene Upshaw for being to cozy with Tagliabue (contrast him with Donald Fehr of the MLBPA), but there are historical and practical reasons why NFL contracts aren't guaranteed.

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post.

I'm assuming that you mean the better the health of the league the more $$$ everyone gets?

Are all income streams taken into account when determining the cap?

Thanks,
Woodguy

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

[ QUOTE ]

-- 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I wanted to know, thanks!

I asked this question to another poster, but do you know if the salary cap is tied to all team revenues, or are some revenues exempt?

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

[ QUOTE ]

What does they players union have to offer in return for guaranteed contracts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Labour peace in a very profitable industry, where labour instability torpedo's revenue faster than in most industries and creates terrible ill will from their customers.

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?"


[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean the deal they signed last March the Union forced the Owners to agree to give them a higher percentage of total revenue. The owners were reportedly offering 56.5 percent and the Players got 59.5%.

The players also avoided an uncapped year. Its complex but it would have made a lot of players have to wait longer to become free agents- overall it would have been bad for Union- although real good for a select few the uncapped year would have been real bad for most of the players.

The Union also got a maximum length for second- to seventh-round picks will be four years, which was a concession to the NFLPA as some teams had started offering those picks five- or six-year deals. NFLPA members will also received expanded post-career medical benefits.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I asked this question to another poster, but do you know if the salary cap is tied to all team revenues, or are some revenues exempt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its complex, but the NFL has partial revenue sharing of non football revenue. The cap is league wide and partly based on predictions of football revenue and partly based on the expected revenue sharing and nonfootball income.

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming that you mean the better the health of the league the more $$$ everyone gets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Are all income streams taken into account when determining the cap?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought so - but maybe not? Most are taken into account or partially taken into account based on revenue sharing.

From Wiki : "The NFL salary cap is calculated by a formula. It is defined by the current CBA to be 59.5% of the total projected league revenue for the upcoming year. This number, divided by the number of teams, determines an individual teams maximum salary cap. For 2006, this is approximately $102 million per team. For 2007, it is projected that this will rise to $109 million."

Do the math, and the NFL expects revenue of roughly $5.8B in 2007.

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

[ QUOTE ]
From Wiki : "The NFL salary cap is calculated by a formula. It is defined by the current CBA to be 59.5% of the total projected league revenue for the upcoming year. This number, divided by the number of teams, determines an individual teams maximum salary cap. For 2006, this is approximately $102 million per team. For 2007, it is projected that this will rise to $109 million."


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. All revenue streams are not included in the cap calculations.

Nonfootball income is subject partial revenue sharing. Much of the nonfootball revenue is excluded in the cap calculations.

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you mean the deal they signed last March the Union forced the Owners to agree to give them a higher percentage of total revenue. The owners were reportedly offering 56.5 percent and the Players got 59.5%.

The players also avoided an uncapped year. Its complex but it would have made a lot of players have to wait longer to become free agents- overall it would have been bad for Union- although real good for a select few the uncapped year would have been real bad for most of the players.

The Union also got a maximum length for second- to seventh-round picks will be four years, which was a concession to the NFLPA as some teams had started offering those picks five- or six-year deals. NFLPA members will also received expanded post-career medical benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I was looking for.

Its interesting that the NHL settled in around 54% after a protacted dispute but the NFL union was able to get 59 in peace (although no guaranteed $$$ which is huge) NHL players also kick into free agency much early than before, and I see the NFL going the same way.

One interesting conclusion that some have in the book that I read is that if you had absolute free agency and all 1 year contracts, the average salary in any league would decrease due to simple supply and demand, and that players associations and unions are driving towards greater free agency too hard and should back off to keep supply of FA's limited and the price high.

Thanks again.