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

Was talking with some buddies over the holidays and this topic came up and was reminded of it by El D's thread.

Baseball has guaranteed $$$.
NBA has guaranteed $$$
Even after getting killed in the last CBA the NHLPA still has guaranteed $$$.

No guraranteed $$$ in the NFL.

The NFL is by far the biggest industry of the 4 mentioned.

The NFL player's union job is to get the best deal for the players, but any NFL contract not worth the paper its written on since the team can terminate them at will, but not the player.

I know some teams pay big signing bonus, as they are demanded by players in absence of guaranteed $$$, but the everyday lunchbucket 5 year NFL career guy gets screwed. (I know its nice to "get screwed" for a couple of million a year, but I'm talking about realtive screwing given the amount of $$$ involved in the industry)

I don't know enough about the NFL and its union to know the answer to this, can anyone enlighten me?

I'm not a union advocate, but the NFL players sure seem to hold most of the risk in this relationship.

Also, if anyone is interested in a interesting read about the NHLPA, I just finished reading "Money Players" by Bruce Dowbiggin and highly recommend it. Interesing to follow the timeline from when the players were truley exploited from the 20's to the 70's until the see-saw way over-compensated and the players were breaking (probably) some teams to the current CBA.

So, why does the NFL player's union suck at getting guaranteed $$$?

Regards,
Woodguy

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

I think that it's because the owners have done such a good job of constucting the league in a way that supports and protects them. It seems that the owners in the NFL have managed to work collectively to support their common good (for now, anyway) as opposed to working in conflict with each other for individual good (but ultimately to the detrement of all).

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

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.

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

Guaranteed contracts are bad for sports. Its the worst in the NBA because they are so few players per team. One bad contract can really set a team back a couple of years.

I don't really know how they would make it work in the NFL since the threat of injury is so high. I mean can you imagine if Duante Culpepper's contract was all guaranteed for the Dolphins?

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

they have guaranteed money, its called a signing bonus.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Guaranteed contracts are bad for sports. Its the worst in the NBA because they are so few players per team. One bad contract can really set a team back a couple of years.

I don't really know how they would make it work in the NFL since the threat of injury is so high. I mean can you imagine if Duante Culpepper's contract was all guaranteed for the Dolphins?

[/ 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.

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

[ 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

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

[ QUOTE ]
they have guaranteed money, its called a signing bonus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I put this in the OP:

[ QUOTE ]
I know some teams pay big signing bonus, as they are demanded by players in absence of guaranteed $$$, but the everyday lunchbucket 5 year NFL career guy gets screwed. (I know its nice to "get screwed" for a couple of million a year, but I'm talking about realtive screwing given the amount of $$$ involved in the industry)

[/ QUOTE ]

So do "average" NFL players get signing bonuses or is it just to top elchelon?

Regards,
Woodguy

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

[ QUOTE ]

Guaranteed contracts are bad for sports. Its the worst in the NBA because they are so few players per team. One bad contract can really set a team back a couple of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then team managers shouldn't give out bad contracts. Its not the players fault if Isaiah Thomas makes poor decisions, its his fault and the owner's fault for hiring him.

Isn't part of the competition of sports a battle of management to see who can put together a better team?

Regards,
Woodguy

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

Not everyone get's a signing bonus.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/footb...05&team=27

Is an example. Most of the big name FA signed by the 9ers got signing bonuses. Most of the rookies got signing bonuses especially the ones at the top. A lot of the mid level vets don't.

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.

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.

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

What is nonfootball income?

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

[ QUOTE ]

What is nonfootball income?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depending on the deal it can be concession income, parking income, some merchandise income etc.....which are all huge $$$.

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

[ QUOTE ]
concession income, parking income, some merchandise income etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I was under the impression that all of that stuff was (atleast partially) shared via the revenue sharing system, and the shared revenue goes into the cap. But I could be wrong.

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

[ QUOTE ]

Ok I was under the impression that all of that stuff was (atleast partially) shared via the revenue sharing system, and the shared revenue goes into the cap. But I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the particulars of the NFL deal but I know in the NHL most teams have control of the facility (or the entity that controls of the facility has some or all ownership of the team) Lots of these teams do not account for concessions or parking at the games under "NHL income", but under "facility income" and keep that revenue away from the team.

That revenue, along with other revenue from renting out the facility to rock shows, trade shows etc, can be so lucrative that some organizations applied for NHL franchises in the 90's with the expressed purpose of gaining control of a facility, which they didn't have to finance, to realize these revenues.

I'm not sure if the NFL works the same, but there are lots of ways of hiding "other revenues" which do have a direct link to ownership of a team.

Re: Maybe I should ask a different question
 

if the nfl locked out the player's union, it would only take a few years for the league to recover. the standard of play would drop a little, but player turnover is so high and there are so many college football programs turning out competent talent that most people wouldn't really notice much of a difference in two to four years. in five to seven years there'd be very few nflpa players the league would actually miss.

if mlb, the nba or the nhl locked out their player's unions, it would take a decade, minimum, to replace the lost talent. even then there'd be a substantial number of players locked out that the leagues would miss.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Baseball has guaranteed $$$.
NBA has guaranteed $$$

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not like these leagues go these things for free. A baseball player has to play for what, six years before he is a free agent? He has to wait 3 years for arbitration prior to which he makes essentially the league minimum. Basketball players' salaries are held in check by league maximum contracts and rules where the team that drafted you can offer more than other teams making it harder to select the team you play for.