-
-
-
2016-2017 Offseason: More Guarantees If You
Please?
- July 1, 2016 At 11:54 PM CST
By Eric M. Scharf
-
- This SPECIAL EDITION of "The
Tortured Cowboys Fan" begins outside the NFL in order to perhaps
gain a better appreciation for and understanding of what CBA
(Collective Bargaining Agreement) challenges currently, temporarily,
and perpetually exist inside the NFL.
-
- Guarantees For Good NOT Great
-
- Oh to be an 'average' basketball
player in today's NBA (National Basketball Association).
Network television money has gone
through the roof, and the most recent league CBA requires all teams to meet a minimum required
amount of salary cap space for the upcoming 2016-2017 season.
The minimum cap space amount would
$84.729M (or 90% of the salary cap maximum, which is expected to be
$94.143M).
This also means for example you
have a player like Mike Conley (who has never made the NBA All-Star
Game) having now been turned from a performance pumpkin into the
highest paid player in the league (at $153M over 5 years).
Why? The Memphis Grizzlies
Conley's current team figures it may, indeed, struggle to sign
other free agents or add years to / extend the contracts of their
existing players (simply to reach next season's salary cap
minimum). The Grizzlies to be clear are not the only NBA
organization pulling this stunt, which is just as bad or worse
than "trading players for expiring contracts."
"The Tortured Cowboys Fan" could perform as well or as terribly as a number of NBA
bench players (only after first signing a "Lloyds Of London"
bodily injury policy, right before getting physically flattened in the
first minute of the first period of the first game of the preseason,
of course).
-
-
- The imagined peril might be akin to facing Chuck
Daley's Detroit Pistons ("The Bad Boys" with Rick Mahorn, Bill Laimbeer,
John Salley, and Dennis Rodman
enforcing the complete
range of "The Jordan Rules") or Pat Riley's New York Knicks (with
Charles Oakley snarling at you as if you were Reggie Miller flashing the choke sign).
-
-
-
Contract Controls
-
- Many but not all fans are well-aware of the FMV
(Fair Market Value) piece of the pricing puzzle, but this missive is not at
all about FMV, which in-and-of-itself has become a joke in all but
the newest pro sports leagues, like the WNBA (Women's National
Basketball Association) and the still-young AFL (Arena Football
League) where contract controls / suppressive measures from lessons learned in the
other more established leagues have been implemented to prevent
runaway operating costs.
Current NBA contracts just like in MLB
(Major League Baseball) and the NHL (National Hockey League) are fully guaranteed, save for
any public behavior / corporate representation / drug-testing bi-laws
within the CBA which allow teams to legally pursue those who go
astray of those regulations (e.g. steroidal cheats, alcoholics, junkies, or
domestic abusers) for partial or complete reimbursement to the
league of thus-far
disbursed contract funds.
NHL contract guarantees it should
be noted allow the most unique and equitable approach to the needs
of the team and the player (in a sport nearly as violent as the
NFL). NHL teams may (waive and) buy-out a player's contract (for
whatever the reason may be, if memory serves), but that team must
still pay out a "portion" of the remaining money owed (and that
pay out must occur over twice the remaining length of the given
contract). The portion of the money still owed can be either
one-third of the remaining salary if the given player is younger
than the age of 26 at the time of termination or two-thirds of the
remaining salary if 26 or older.
-
-
- Meanwhile, the NFL promoter of the most violent professional sport
this side of MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) and traditional boxing
continues to operate with the leanest approach to guaranteed
salaries. "On Any Given Sunday, Monday, Or Thursday" continues to
fasten the better part of pro football's "vehicular manslaughter" risk squarely onto
the shoulder pads of participating players.
NFL teams even (wisely) take out
league-approved-and-reviewed insurance policies on specific player
contracts to further insulate themselves from roster-ruining,
season-sinking injuries. Premiums from these policies do, however, count
against a given team's salary cap. Payouts technically considered
a refund from the player (though not paid by the player) are
credited to the salary cap for the following season. Such policies
are not pursued for all roster spots and naturally only for
critical / generational / star players.
The NFL even with these
preventative (if imperfect) policies continues to offer
no better than
partially-to-fully guaranteed signing bonuses as a component of
the end-to-end player contracts. Negotiated payout size and terms
(of the contract) determine
how aggressively the guarantees are disbursed.
The NFL utilizes
"voidable years" indirectly adding "insult to injury" to control
the immediate impact of those signing bonuses on each team's salary
cap. Player agents (and the players they represent) are complicit in
this practice, as they
(understandably) do what they must to ensure maximum money before their clients are minimized
(by father time or cap-strapped organizations looking to pinch a
dime), and their teams have moved on.
Those signing bonuses as a side
effect of voidable years can be
spread out over no longer than the first five years of a given
contract (e.g. the signing bonus of a ten-year contract can only
be spread out over the initial five years of that contract).
-
- Dead Money
-
- Voidable years are regularly abused
as cap relief escape mechanisms (more often for a team and less
often for a player). This stated abuse, however, becomes a noose
around a given team's neck if applied too often in the
form of "dead money." If a team needs to cut a player earlier than
planned (for diminished skills, physical failure, off-the-field
issues that run amuck of CBA bi-laws, or all of the above), and
there remains some unpaid signing bonus, that money gets
accelerated into that team's salary cap for the league year in which
they officially cut that player.
-
-
-
-
-
- Dreadful dead money on a related
aside could certainly be renamed "Deion Dough" as Deion
Sanders (among other former, superstar, NFL players) instantly comes to
mind when discussing the salary cap-destroying disease.
The Emperor Has A Wardrobe
-
- The NFL it must be noted is the most profitable professional
sport (mass market or otherwise) on planet Earth. 2015 revenue was
approximately $13B which was $3.5B more than runner-up MLB. The
Emperor (NFL) not only has clothes but an entire wardrobe of
football fashions (hung elegantly like so many Super Bowl banners within a walk-in closet the size of AT&T Stadium).
While
the NFL and the NFLPA do very well with profit sharing from network television contracts and an
assortment of product affiliations / sponsorships (with certain
automatic triggers to address increased revenue from either
category) these two entities cannot
seem find a remotely-similar middle ground with each other on greater player contract
guarantees. A significant uptick in critical injuries (and the
seemingly one-sided affect they have on everyone's bottom line) has
only served to encourage both parties to flip a similar middle
finger at each other.
A little-known fact that further
inflames the lopsided discussion is the network television contracts
include language to protect the NFL from any future (1) owner-driven
player lockouts, (2) NFLPA-driven player strikes, or GASP (3)
replacement games using "scab" players (as was the case in 1987).
The NFL would continue to get paid as if games good, bad, ugly, or
nonexistent were still being played. The networks if
memory serves would slowly recoup a percentage of future contract
money to make up for their (expected) initial viewership losses.
-
- Selective Perspective
-
- There are some compelling and
not-so-compelling arguments on both sides, but you know what they
say about arguments: "They are like a$$holes. Everyone has one . . .
unless you have a colostomy bag (but let us not digress into that
sloppy mess)."
The core NFL argument against fully guaranteed NFL player contracts
primarily concerns the
considerable, career-shortening punishment that (all but the most
capable, ankle-breaking, escapist) players regularly absorb. The NFLPA position
(unsurprisingly) is that sustained physical punishment creates
incentive for both parties to pay more money up front (than is
already addressed through initial signing bonuses or salary
conversions into signing bonuses). The skill set for many a star
player begins to erode over the course of what is an average
three-year NFL career.
Add in the continuing convulsions over
player concussions and the silly suit settlement that allows the
NFL to pay out $1B+ (to those retired players who have accepted the
deal) over a ridiculous 65-year period, and some (rightfully) say the
combination of the two elements could prove the ultimate (dead) end game
for everyone involved.
The vast majority of active players trapped somewhere between
earning a minimum salary and a super star dowry desperately,
dreamily, and daily reenact a scene from the 2010 remake of "Clash of the
Titans" that (to the level-headed and long-game focused) morbidly
frightens. Perseus son of Zeus uses the severed head of Medusa
to turn the Kraken to stone right before the horrifying creature
eats Andromeda like spanakopita. Hades the father of the Kraken
appears out of thin air once Perseus puts a petrified stop to all the
monstrous attackin. Hades dismissively proclaims: "I am a god. I
will live forever." Perseus responds with "But not HERE." He uses
his sword to strike Hades (still so frightening) with a bolt of
Zeuss lightning, ensuring Hades is swiftly hurled back to the
underworld. The owners align with Perseus, ironically, and the NFLPA
are represented by Hades (willing to run through brick wall after
brick wall until magically being granted a godly windfall, no matter
their underlying mortality).
-
-
- A change in mindset would be an
inconceivable upset. Would NFL owners
(with their perpetual upper hand in pro football land) shock the
professional sports world by sparking an unimaginable debate? Would
they offer players (both current and more importantly retired)
the benefit bonanza of guaranteed healthcare for life in exchange
for putting down their (further, greater, but ultimately
non-threatening) guaranteed contract knife? Even if the owners were
to suddenly warm (just a bit more) to the idea, post-career
healthcare costs (with exponentially frightening forecasts) would
only give them financial diarrhea.
A secondary but equally
interesting NFL perspective is that fully-guaranteed salaries take
away a player's incentive to regularly execute at-or-near their maximum
capacity. The NFLPA (and any fan not living under a rock the past
few decades) would point out how MLB and NBA players are poster
children for such a claim. MLB and NBA players regularly go on
adorable "15-day disabled lists."
While MLB's 162-game, 7+ month regular season schedule and
the NBA's 82-game, 5+ month regular season schedule DO require a myriad of such
built-in rests for the weary, the NFL's seemingly diminutive 16
(regular season games) is
not "just another number" when it comes to the incomparably
condensed amount
of helmet, err, head-to-head punishment (skillfully, accidentally, and even
Burfict-stupidly) inflicted within the NFL's 17-week gauntlet in which
those gladiatorial contests are fit.
MLB players are placed on
said lists with as little as a painful blister on the index finger of
their throwing hand (though it is understood that a stud,
all-star, 100-MPH pitching ace can be legitimately turned
into Mitch "Wild Thing" Williams over a particularly painful
hangnail). NBA players are placed on said lists with as little as
a sore ankle (though it is understood that a stud,
all-star, Phi Slama Jama center can be legitimately turned into Greg
Ostertag over
a particularly painful turf toe). And yet unlike NFL players
(susceptible to laughable injury settlements and straight-up
waivers) they continue to collect
paychecks from their fully-guaranteed contracts.
NFL players particularly stars
like Tony Romo continue to perform through (sometimes)
unimaginable, (often)
ridiculously recurring punishment
(for a variety of understandable reasons depending on your
selective perspective) which brings the subject thread full circle.
-
- More Alike Than Not
-
- Pro football, pro baseball, pro
basketball, pro hockey, pro soccer, and even pro rugby (though with
a smaller number of player-participants within their leagues if
memory serves) all involve players who will similarly play through injury,
endure excruciating pain if it means preventing "the next
player up" from claiming their spot in the starting rotation or even
on the greater roster.
Two of these mass market sports
leagues (somewhat inconceivably) pay their players more to perform less and in turn for less exposure to career-altering
injuries.
Each of these mass market sports
leagues count
"social misfits" (from the immature to the mentally-moronic to the
domestically-abusive to the
sadistically-sinister) among the members of their respective player unions. If
all players from graceful to
disgraceful from two of these leagues can receive fully guaranteed
deals, then surely a bunch of tough guys on short flight
kamikaze careers (by design) can receive such deals, as well.
-
- ONE Key Difference
-
- Even with these key similarities,
however, specifically between players from the NFL, MLB, and NBA . .
. ONE
critical differentiator like it or not can and does regularly
tear down the "guarantees for all" argument (at least in the eyes of
NFL team owners).
The NFL and MLB require a team of
players in a variety of roles at varying positions to function
and succeed. The NFL taking it further also needs players of
(perhaps wildly) varying shapes and sizes. MLB can on rare occasion get by with
but two players (a pitcher and catcher) by throwing a
(magical) no-hitter.
The NBA on the other hand rules
individual play land. While the NBA must field five on-court players
for each of two teams, each player on each of those two teams can
choose (regardless of the quality of his learned skills or natural talent) to
completely ignore his teammates and go it alone. While an NBA head
coach (and his assistants) expect their players to adhere to their
well-practiced offensive and defensive schemes, an individual
player can choose to freelance and deviate from those systems
encouraged or not by coaches / teammates and take over a game,
dribble / distribute / steal the ball, receive the ball "down on the
blocks," take all the intermediate jump shots, hit all the
glorious three-pointers, make all the dunks and hooks, shoot all the free
throws, and nab all the rebounds.
An individual NBA player may be on a
team more often than not where his teammates are grossly
deficient or where he is a ball hog (and where he can and will take over, "put the team
on his back," regardless of whether or not his results are
efficient).
The (historical) list of such
well-rounded NBA players is enormous (even with a continuously
growing number of players in today's game who cannot
shoot free throws to save their own lives).
Each of these all-purpose NBA players stars or not are
willing and able to take over a game while their (capable or
incapable) teammates stop and stare.
While the NBA certainly has its role
players, there are far more NBA players capable of individually
"going off" when given or choosing to take the opportunity to do so.
NFL teams require every single player on their game day rosters to
be role players (to pass the football, catch the football, kick the football, punt the
football, block for ball-carriers, and tackle ball-carriers). There
may be a rare two-way player (with more-than-serviceable skills on
offense and defense, again, like Deion Sanders) who will command a larger
contract and larger guarantees than most, but that player
still does not simultaneously play offense and defense.
That player still does not play by himself. That player
still relies on his defensive line to pressure an opposing
quarterback into making a bad pass that he can (potentially)
intercept.
NHL players even the defensemen
(often lovingly referred to as "Goons") by and large are all capable of
puck handling / distribution, scoring, and defense. Most of them
if called upon can also individually take over a game themselves.
Unlike the NBA and NFL, however, the rules by which the ice rink is
refereed prevent certain NHL position players from going beyond
certain "lines," but those rules, of course, do not diminish
the capabilities of the individual NHL players.
If not for this ONE key difference
that forces even the most rare-and-talented NFL players to still
be cogs (within a format that requires cogs), NFL team owners
would have even less of an argument against full (or significantly
increased) guarantees and would appear less like CBA-empowered money
hogs.
Collective Bargaining Conspiracy Theory
-
- The subject of NFL contracts not being fully
guaranteed is not a new one, and it has certainly become more
pronounced ever since league Commissioner Roger Goodell (with
backing from NFL owners) pushed for adoption of an 18-game regular
season (and potentially a larger playoff field, which would lead
to still more games), as a lucrative replacement for
injury-provoking preseason contests.
The Tortured Cowboys Fan cannot help
but (conspiratorially) wonder if the NFL's unspoken desire behind
at
least an 18-game season is that progressively larger game day
rosters and practice squads would become necessary to prevent star
players from getting unreasonably hurt or (on a more sinister
level) from being able to achieve
so many king-sized contract incentives or (with brutal
honesty) from being able to command such enormous
contracts ever again.
NCAA "Division 1A" football rosters
are (comparatively and laughably) "restricted" to 85 players, making most 1A teams 3-4 players
deep at each position. The top 25 of NCAA Division 1A teams are
often (but not always) 2-3 talented players deep at each
position.
While some NFL owners are true fans
of pro football and really do WANT only the very best players they
can (un)reasonably afford towards as many division titles,
conference championships, and Super Bowl victories as possible there are still other owners who
really do NOT
have such a personal attachment to something they view only as a
business venture (with an absolute bottom line which
eventually always beats out quality as the key business
driver, unless the business in question is Apple).
A universal distaste for the (near valueless) preseason and the
increasing number of devastating injuries that occur during the four
to five game stretch may (GASP) cause the NFLPA to give NFL owners
the 18-game regular season they desire for comparatively nothing
(more than a greater piece to proportionally-enlarged network
television deals) in exchange. Injuries will continue to mount
whether in preseason, regular season, or the playoffs but better
they happen during contests that count.
Will They Or Won't They?
-
- The NFL and NFLPA can exit their
current CBA following the 2016 season (if memory serves) to
"encourage" renegotiation of original agreement components due to
potential new changes coming from external forces (like network
television agreements or new product affiliations / sponsors).
-
- Will (the suggested) CBA renegotiation
eventually lead to (some or any) fully guaranteed salaries in exchange for a
longer regular season?
-
- Will the solution to greater
guarantees (still) revolve
around (much, MUCH) stronger NFLPA leadership (as with MLB
and NBA) with
a willingness to look NFL owners in their eyes and dare them to "give us
a reason?"
-
- Would a highly-desired change in Roger Goodell's approach to player discipline
. . . make guaranteed money less of a NFLPA lynchpin?
-
-
-
- If Judge Dredd, err, Goodell decides
to also relinquish being jury AND executioner, what else
might he and NFL owners want from their eager union petitioner? The NFL
increasingly covets precious stadium credits in the face of more
than one NFL city refusing to ante up new stadium funds or show
certain owners ANY pity but that pricy line item would seem a bit
too rich on the players' list of desirable CBA edits. Might the
NFLPA, in turn, be forced to continue without (a less-penalized
distinction between) both recreational and
medicinal marijuana to burn?
-
- Perhaps NFL owners would prefer to
receive a change to incentive clause bonuses (particular to
weight requirements where the players would bear continuation
onuses)? A player can make weight, but if he begins to balloon from
diet-destroying pounds that festoon just weeks after the incentive trigger
date, should that preclude a (sizeable) rebate?
-
- Will the NFLPA ever evolve into a
real players union and consist of more unified members willing to go
from "Just gimme' my game check!" to "This CBA does
not add up! What the heck?"
-
- Will the NFLPA as THE key
participants in the most popular sport in ages ever mature enough
to move (just a bit) beyond "Where's my money, honey?" Or will the
fine-and-critical print continue to be too much, as player after
player wants to keep skimming the pages?
-
- Will the NFLPA one day and for
more than just better guaranteed pay show the necessary
nerve to (GASP) frustrate fantasy football functions, mortify
millions of player-paying fans, outrage oppressive (?) owners, and
throw the future of the NFL into (temporary or titanic) turmoil by
going on strike and rigidly remaining on the picket line until a
newly-updated CBA is truly fair and divine?
-
- We shall see. We always do.
|
