Kiwaunuka Calls NFL Contracts Unfair..............

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by soulman, Jun 18, 2014.

  1. riczaj01

    riczaj01 DaBears Ditka
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    24,469
    Likes Received:
    3,914
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,737ß
    Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
    That's why I respect the hell out of guys like Neal Anderson who had a plan of playing 8 years and then be out. RB up in Minny did the same thing, they got their money and got out before they suffered any serious long term inj's.
     
  2. Ski-Whiz

    Ski-Whiz George Halas
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1996
    Messages:
    37,320
    Likes Received:
    931
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,224ß

    Exactly. I don't blame them. I also don't feel sorry for them.

    It frustrates me when I see players sue the NFL over injuries. Thats why you make the big bucks!
     
  3. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,862
    Likes Received:
    1,729
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,021ß
    You cannot compare what you do to what they do. Just like you can't compare what you do to what I do. Take your emotion out of the argument.
     
  4. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,862
    Likes Received:
    1,729
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,021ß
    Again...you are all looking it emotionally instead of objectively. Sure...they make a lot of money, then they pay 50% in tax, plus tax to the state they play their game in, then tax to the state they live in, then 3% to their agent, and so on and so forth. Nobody is asking you to "FEEL BAD" for them. The debate was whether NFL contracts are fair to the players. This is not an emotional debate about whether they are set for life(the quality of that life is to be debated) or what their choice of career is. You chose your career, so don't complain about how much others are making.
     
  5. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,862
    Likes Received:
    1,729
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,021ß
    Not all of them made big bucks, and not all of them are taken care of the way they should be after they retire.
     
  6. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,862
    Likes Received:
    1,729
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,021ß
    Also...if you were as valuable to your job as these guys are to their jobs...then you wouldn't get fired...you'd get a raise. Thats called the free market brotha.
     
  7. riczaj01

    riczaj01 DaBears Ditka
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    24,469
    Likes Received:
    3,914
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,737ß
    min pay is around 400K, and even the scrubs that don't play on Sunday's get paid it. 6 figs even for 1 year should set these guys up for the rest of their lives; 400 fig's over 4 years is nearly 2 mil and they can still find legit work after it's all said and done with. If it didn't set themselves up then they did it wrong.
     
  8. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,862
    Likes Received:
    1,729
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,021ß
    Thats not what is being debated here. And it's really less than a million once you figure in taxes and fees to agents and the like.
     
  9. Ski-Whiz

    Ski-Whiz George Halas
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1996
    Messages:
    37,320
    Likes Received:
    931
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,224ß
    I don't think one of them pay 50% tax. Not anymore than Apple paying tax.

    There is no emotion. I just feel that they get paid enough as compensation for the wear on their bodies. You know the risks, yet continue to play.
     
  10. soulman

    soulman Position Coach
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    2,100
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,765ß
    Glad to see this stirred up a little discussion but there's still that element of how much they make in some of the posts. I wanted to avoid that aspect of it. Whether the deal is for $10k or $10 mil the real question is should a team be able to simply reduce a players pay under the threat that they'll release him any time they want or should there be some restrictions like when and how much.

    Ski I hear ya' on some of this but the CFL is really not an alternative. Besides the fact that the pay isn't nearly comparable CFL teams are restricted to a certain number of non-Canadian players so IHMO that's really not a free market exchange. It's almost like telling a guy with a MS in engineering that he can always clean the fryers at McDonald's be cause he knows how they're designed to operate.

    I'll stick a few more thoughts in here. Hold outs are virtually a thing of the past. The CBA now permits team to fine players under contract huge amounts of money for missing mandatory team activities and games. So that option has been pretty effectively taken away and so has the option to retire early. Kyle Orton is a no show in Dallas and so far his fine for missing just the mandatory mini camp is $70k. If he does retire the Cowboys will move to take back a $3 mil signing bonus he was given in his last deal.

    Taken at face value it would seem that NFL teams now have all of the power as far as forcing a player to honor the contract he signed and yet the teams do not. As Kiwanuka points out the initial agreement is bi-lateral but it can be altered uni-laterally at the whim of the team. Outside of pro football few employees would agree to such a deal. The only other comparison that immediately comes to mind is marriage in a state which permits no fault divorces. Both parties must agree to marry but it takes only one to ask for and receive a divorce from the other.

    This is the type of thing I wanted to debate. Is it fair in principle that a player must honor his contract as written but the team does not.

    As for rookies there in an NFL pool that qualifies them for bonus money if the amount of playing time they receive is in excess of a certain percentage of the teams plays. So lower round picks like Jordan Mills who received a moderate signing bonus but only a minimum salary actually end up doing far better monetarily. IIRC his was over $300k.

    I'd agree that Alshon Jeffery's rookie contract doesn't compensate him very well for his 2013 performance but Jeffery and others like him will likely receive a lucrative extension before their rookie contracts expire that will at least in part make up for that with the signing bonus they receive in the extension.

    Hey, it's an imperfect system no matter how you look at it but is it too one sided in favor of the teams now? We aren't talking about guys who feel they outplayed their deal and want more or they threaten to hold out. That's pretty much been done a way with. We're talking about whether or not it's fair for an employer to renege on a major portion of an agreement very arbitrarily as to the amount and the timing. By delaying this until after the free agency period has begun they can effectively force a player into accepting simply because his options for doing better are now greatly reduced.

    The spirit of Free Agency was to create an open market for players under certain restrictions that teams and players agreed upon. Is it possible that teams have now figured out a way to subvert that with certain key players?
     

Share This Page