When did all of these holdouts start ? Why have the NFL players been able to force the hand of all of these owners ? Do contracts mean nothing ? Just odd it’s such a common thing in football, you never see this in baseball.
Brutal game. Injury can end career suddenly at any time. Contracts are not guaranteed. Owners free to terminate contracts. Players cannot. CTE threat. Players deserve all they can get.
Zeke’s contract is 100% guaranteed. $4 Million this year guaranteed. He is guaranteed $9 million next year for injury. So if he gets hurt he gets $9 Million. He got $16 million signing bonus and when contract is over $17 million in salary. That’s over $33 million.
Almost no worker has a guaranteed future, NFL does it right. There is a reason why the NFL is more popular then MLB and NBA. Because teams don’t get handcuffed with bad contracts. You can get out of a mistake.
Brutal game. Injury can end career suddenly at any time. Contracts are not guaranteed. Owners free to terminate contracts. Players cannot. CTE threat. Players deserve all they can get.
Signing bonus’ are an issue IMO. The players have a right to worry about snort careers. But if u want to work on getting rid of non guaranteed contracts u players shouldn’t get that bonus. It’s a way of pre-paying. And if it’s a big enough bonus it’s protection from owners.
The reality is the guys who hold out aren’t usually the guys screwed by the way the NFL has its contracts set up.
Zeke’s contract is 100% guaranteed. $4 Million this year guaranteed. He is guaranteed $9 million next year for injury. So if he gets hurt he gets $9 Million. He got $16 million signing bonus and when contract is over $17 million in salary. That’s over $33 million.
Almost no worker has a guaranteed future, NFL does it right. There is a reason why the NFL is more popular then MLB and NBA. Because teams don’t get handcuffed with bad contracts. You can get out of a mistake.
Just because you throw the word "narrative" in there doesn't make it untrue. His contract is not fully guaranteed.
It's not really about his current contract, but the next one...which won't be close to a full guarantee. They have every right to hold out and ask for more money just like their team has every right to tell them to fly a kite. It's a negotiation, that's how it works.
Let’s call this what it is, if that is even possible. Â
The current NFL player contract paradigm finds that, other than rookie contracts, and absent contract guarantees, owners can unilaterally refuse to honor a player’s contract by cutting the player but a player is required to play under the contract if he wants to get paid.
Even if the player does not play, and does not get paid, he cannot just “quit” and go work for someone else. The right to quit a job and go work for someone else is the essence of “employment at will.”
Conversely, NFL player contracts are not true contracts of employment for a term because they permit one party, the owners, to unilaterally cancel their obligations therein.
So, the NFL employment paradigm is not employment at will, and is not contractual employment. Frankly, I don’t know what you would call the NFL contract paradigm. To my I knowledge, in the world of employment, it is unique.
A previous poster point, where it was said that in the employment world no one is guaranteed a job, is incorrect. There are many employees that have contracts of employment for a term that are fully enforceable from both sides, absent extraordinary circumstances, such as termination for cause. Moreover, In another context, I was an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement that guaranteed me five days of work for as long as I wanted it, a property right to a job, which was termed a “lifetime job guarantee.” (Rare, I know, but it existed nonetheless.)
In my view, NFL players have been getting the short end of the stick in terms of employment contracts since the beginning of time. It is obviously up to the players union to change the paradigm in collective bargaining and, to that point, I think the current contract holdouts are a strategy that will hasten that end.
It’s high time they gained equal footing. Good for them.
The current NFL player contract paradigm finds that, other than rookie contracts, and absent contract guarantees, owners can unilaterally refuse to honor a player’s contract by cutting the player but a player is required to play under the contract if he wants to get paid.
Even if the player does not play, and does not get paid, he cannot just “quit” and go work for someone else. The right to quit a job and go work for someone else is the essence of “employment at will.”
Conversely, NFL player contracts are not true contracts of employment for a term because they permit one party, the owners, to unilaterally cancel their obligations therein.
So, the NFL employment paradigm is not employment at will, and is not contractual employment. Frankly, I don’t know what you would call the NFL contract paradigm. To my I knowledge, in the world of employment, it is unique.
A previous poster point, where it was said that in the employment world no one is guaranteed a job, is incorrect. There are many employees that have contracts of employment for a term that are fully enforceable from both sides, absent extraordinary circumstances, such as termination for cause. Moreover, In another context, I was an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement that guaranteed me five days of work for as long as I wanted it, a property right to a job, which was termed a “lifetime job guarantee.” (Rare, I know, but it existed nonetheless.)
In my view, NFL players have been getting the short end of the stick in terms of employment contracts since the beginning of time. It is obviously up to the players union to change the paradigm in collective bargaining and, to that point, I think the current contract holdouts are a strategy that will hasten that end.
It’s high time they gained equal footing. Good for them.
This is why this subject sucks. U purposefully leave out that Zeke and others Who get a huge signing the. Sit out are keeping money they took as a promise to honor a contract. Do any players who hold our return they yearly pro-rated portion? So if he got a little more than 16 million as a signing bonus. Didn’t see where he gave back that 4. And the ability to use funds for years before earning them is huge. But don’t let facts ruin your point.
A lot has to change to make it better for the players. But Vets want the signing bonus. And the bigger issue is the team only 5 th year option. My company. An fire me at will. At least these guys get a bonus. It’s not a great system. Contract is up. They. See to negotiate it.
Any person on this planet who gets 16 million up front before doing anything is hard to feel sorry for. Doesn’t mean the system shouldn’t change. But leaving out the huge bonus’ some players gets just ruins the good points you do have. You can’t leave it out
The current NFL player contract paradigm finds that, other than rookie contracts, and absent contract guarantees, owners can unilaterally refuse to honor a player’s contract by cutting the player but a player is required to play under the contract if he wants to get paid.
Even if the player does not play, and does not get paid, he cannot just “quit” and go work for someone else. The right to quit a job and go work for someone else is the essence of “employment at will.”
Conversely, NFL player contracts are not true contracts of employment for a term because they permit one party, the owners, to unilaterally cancel their obligations therein.
So, the NFL employment paradigm is not employment at will, and is not contractual employment. Frankly, I don’t know what you would call the NFL contract paradigm. To my I knowledge, in the world of employment, it is unique.
A previous poster point, where it was said that in the employment world no one is guaranteed a job, is incorrect. There are many employees that have contracts of employment for a term that are fully enforceable from both sides, absent extraordinary circumstances, such as termination for cause. Moreover, In another context, I was an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement that guaranteed me five days of work for as long as I wanted it, a property right to a job, which was termed a “lifetime job guarantee.” (Rare, I know, but it existed nonetheless.)
In my view, NFL players have been getting the short end of the stick in terms of employment contracts since the beginning of time. It is obviously up to the players union to change the paradigm in collective bargaining and, to that point, I think the current contract holdouts are a strategy that will hasten that end.
It’s high time they gained equal footing. Good for them.
This is why this subject sucks. U purposefully leave out that Zeke and others Who get a huge signing the. Sit out are keeping money they took as a promise to honor a contract. Do any players who hold our return they yearly pro-rated portion? So if he got a little more than 16 million as a signing bonus. Didn’t see where he gave back that 4. And the ability to use funds for years before earning them is huge. But don’t let facts ruin your point.
A lot has to change to make it better for the players. But Vets want the signing bonus. And the bigger issue is the team only 5 th year option. My company. An fire me at will. At least these guys get a bonus. It’s not a great system. Contract is up. They. See to negotiate it.
Any person on this planet who gets 16 million up front before doing anything is hard to feel sorry for. Doesn’t mean the system shouldn’t change. But leaving out the huge bonus’ some players gets just ruins the good points you do have. You can’t leave it out
Point taken. Even though I did mention contractually guaranteed payments, I did gloss over the signing bonuses.
Even though I failed to specifically address the signing bonus issue, I do not think that it changes my argument to any appreciable degree. I take this position because teams can claw back a pro-rated portion of a signing bonus if a player refuses to pay out the term of his contract even if it is true that if a team cuts a player, the player keeps the signing bonus.
In regard to taking pity on a person that gets a multimillion signing bonus, I'll take the position that the amount doesn't matter. The NFL contractual paradigm is a travesty, issues of scale notwithstanding.
Almost no worker has a guaranteed future, NFL does it right. There is a reason why the NFL is more popular then MLB and NBA. Because teams don’t get handcuffed with bad contracts. You can get out of a mistake.
Signing bonus’ are an issue IMO. The players have a right to worry about snort careers. But if u want to work on getting rid of non guaranteed contracts u players shouldn’t get that bonus. It’s a way of pre-paying. And if it’s a big enough bonus it’s protection from owners.
The reality is the guys who hold out aren’t usually the guys screwed by the way the NFL has its contracts set up.
Almost no worker has a guaranteed future, NFL does it right. There is a reason why the NFL is more popular then MLB and NBA. Because teams don’t get handcuffed with bad contracts. You can get out of a mistake.
Just because you throw the word "narrative" in there doesn't make it untrue. His contract is not fully guaranteed.
Even if the player does not play, and does not get paid, he cannot just “quit” and go work for someone else. The right to quit a job and go work for someone else is the essence of “employment at will.”
Conversely, NFL player contracts are not true contracts of employment for a term because they permit one party, the owners, to unilaterally cancel their obligations therein.
So, the NFL employment paradigm is not employment at will, and is not contractual employment. Frankly, I don’t know what you would call the NFL contract paradigm. To my I knowledge, in the world of employment, it is unique.
A previous poster point, where it was said that in the employment world no one is guaranteed a job, is incorrect. There are many employees that have contracts of employment for a term that are fully enforceable from both sides, absent extraordinary circumstances, such as termination for cause. Moreover, In another context, I was an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement that guaranteed me five days of work for as long as I wanted it, a property right to a job, which was termed a “lifetime job guarantee.” (Rare, I know, but it existed nonetheless.)
In my view, NFL players have been getting the short end of the stick in terms of employment contracts since the beginning of time. It is obviously up to the players union to change the paradigm in collective bargaining and, to that point, I think the current contract holdouts are a strategy that will hasten that end.
It’s high time they gained equal footing. Good for them.
Even if the player does not play, and does not get paid, he cannot just “quit” and go work for someone else. The right to quit a job and go work for someone else is the essence of “employment at will.”
Conversely, NFL player contracts are not true contracts of employment for a term because they permit one party, the owners, to unilaterally cancel their obligations therein.
So, the NFL employment paradigm is not employment at will, and is not contractual employment. Frankly, I don’t know what you would call the NFL contract paradigm. To my I knowledge, in the world of employment, it is unique.
A previous poster point, where it was said that in the employment world no one is guaranteed a job, is incorrect. There are many employees that have contracts of employment for a term that are fully enforceable from both sides, absent extraordinary circumstances, such as termination for cause. Moreover, In another context, I was an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement that guaranteed me five days of work for as long as I wanted it, a property right to a job, which was termed a “lifetime job guarantee.” (Rare, I know, but it existed nonetheless.)
In my view, NFL players have been getting the short end of the stick in terms of employment contracts since the beginning of time. It is obviously up to the players union to change the paradigm in collective bargaining and, to that point, I think the current contract holdouts are a strategy that will hasten that end.
It’s high time they gained equal footing. Good for them.
This is why this subject sucks. U purposefully leave out that Zeke and others Who get a huge signing the. Sit out are keeping money they took as a promise to honor a contract. Do any players who hold our return they yearly pro-rated portion? So if he got a little more than 16 million as a signing bonus. Didn’t see where he gave back that 4. And the ability to use funds for years before earning them is huge. But don’t let facts ruin your point.
A lot has to change to make it better for the players. But Vets want the signing bonus. And the bigger issue is the team only 5 th year option. My company. An fire me at will. At least these guys get a bonus. It’s not a great system. Contract is up. They. See to negotiate it.
Any person on this planet who gets 16 million up front before doing anything is hard to feel sorry for. Doesn’t mean the system shouldn’t change. But leaving out the huge bonus’ some players gets just ruins the good points you do have. You can’t leave it out
Quote:
The current NFL player contract paradigm finds that, other than rookie contracts, and absent contract guarantees, owners can unilaterally refuse to honor a player’s contract by cutting the player but a player is required to play under the contract if he wants to get paid.
Even if the player does not play, and does not get paid, he cannot just “quit” and go work for someone else. The right to quit a job and go work for someone else is the essence of “employment at will.”
Conversely, NFL player contracts are not true contracts of employment for a term because they permit one party, the owners, to unilaterally cancel their obligations therein.
So, the NFL employment paradigm is not employment at will, and is not contractual employment. Frankly, I don’t know what you would call the NFL contract paradigm. To my I knowledge, in the world of employment, it is unique.
A previous poster point, where it was said that in the employment world no one is guaranteed a job, is incorrect. There are many employees that have contracts of employment for a term that are fully enforceable from both sides, absent extraordinary circumstances, such as termination for cause. Moreover, In another context, I was an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement that guaranteed me five days of work for as long as I wanted it, a property right to a job, which was termed a “lifetime job guarantee.” (Rare, I know, but it existed nonetheless.)
In my view, NFL players have been getting the short end of the stick in terms of employment contracts since the beginning of time. It is obviously up to the players union to change the paradigm in collective bargaining and, to that point, I think the current contract holdouts are a strategy that will hasten that end.
It’s high time they gained equal footing. Good for them.
This is why this subject sucks. U purposefully leave out that Zeke and others Who get a huge signing the. Sit out are keeping money they took as a promise to honor a contract. Do any players who hold our return they yearly pro-rated portion? So if he got a little more than 16 million as a signing bonus. Didn’t see where he gave back that 4. And the ability to use funds for years before earning them is huge. But don’t let facts ruin your point.
A lot has to change to make it better for the players. But Vets want the signing bonus. And the bigger issue is the team only 5 th year option. My company. An fire me at will. At least these guys get a bonus. It’s not a great system. Contract is up. They. See to negotiate it.
Any person on this planet who gets 16 million up front before doing anything is hard to feel sorry for. Doesn’t mean the system shouldn’t change. But leaving out the huge bonus’ some players gets just ruins the good points you do have. You can’t leave it out
Point taken. Even though I did mention contractually guaranteed payments, I did gloss over the signing bonuses.
Even though I failed to specifically address the signing bonus issue, I do not think that it changes my argument to any appreciable degree. I take this position because teams can claw back a pro-rated portion of a signing bonus if a player refuses to pay out the term of his contract even if it is true that if a team cuts a player, the player keeps the signing bonus.
In regard to taking pity on a person that gets a multimillion signing bonus, I'll take the position that the amount doesn't matter. The NFL contractual paradigm is a travesty, issues of scale notwithstanding.