Why is the nfl union so weak?

Are you talking about the players union? Im assuming you are.

I thought it was the owners who had an issue with the deal, not the players. I was under the assumption that the players were happy with the current deal and owners just want more money.

 

You would think they would demand guaranteed contracts.

 

18 gane season is a no no for the players

 

Maybe the owners have seen the popularity of college football and recognize that with their brand recognition they could get rid of the entire crop of union players and replace them with scabs and they would still be hugely popular. On the other side of the coin, the players do not have a bunch of other powerful established leagues that they can join like a baseball player can go play in Japan or a basketball player can play in Europe. A strike could test this theory, but that is where the lack of other options comes in. The players would really be putting all of their eggs in one basket with a strike.

 

The owners are unified more then they are in other sports due to a more balanced revenue sharing system.

 

The 1987 NFL strike says hello - Brent Pease for the TD! Too bad nobody watched him or went to the games (even though in the case of season ticket holders, they'd already paid for the tickets, lol).

 

Please. Again the Owners will get everything they want
with some mediocre concessions

Rocket River

 

We actually agree on this. The main question is how much of the season will be lost before the players give in.

 

I hope we get a rookie payscale and guaranteed contracts.

Everything else, I really don't care.

18 games seems kind of dumb to me, but 4 whole preseason games is even dumber.

 

Are guaranteed contracts really that good for the players? The total amount of money available is the same. So it just means that if Jamarcus Russell is still getting paid $7MM / yr, someone else actually deserving isn't going to get that money.

It's the same thing with rookie contracts. If a rookie bust is getting paid, it means some veteran is not getting paid what they deserve.

It really depends if the NFLPA's goals, I guess.

 

i'm not a fan of guaranteed contracts by any means.

 

I'm ok with it assuming the owners gets the salaries lowered, like I think they will.

No contract is ever really guaranteed though, it seems.

 

I think the dangers of guaranteed contracts are that they encourage laziness (Carlos Lee), whining because players know they can't be cut, and they put teams in ugly binds if a key player gets injured. I think one of the reasons NFL teams can go from worst-to-first so quickly and there is so much parity in the NFL is that you don't get saddled with bad contracts and can easily rebuild a team.

That said, people getting cut for playing hard and getting hurt is a problem too.

 

I think if we get a rookie payscale and wage reduction, then guaranteed contracts won't be a problem at all.

If you are willing to overpay a guy in the free agent market, that is your own problem. Guaranteed money in FA only punishes bad management. I also think that guaranteed money would *prevent* more whining than it would encourage, and it would also contribute to more team cohesiveness, which would be nice to have more of in a league that has such ridiculous turnover. I enjoy cheering for a team that largely looks the same for 4-5 years instead of changing completely every 2-3.

But being forced to pay a top 5 pick outrageous money with very little chance of them succeeding is what the real problem is.

 

that is true, but in theory, that's what the signing bonus is for.

Perhaps there could be some kind of stipulation where if a player who suffered a significant injury is cut that he would get a % of remaining contract value. But that could get murky with what's considered significant

 

Certainly all true - a rookie scale would be huge. And you'd think the NFLPA would be on board with that too since it benefits the vast majority of their players.

I also like what the NBA wants to do with limiting contracts to 4 years or so. That also makes a free agent contract less detrimental and less likely to result in laziness/etc. I wonder how the NFLPA would feel about trading that for guaranteed contracts.

 

Good point on the signing bonuses - though those unfortunately only really apply to the top tier of players. I guess lower tier players aren't deserving of it, but it still strikes me as sucky to be an average NFL player, get stuck on special teams, play super-hard to earn/keep your spot, and hurt yourself as a result and get cut.

I think the latter is a good idea, but like you said, figuring out how to define that is difficult. What about players who recover and CAN play but are clearly just never the same, etc.

Maybe some type of basic insurance for NFL contracts? It wouldn't insure the tens of millions, but maybe some baseline of money to help the lower tier of players.

 

This post is complete fiction.

The owners in the NFL are fighting amongst themselves and that is the major cause of the opt out of this deal. The small market/big market teams are at war with each other, not just the players.

In the NBA the owners are pretty united against the players, and in baseball, despite the fan perception of salary issues, the owners are pretty united as well. They really disagree about one issue, a salary cap, but none really hold a desire for it in enough esteem to fight each other to the death over it.