Being able to Franchise Tag Players in the NFL should be illegal

[emperus]

This has to prove the NFL has the weakest Union of all professionals sports. How the owners get to Franchise Tag players seem anathema to our Capitalist system. It's especially egregious given that Football is probably the most dangerous sport of all Professional sports.

/End Rant

 

[Uppsala9496]

About as illegal as using tax payer money to build a new stadium. it is anathema to our Capitalist system.

 

[echo4747]

This has to prove the NFL has the weakest Union of all professionals sports. How the owners get to Franchise Tag players seem anathema to our Capitalist system. It's especially egregious given that Football is probably the most dangerous sport of all Professional sports.

/End Rant

I do agree that nflpa probably the weakest union in pro sports;however, in no way do I think the "franchise label" should be illegal. Why? simply because because it was agreed upon by the union,players,and nfl owners

 

[emperus]

About as illegal as using tax payer money to build a new stadium. it is anathema to our Capitalist system.

I don't like tax-payer funded stadiums. But in that situation, both parties have the ability to negotiate or decide the outcome. Some of the people we elect just make stupid decisions.

With most of the Franchise Tags, the player has no chance to negotiate, the cost of signing with any other team is so high (2 #1 picks I believe) it makes it unreasonable to do so and if the player decides not to accept the tag, he basically can't play that year and when he comes back the next year can still be tagged.

 

[emperus]

I do agree that nflpa probably the weakest union in pro sports;however, in no way do I think the "franchise label" should be illegal. Why? simply because because it was agreed upon by the union,players,and nfl owners

Because, you are forced to work or not work at all at a rate determined by your employer. And because I think the NFLPA is such a damn weak union they effectively have no ability to negotiate anything.

 

[A5]

The franchise tag system was negotiated by the union during collective bargaining. If the players really hate it, they could get it worked on next time the contract comes up. That said, you get a ton of money if it is used on you so it isn't the worst thing in the world.

 

[echo4747]

The franchise tag system was negotiated by the union during collective bargaining. If the players really hate it, they could get it worked on next time the contract comes up.

This.

... or the players could choose a different or no union to represent them

 

[smackababy]

I don't like tax-payer funded stadiums. But in that situation, both parties have the ability to negotiate or decide the outcome. Some of the people we elect just make stupid decisions.

With most of the Franchise Tags, the player has no chance to negotiate, the cost of signing with any other team is so high (2 #1 picks I believe) it makes it unreasonable to do so and if the player decides not to accept the tag, he basically can't play that year and when he comes back the next year can still be tagged.

I don't really have a problem with cities giving what amounts to be tax free loans for stadiums, for exactly the reason you stated. Politicians are elected and if you really don't want that crap to happen, vote in someone who hates that team.


As far as the franchise tag, I don't have any problem with it. Teams get one per year and it is 100% guaranteed money. Players may not like it (Dez Bryant for exmaple, but he will be getting $12.8 million if the Cowboys tag him, so cry me a fucking river), but it is well above what the average player makes in each position. (For example, the WR franchise tag would put Dez Byrant as the 2nd highest paid WR in the NFL, behind only Megatron, whom everyone would agree Bryant deserves to behind) The issue is, teams don't even know the cap yet, so they can't afford to mismanage some big contract and lose players because it was a million or two less than they expected.

 

[emperus]

The franchise tag system was negotiated by the union during collective bargaining. If the players really hate it, they could get it worked on next time the contract comes up. That said, you get a ton of money if it is used on you so it isn't the worst thing in the world.

But, if used you are already worth a ton of money or the teams wouldn't be using it.

Ex. Dex Bryant.
Franchise Tag 1 year: ~13 million.
Long term contract Guaranteed money: ~ 30-40 million.

If he got injured after the 1 year, do you think anyone would sign him to an extended contract that his play the last 3 years has been worth.

Also, laws are generally designed to protect the weaker party in even and especially labor disputes.

 

[MarkXIX]

Can we be reasonable and agree that this "involuntary servitude" to the tune of millions of dollars in salary ain't that bad? I'd work for a really shitty employer like the NFL, involuntarily if they paid me millions of dollars.

 

[emperus]

As far as the franchise tag, I don't have any problem with it. Teams get one per year and it is 100% guaranteed money. Players may not like it (Dez Bryant for exmaple, but he will be getting $12.8 million if the Cowboys tag him, so cry me a fucking river), but it is well above what the average player makes in each position. (For example, the WR franchise tag would put Dez Byrant as the 2nd highest paid WR in the NFL, behind only Megatron, whom everyone would agree Bryant deserves to behind) The issue is, teams don't even know the cap yet, so they can't afford to mismanage some big contract and lose players because it was a million or two less than they expected.

So, the new standard for what is fair is how much money it is? That in itself is anathema to the free-enterprise system esp. when the money in the NFL is a 0 sum game. NFL makes a ton of money, yet they impose a salary cap on the players, they don't impose a cost cap on tickets or drinks/food, so who gets the extra money? The owners do. They come up with an arbitrary salary cap then decide they want to limit ur negotiating power to stay under it.

So whether to you or me it's a whole lot of money is irrelevant to what is fair or right in this situation. The players aren't slaves, the economics dictate what is fair. And that is why the franchise tag exists, because they would fetch far more somewhere else.

 

[echo4747]

But, if used you are already worth a ton of money or the teams wouldn't be using it.

Ex. Dex Bryant.
Franchise Tag 1 year: ~13 million.
Long term contract Guaranteed money: ~ 30-40 million.

If he got injured after the 1 year, do you think anyone would sign him to an extended contract that his play the last 3 years has been worth.

Also, laws are generally designed to protect the weaker party in even and especially labor disputes.

In this case Dez's agent or Dez himself, should be intelligent enough to purchase some type of insurance to recoup some of his wages he could potentially lose.

 

[gorcorps]

lol... weak union

I don't think anybody making that much money is in a "weak" position

 

[emperus]

Can we be reasonable and agree that this "involuntary servitude" to the tune of millions of dollars in salary ain't that bad? I'd work for a really shitty employer like the NFL, involuntarily if they paid me millions of dollars.

But you couldn't and I couldn't either. Cuz they wouldn't want me. A subset of all high school players go to play College football. And a subset of those make it to the NFL. And a subset of those are worth a franchise tag. We are probably talking about the 1% of the 1% of the 1% of talent here (well those talented enough to even play football at the highschool level). And on top of that the NFL is inherently they most dangerous sport and players play under incredible pain and their careers are short lived.

 

[emperus]

In this case Dez's agent or Dez himself, should be intelligent enough to purchase some type of insurance to recoup some of his wages he could potentially lose.

He will, but how is that fair or right?

We are making arguments as to what the players should do or how much money it is, but I don't see what either relates to the argument.

In this new agreement the teams put a cap on how much rookies could make. SO in effect rookies have to stay with their team for 5-6 years (unless they are cut, which again is crazy) with a contract that is renegotiated, then they can be franchise tagged again and again at the end of those 5-6 years until they blow out a knee or two and then they are on 1 year prove it deals.

 

[smackababy]

So, the new standard for what is fair is how much money it is? That in itself is anathema to the free-enterprise system esp. when the money in the NFL is a 0 sum game. NFL makes a ton of money, yet they impose a salary cap on the players, they don't impose a cost cap on tickets or drinks/food, so who gets the extra money? The owners do. They come up with an arbitrary salary cap then decide they want to limit ur negotiating power to stay under it.

So whether to you or me it's a whole lot of money is irrelevant to what is fair or right in this situation. The players aren't slaves, the economics dictate what is fair. And that is why the franchise tag exists, because they would fetch far more somewhere else.

You do understand how the salary cap works right? All the money the NFL makes is split up to the 32 teams (after the ridiculous salaries are paid out to the NFL employees).

And, no player is required to play for any amount of money. The franchise tag is something continuously agreed upon (started in 1993), so the NFLPA has had plenty of opportunities to try and get rid of it, if they wanted. For 99% of players the tag is used on, it is more than they are worth. For the other 1%, crying because they only get a single year contract for a few million less (which is 100% guaranteed, btw), is just a heartbreaking tragedy, I know.

He will, but how is that fair or right?

We are making arguments as to what the players should do or how much money it is, but I don't see what either relates to the argument.

In this new agreement the teams put a cap on how much rookies could make. SO in effect rookies have to stay with their team for 5-6 years (unless they are cut, which again is crazy) with a contract that is renegotiated, then they can be franchise tagged again and again at the end of those 5-6 years until they blow out a knee or two and then they are on 1 year prove it deals.

Your argument makes no sense. A rookie, after 5 years, is almost never worth the average salary of the top 5 players in that position. You think Nick Foles is worth $18 million a year at QB? Because, he is franchised with the Eagles. With the exception to the most elite of the elite 4th or 5th year players, a franchise tag is a giant raise. And, if they happen to get injured during that year and it causes them to be forced to end their career, they just got a hell of a lot more than they would have with a big contract that isn't 100% guaranteed.

 

[amicold]

I think what is egregious is the fact that people get stirred up about how "dangerous" the game is. "I made millions to stay in shape, have access to the best doctors, and do something I love as my career but now I have head trauma and a bad back." The risk to reward ratio is still exceptionally high, let alone the fact that the majority of these athletes probably aren't working with much brain power to begin with.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Welcome to Unions 101. The NFLPA bargained and signed an agreement that applies to all players. For all of the benefits that the players have earned over the past 50-60 years (free agency, salary floor based on revenues, reduced training schedules and workloads, rookie wage scale, etc.) they have had to concede other points to the owners (franchise tag, salary cap, rookie contract lengths, etc.). In a business where a union is involved and gets you benefits that you wouldn't normally receive in a pure capitalist system, you also have to give something up.

 

[smackababy]

I think what is egregious is the fact that people get stirred up about how "dangerous" the game is. "I made millions to stay in shape, have access to the best doctors, and do something I love as my career but now I have head trauma and a bad back." The risk to reward ratio is still exceptionally high, let alone the fact that the majority of these athletes probably aren't working with much brain power to begin with.

I think it would be a better argument to use high school and collegiate level athletes as the "these kids could be fucking up their lives" if we wanted to argue the merits of how dangerous football is. Crying that NFL players could have issues, after receiving the best access to medical and training staff and be compensated more most 1%ers is ludicrous. If you really believe they are ignorant to the fact they are damaging their bodies, you're just not very smart.

 

[vi edit]

I think what is egregious is the fact that people get stirred up about how "dangerous" the game is. "I made millions to stay in shape, have access to the best doctors, and do something I love as my career but now I have head trauma and a bad back." The risk to reward ratio is still exceptionally high, let alone the fact that the majority of these athletes probably aren't working with much brain power to begin with.

Something like 70% of all NFL players will never make more than a million. And that's gross money...no taxes, agent fees, and other costs taken out of it. And the average duration of a player is about 5 years.

For every Megatron or Peyton Manning there's 20 other guys making about 500k a year for 2-4 years before they are cut and done. If you haven't made bank before you are cut or injured then you've basically worked your whole life for something that really has very little career path beyond it. Most retired players aren't going to be sitting in an announcer booth or doing ESPN analysis.

 

[amicold]

I think it would be a better argument to use high school and collegiate level athletes as the "these kids could be fucking up their lives" if we wanted to argue the merits of how dangerous football is. Crying that NFL players could have issues, after receiving the best access to medical and training staff and be compensated more most 1%ers is ludicrous. If you really believe they are ignorant to the fact they are damaging their bodies, you're just not very smart.

I think even high school athletes have to know they're risking damage and injury. No one is that stupid.

Edit: vi, even so, they have made enough that they have enough to live on to pursue another career. If you made it far enough to make it into the NFL only to be cut in a few seasons it's your own fault for pursuing a career with such a low probability of success. Just like when I laugh at all the art majors with shit jobs.

 

[emperus]

You do understand how the salary cap works right? All the money the NFL makes is split up to the 32 teams (after the ridiculous salaries are paid out to the NFL employees).

And, no player is required to play for any amount of money. The franchise tag is something continuously agreed upon (started in 1993), so the NFLPA has had plenty of opportunities to try and get rid of it, if they wanted. For 99% of players the tag is used on, it is more than they are worth. For the other 1%, crying because they only get a single year contract for a few million less (which is 100% guaranteed, btw), is just a heartbreaking tragedy, I know.

Your argument makes no sense. A rookie, after 5 years, is almost never worth the average salary of the top 5 players in that position. You think Nick Foles is worth $18 million a year at QB? Because, he is franchised with the Eagles. With the exception to the most elite of the elite 4th or 5th year players, a franchise tag is a giant raise. And, if they happen to get injured during that year and it causes them to be forced to end their career, they just got a hell of a lot more than they would have with a big contract that isn't 100% guaranteed.

What are you going on about.

1.) I'm sure you didn't read my post because I'm sure I understand how the salary cap works. I'm not even sure what the point of your post was or how it differed to what I wrote.

2.) As to your 2nd point again I'm confounded as to what argument you are trying to make. Reread what you wrote and see if it makes sense to you.

 

[emperus]

I think even high school athletes have to know they're risking damage and injury. No one is that stupid.

Edit: vi, even so, they have made enough that they have enough to live on to pursue another career. If you made it far enough to make it into the NFL only to be cut in a few seasons it's your own fault for pursuing a career with such a low probability of success. Just like when I laugh at all the art majors with shit jobs.

Did you ever play high school sports? I will tell you that when you young you generally think you are indestructible and will live forever.

 

[MetalMat]

I don't have a problem with the franchise tag. It's not like the player is going to make the vet minimum, he is going to get top 5 money at the position. If it's a non exclusive teams can still give the player offers.

 

[echo4747]

He will, but how is that fair or right?

We are making arguments as to what the players should do or how much money it is, but I don't see what either relates to the argument.

In this new agreement the teams put a cap on how much rookies could make. SO in effect rookies have to stay with their team for 5-6 years (unless they are cut, which again is crazy) with a contract that is renegotiated, then they can be franchise tagged again and again at the end of those 5-6 years until they blow out a knee or two and then they are on 1 year prove it deals.

I never said it was fair... look, the world is an imperfect place... Its possible that a player can sign a contract and receive a huge upfront signing bonus... then go out and blow out a knee playing catch in the backyard with his child.. probably gets to keep the signing bonus and is of little value to his employer