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

[emperus]

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.

I just don't think workers have or have ever had the same bargaining powers as management. Most important worker rights in this country had to be legislated.

Wait, you think the ability to have free agency is a benefit that the players should be happy they received?

 

[emperus]

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.

And if the player blows out his knee that year?

 

[MetalMat]

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.

You do realize that every following year the same player is franchise tagged the value goes up by a percentage right?

 

[Gunslinger08]

I just don't think workers have or have ever had the same bargaining powers as management. Most important worker rights in this country had to be legislated.

Wait, you think the ability to have free agency is a benefit that the players should be happy they received?

Free agency was the big benefit the players received in exchange for the franchise tag. Check out the 1993 CBA and all of the changes it introduced. Pretty crazy that football functioned before that.

I agree that the money holders tend to have more power in any negotiation. I don't think there's really a way around that, unless you want government dictating salaries.

 

[MetalMat]

And if the player blows out his knee that year?

Well which way do you want it? A team signs the player to a large signing bonus and gets screwed or the player gets screwed?

 

[smackababy]

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.

No, you don't understand. There is no "extra money" and the salary cap isn't arbitrary. It is literally what the NFL makes that year after salaries divided by 32. The NFL invests every dollar it makes back into itself. As far as the cap on ticket prices, they are set by the market. You cry about players getting some kind of forced labor and it being anti capitalistic, but then you want type of anti capitalistic practices done to ticket prices?

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.

In 99% of cases, the franchise tag overvalues players far more than it undervalues them. Your entire premise that they could be hurt and lose out on money is only applicable in maybe 1% of cases, and even then, probably not. If a player gets a $30-40 million 4 year contract, and is injured in their first year, how much of that money is guaranteed against injury and how much of it was incentive based?

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.

Wait, we are crying because a guy who got a free fucking college education only got to make $500k for 2-4 years? Yeah, please cry me a fucking river over the plight of the poor NFL player.

 

[emperus]

Free agency was the big benefit the players received in exchange for the franchise tag. Check out the 1993 CBA and all of the changes it introduced. Pretty crazy that football functioned before that.

I agree that the money holders tend to have more power in any negotiation. I don't think there's really a way around that, unless you want government dictating salaries.

Yeah, that's why I said it was crazy. The ability to sign with who would pay you more is a benefit obtained by the union? That in itself shows how weak the Union is.

The government regulated the NFL and it should make all these unfair practices illegal. Just as it did forcing people to work 40+ hour weeks without extra pay or overtime (simplified that).

But, I agree that there is no political will in that because of the huge salaries they already receive. But, that doesn't make it right.

 

[SSSnail]

I think you should start a non-profit to raise awareness and help combat the abuse of these poor NFL millionaires...

 

[emperus]

No, you don't understand. There is no "extra money" and the salary cap isn't arbitrary. It is literally what the NFL makes that year after salaries divided by 32. The NFL invests every dollar it makes back into itself. As far as the cap on ticket prices, they are set by the market. You cry about players getting some kind of forced labor and it being anti capitalistic, but then you want type of anti capitalistic practices done to ticket prices?

No it is not. The salary cap is generated prior to the season. It is a percentage of I believe the precious years revenues. The owners do in fact make profit every year.

In 99% of cases, the franchise tag overvalues players far more than it undervalues them. Your entire premise that they could be hurt and lose out on money is only applicable in maybe 1% of cases, and even then, probably not. If a player gets a $30-40 million 4 year contract, and is injured in their first year, how much of that money is guaranteed against injury and how much of it was incentive based?

Who determines what overvaluing a player is? Isn't that what a free market is and the point of capitalism? Value is determined solely on what you can get for an item. As to the injury issue. I think that is the acceptable loss the team has to take for a player playing such a dangerous sport. You think that rish should fall on the player?

Wait, we are crying because a guy who got a free fucking college education only got to make $500k for 2-4 years? Yeah, please cry me a fucking river over the plight of the poor NFL player.

Free College Education? Again, we aren't talking Economics here. THe player played football in college in a system which garnered his college huge revenues. In fact College players should probably be paid on top of the free "Education" they received. And honestly, these college classes are so rigged and these programs so demanding, I wouldn't say that got a college education at all.

 

[MarkXIX]

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.

Speak for yourself, I'm a physical specimen! I wish the US Army would franchise tag me to the tune of millions of dollars in salary at this point. Would be nice. Especially since I lived near a mine field, had mortars randomly lobbed in my direction, dealt with potential Taliban defectors who had guns on them, and lived near an open burn pit for months at a time.

These guys know what they're getting into just like I did. Difference is, I don't control the wars I get sent to. They know EXACTLY what they're getting when they get this franchise tag.

 

[emperus]

I think you should start a non-profit to raise awareness and help combat the abuse of these poor NFL millionaires...

Really dude. Fair is Fair. Don't care how much money is involved. It's the same concepts, fair representation and fair treatment.

 

[emperus]

Speak for yourself, I'm a physical specimen! I wish the US Army would franchise tag me to the tune of millions of dollars in salary at this point. Would be nice. Especially since I lived near a mine field, had mortars randomly lobbed in my direction, dealt with potential Taliban defectors who had guns on them, and lived near an open burn pit for months at a time.

These guys know what they're getting into just like I did. Difference is, I don't control the wars I get sent to. They know EXACTLY what they're getting when they get this franchise tag.

I'm not sure if you are kidding. But, I think this is generally the crux of the problem. You may be a physical specimen but you are not anywhere near a physical specimen as anyone in the NFL is. If you were, you would be in the NFL. It's that simple.

That being said, I don't think you or NFL players are equivalent.

 

[SSSnail]

Really dude. Fair is Fair. Don't care how much money is involved. It's the same concepts, fair representation and fair treatment.

It is fair, they bargained and accepted the terms. This is known to everyone except you.

 

[angminas]

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.

They're not being forced to not work at all if they don't accept. There are plenty of places hiring. Or they could start a competing league. Typically, non-negotiable wages keep the wages down...a franchise tag keeps the wages up. These guys are being offered basically the third highest salary in the world of anyone doing what they do. Waah.

Wait, we are crying because a guy who got a free fucking college education only got to make $500k for 2-4 years? Yeah, please cry me a fucking river over the plight of the poor NFL player.

This, except the bolded part.

 

[MarkXIX]

I'm not sure if you are kidding. But, I think this is generally the crux of the problem. You may be a physical specimen but you are not anywhere near a physical specimen as anyone in the NFL is. If you were, you would be in the NFL. It's that simple.

That being said, I don't think you or NFL players are equivalent.

Of course there's some sarcasm in there. I am probably in better shape than say 95% of this forum's participants, but how does the fact that these guys have in effect "designed" themselves for this voluntary job and lifestyle mean that they should somehow not be subject to a set of rules that were bargained for on their behalf AND where they still end up with millions of dollars in salary?

Hell, arguably, you taxpayers (myself included) and voters ought to be getting a better bargain for us warfighters through our union, otherwise known as Congress.

My ultimate point is, this is all bullshit. Guys are getting paid millions to do what they want to do. No one is making them. At some level they agreed to this "benefit" and they're making millions of dollars even if they're mildly unhappy with it.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

About as illegal as using tax payer money to build a new stadium.

Until you understand collective bargaining you should probably shut up.

 

[emperus]

Of course there's some sarcasm in there. I am probably in better shape than say 95% of this forum's participants, but how does the fact that these guys have in effect "designed" themselves for this voluntary job and lifestyle mean that they should somehow not be subject to a set of rules that were bargained for on their behalf AND where they still end up with millions of dollars in salary?

Hell, arguably, you taxpayers (myself included) and voters ought to be getting a better bargain for us warfighters through our union, otherwise known as Congress.

My ultimate point is, this is all bullshit. Guys are getting paid millions to do what they want to do. No one is making them. At some level they agreed to this "benefit" and they're making millions of dollars even if they're mildly unhappy with it.

Let me ask you, can one in an inferior bargaining position ever bargain effectively? So, if a bargain is reached is it in fact fair?

I know that is an extreme analogy, but if someone puts a gun to your face and asks you to negotiate, is the fruit of the negotiation fair? If you have a 24 year old NFL player whose family is dirt poor and the NFL owners (who are Billionaires) are telling them that if they don't sign this contract that they will not work next year (not make any money) while the NFL owners themselves have already structured their TV deals to pay them that year even if the players strike, who has the greater bargaining position? And can any deal really be fair?

The millions part seem to be a little bit of jealousy. The amount they are getting paid shouldn't matter. What should matter is whether it is fair to force someone to play where they don't want to and furthermore to force them to take less money to play there in a field (football) where there are no other options to practice your specialized craft.

 

[smackababy]

No it is not. The salary cap is generated prior to the season. It is a percentage of I believe the precious years revenues. The owners do in fact make profit every year.

Owners have nothing to do with the salary cap. It is mandated by the NFL and it is their revenue. Individual franchise owners get profit from things like ticket sales, merch, etc, but it has nothing to do with the amount of money their organization is allowed to spend on players. If it was, the Cowboys would be the Yankees and have like 80% of the top talent.

Who determines what overvaluing a player is? Isn't that what a free market is and the point of capitalism? Value is determined solely on what you can get for an item. As to the injury issue. I think that is the acceptable loss the team has to take for a player playing such a dangerous sport. You think that rish should fall on the player?

If you really think 99% of players being given the franchise tag would garner a market value of the average top 5 salary in their position, you don't watch football.

Free College Education? Again, we aren't talking Economics here. THe player played football in college in a system which garnered his college huge revenues. In fact College players should probably be paid on top of the free "Education" they received. And honestly, these college classes are so rigged and these programs so demanding, I wouldn't say that got a college education at all.

Lol, wat? So, getting a free or nearly free ride through a big school is not some kind of incentive? Sure, most of these guys don't take advantage of it, but they are certainly offered it. You cry about the quality of education athletes receive. Do they not attend all the same classes as other students? If the overall quality of education is lacking, that has nothing to do with NFL and collegiate players.

Let me ask you, can one in an inferior bargaining position ever bargain effectively? So, if a bargain is reached is it in fact fair?

You continuously claim the players are in the inferior position. But, are they? That is the entire point of them having the NFLPA. They, as a group, can collectively bargain for things, such as improvements to practice and training, salary demands, free agency, player conduct rules. The NFL is the weaker party, despite having all the money. What happens if a player strike ensues? You can bet the NFL stands to lose a lot more than the players.

 

[vi edit]

And if the player blows out his knee that year?

How is it any different than doing it during any other contract year that they haven't resolved before seasons end? What if a potention first round player blows out a pec during the combine? What if AP broke his collar bone in the BCS game instead of early the season at Oklahoma?

What if Carroll had given Lynch the ball on the one yard line? Would Brady have another SB win?

The entire NFL is a game of "if's".

 

[CPA]

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.

And it's guaranteed, unlike all other player contracts.

 

[MarkXIX]

Let me ask you, can one in an inferior bargaining position ever bargain effectively? So, if a bargain is reached is it in fact fair?

I know that is an extreme analogy, but if someone puts a gun to your face and asks you to negotiate, is the fruit of the negotiation fair? If you have a 24 year old NFL player whose family is dirt poor and the NFL owners (who are Billionaires) are telling them that if they don't sign this contract that they will not work next year (not make any money) while the NFL owners themselves have already structured their TV deals to pay them that year even if the players strike, who has the greater bargaining position? And can any deal really be fair?

The millions part seem to be a little bit of jealousy. The amount they are getting paid shouldn't matter. What should matter is whether it is fair to force someone to play where they don't want to and furthermore to force them to take less money to play there in a field (football) where there are no other options to practice your specialized craft.

The millions part DOES matter because it makes this virtually unlike any other situation where bargaining is unfair. It affords them the opportunity to say "no" if they want to more than any other situation the average person might ever find themselves in. It affords them the opportunity to get the best medical care in the world if they need/want it out of their own pocket if they need/want to.

I'm just curious, are you trying to interview for the union head for the NFLPA or something?

 

[emperus]

How is it any different than doing it during any other contract year that they haven't resolved before seasons end? What if a potention first round player blows out a pec during the combine? What if AP broke his collar bone in the BCS game instead of early the season at Oklahoma?

What if Carroll had given Lynch the ball on the one yard line? Would Brady have another SB win?

The entire NFL is a game of "if's".

Not sure what point you are making. Risks are inherent in the game. The difference is that the franchise tag makes a player takes those risk the next year following the end of their contract (the end of their current risk timeframe).

Dez Bryant is an unrestricted free agent. He can sign with anyone. Below is the guaranteed money he would get now vs. the guaranteed money he would get if he is franchised.

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

If he got injured next year he would be out close to ~30 million dollars. That seems fair to you?

 

[emperus]

And it's guaranteed, unlike all other player contracts.

Untrue. Most players who are franchised would generally get more guaranteed money by signing new contracts. Else, what would be the point of franchising them? You don't franchise scrubs. Someone like Dez Braynt is guaranteed 30-40 million if he signs a new contract.

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

 

[emperus]

The millions part DOES matter because it makes this virtually unlike any other situation where bargaining is unfair. It affords them the opportunity to say "no" if they want to more than any other situation the average person might ever find themselves in. It affords them the opportunity to get the best medical care in the world if they need/want it out of their own pocket if they need/want to.

I'm just curious, are you trying to interview for the union head for the NFLPA or something?

So your argument is basically because you are wealthy you have no right to be treated fairly or have equitable rules? I guess wealthy people shouldn't have the redress of court? So, if a wealthy person rents property and he sues he/she should lose because the money owed is a pittance compared to the money they already have. How far do you want to go with your argument?

It's also interesting how you see this from the perspective of the player being already wealthy and not the owners who are even moreso wealthy..

 

[lupi]

Love this revisionist history. The union argued for the tag provision and they got it put in the CBA.