If a player wanted to operate the same way a typical employee does, they could (essentially) by just signing 1 year deals. But they give that up in exchange for guaranteed payouts that last beyond the time they may be employed.Pullo Vision wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:16 amIn the real world, people do have the same bargaining as an employer- an employee can choose to leave at any time (though giving notice is preferred by the other party) and an employer can terminate employment at any time, potentially including a severance package.skip wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:01 pmI don't think the issue should be "black and white" as in "both or neither". Are you suggesting that in business that an employee should have the same bargaining power as the employer at the table? I don't. If I'm the owner of the business, I'm paying for performance. If my employee fails to live up to their end, I should be able to terminate. I want my team to have the ability to end contracts rather than be saddled with players undeserving of them.Pullo Vision wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:14 pm I'm curious about your view on teams not honoring the contracts they chose to sign, especially given your apparent moral viewpoint about players keeping true to the contracts they sign. Seems to be a disconnect there.
The idea was both parties or neither. Since you see both parties have that power, what about neither? How would league business change if teams weren't allowed to rip up a contract for whatever reason they gave/fabricated, if they had to honor contracts thru signed to the end?
Also curious about your view on a player putting in numerous player options to mimic the outs a team has in a contract. Like adjusting the portion of a contract that's guaranteed, player options are an accepted tool within the current system.
The player's bargaining chip when negotiating a contact is guaranteed money and player options. If they did an effective job in negotiation, they got as much as they could in those guarantees so there should be no issue if a team terminates before the contract end - the player gets that guaranteed money regardless. Ideally they also negotiated player options, though they don't happen as often. I'd suggest the issue at play is the length of the contracts being accepted. There already is accountability on the part of the team to pay out all of the guaranteed money.
Why would regular employees have this right but not NFL players? Well, I'd think the fact NFL players sign contracts would be a significant factor. That fact, and there being a labor union, makes the labor different than what the average person experiences.
You'd previously introduced one apparent inconsistency, and now another-
1- How can you take a moral stand against players not honoring their contracts (by holding out) but not having a problem when a team doesn't honor a contract they signed by cutting that player? A contract is a contract, and must be honored to the end.
2- I can see your point about teams wanting to cut underperforming players. What mechanism do you think should be available to players if their performance outstrips their pay?
I can leave my software engineering job at any time. But they also didn't pay me my first 3 years worth of salary the day I agreed to work for them. If I start underperforming or aren't nearly as good a software engineer as they'd hoped when they hired me, they can let me go in 6 weeks and be out only a few bucks. They don't have to keep paying me for the next 3 years even though I am no longer working for them.