veganfan21 wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
This is gonna be bad for Jay Z. It's not only social justice matters that players care about. They care more about non guaranteed contracts and the lack of power they have at the negotiating table. They care about being thrown to the streets the minute an injury makes them less productive, leading to them being replaced by a younger version of themselves who will also eventually meet the same fate. They are becoming more aware that they're risking their physical well-being to line the pockets of people they know don't give a shit about them. And now Jay Z has been voluntarily co-opted by such people. Not gonna end well for his brand. I see him disengaging based on reputation cost alone. L
The players don't care about guaranteed contracts. Everyone knows the total pool of money doesn't change whether the contracts are guaranteed or not. Kirk Cousins was fully guaranteed and he will make the same as any other similar quarterback who signed a big deal. The revenue split in the NFL is lower than a place like the NBA but it is pretty clear the NBA players by the vary nature of the sport have far more leverage.
I think this is simply a sign that the Kaepernick "drama" is pretty much over. He got his day in court and settled. Players kneeling barely registers any more even when it does happen. The NFL is actually growing the total share of cable viewers they have.
NFL players disagree with your assertion that NFL players don't care about guaranteed contracts.
Quote:
I will never understand how billionaire team owners have convinced the public that the players, who put their bodies on the line every week and make less than 50% of league revenue, are the ‘ungrateful’ ones,” Los Angeles Chargers left tackle Russell Okung explained on his Twitter account. “Considering football’s level of brute, immanent physicality, high turnover as well as the short life cycle of its participants, it would seem to me that NFL players are in the most need of fully guaranteed contracts.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vincentfra ... 1edc072b76https://www.tmz.com/2018/07/05/todd-gur ... eed-deals/It's just a negotiating tactic. Guaranteed contracts don't change the total player compensation. They may change how the contract is structured and there may be some who make more or some who make less but it really doesn't effect the players as a whole. They would be much smarter to keep contracts the same and try and get 50% of league revenue. The Kirk Cousins contract was a perfect example. He wanted it all guaranteed and he got it. He got $84 million guaranteed over 3 years. That's $28 million a year. Russel Wilson just signed a 4 year contract, with $107 million in guaranteed money. That's $26.75 million a year. However, his money is actually guaranteed for the first 3 years, which is $35 million a year, and if he isn't cut by whatever the deadline is for year 4, he gets another $24 and then $26 the years after that if they don't restructure it again and give him even more money. So, he will far outearn Cousins in the first 3 years and Cousins will need something like $40 million a year to catch up to him in his next contract for the first two years, and as I said, Wilson may still get a raise on those last two years anyways to bump him up from the non-guaranteed $24 and $26 million a year.
That's why guaranteed contracts really don't mean much. The players aren't going to make more money as a whole with them which makes it a losing fight for the union.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
