PDA

View Full Version : Goodell: NFL rookie pay scale ‘ridiculous’



GBRulz
06-27-2008, 07:00 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-goodell-rookiepay&prov=ap&type=lgns


Goodell: NFL rookie pay scale ‘ridiculous’


CHAUTAUQUA, N.Y. (AP)—NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said it’s “ridiculous” to reward untested rookies with lucrative contracts, and wants the issue addressed in contract talks.

“There’s something wrong about the system,” Goodell said Friday. “The money should go to people who perform.”

Goodell referred to Michigan tackle Jake Long’s five-year, $57.75 million contract—with $30 million guaranteed. Long was the first overall draft pick by the Miami Dolphins in April.

“He doesn’t have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money,” Goodell said during a question-and-answer period at the end of a weeklong sports symposium at the Chautauqua Institution. “Now, with the economics where they are, the consequences if you don’t evaluate that player, you can lose a significant amount of money.

“And that money is not going to players that are performing. It’s going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that’s ridiculous.”
ADVERTISEMENT

Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field.

His statement was greeted by a long round of applause from the estimated crowd of 2,000 inside the amphitheater.

Speaking to reporters before his appearance, Goodell said he plans to open negotiations with the players union on a revamped labor deal this fall. He’s listened to concerns from all 32 owners in meetings over the past month.

“We just finished a series of one-on-one meetings with all 32 teams, where I have a better understanding and people have a better understanding of the economics each team is facing,” Goodell said. “I think we can identify what it is we need in a negotiation to continue to make the agreement work for the NFL and for the players.”

Goodell said the key need is to have the NFL Players’ Association appreciate the financial challenges owners face with rising stadium construction costs and a faltering economy. Those issues were not anticipated in the previous collective bargaining agreement, which provided players a 60 percent share of the league’s gross revenues.

“As our costs increase outside of player costs, that other 40 percent … squeezes the margins and just makes it financially unworkable,” Goodell said. “There has to be some more recognition of the costs.”

League owners, last month, voted unanimously to opt out of the CBA that was signed in spring 2006. The decision to opt out maintains labor peace through 2011, but will result in changes regarding the NFL’s salary cap and contract signings if a new deal is not signed by March 2010.

Goodell referred to next March as a deadline, but “not the end deadline,” but hoped a deal could be reached by then. If not, teams will enter the following season without a salary cap. While there are concerns some of the NFL’s richer teams would use their vast resources to buy up star players, there’s also a drawback for players.

Under the new rules, the time for free agency in an uncapped year would rise from four years to six and allow teams to protect one extra player with franchise or transition tags. In addition, the two-year lag would allow many teams to extend the contracts of their most important players, maintaining the continuity that is important to winning teams.

Goodell acknowledged the NFL and its owners failed to foresee the economic issues that would face the league when the last CBA was approved.

“There have been some things that none of us could’ve envisioned,” Goodell said. “You have an economy that’s weakening. You have aspects of the deal that we didn’t realize that we were going to be building billion-dollar stadiums. … Things happen. I don’t look back at it as a mistake. I look back at it as what do we need to do going forward?”

MJZiggy
06-27-2008, 07:06 PM
Sometimes that Goodell, he ain't so bad...

RashanGary
06-27-2008, 08:41 PM
Good move if it gets done.

KYPack
06-27-2008, 09:22 PM
Owners opt out of the CBA.

Goodell makes these statements.

Get ready for a strike or serious talk of it looming.

Lurker64
06-27-2008, 09:38 PM
I'm pretty sure a rookie salary scale of some kind is coming in the next CBA, with guarantees that some players are going to get that money that would ordinarily fill the pockets of somebody right out of college. The only person I've actually heard speak out against some sort of sanity in the rookie pay scale is Gene Upshaw, which confuses me.

Really, the only people who would be hurt by a rookie salary system are those top college athletes who are not yet drafted. However they are not team owners, nor are they NFL players and hence they are not represented by the NFLPA, so they really don't have any leverage in the coming CBA discussion.

Scott Campbell
06-27-2008, 10:13 PM
Owners opt out of the CBA.

Goodell makes these statements.

Get ready for a strike or serious talk of it looming.


I don't think the players would bat an eye over an NBA style rookie scale.

MJZiggy
06-27-2008, 10:24 PM
That's what I was thinking. The vets can't like having kids come in and get better contracts than they have just for showing up.

Charles Woodson
06-27-2008, 10:40 PM
That's what I was thinking. The vets can't like having kids come in and get better contracts than they have just for showing up.
agreed, hell i remember Kevin Mwae the president of the NFL players association was complaining about the format, how rookies were basically stealing the money away.
I still think basketball has it right with the rookie contract, and hope to see the format used

Guiness
06-27-2008, 11:02 PM
y'know, everyone complains about it - how did it happen??? Can someone enlighten me how we got to this point? It just doesn't make sense.

mraynrand
06-27-2008, 11:18 PM
I think Jake Long is an effective C.E.O. of Jake Long, Inc. He should work towards an IPO.

LL2
06-28-2008, 06:59 AM
Rookie contract have been ridiculous for a long time. It's about time the commissioner does something about it. Before it's ever enacted you will find a bunch of players jump to the NFL early. I think that happen in the NBA.

Patler
06-28-2008, 08:51 AM
A meaningful rookie pay limit will not be controversial at all. Veterans have complained about escalating rookie salaries for years. With a salary cap each year. veterans would just as soon get more for themselves, with less going to unproven rookies.

The keys from the players perspective for the upcoming negotiations will be what income sources go toward determining the salary cap, and what percentage of that goes to the players. Everything else is incidental. Those are the issues about which they might dig in their heals. They will talk free agency, no salary cap and other issues, but when it comes down to it, the keys will be what team income sources will be used for determining a salary cap, and what percentage the players will get of it.

RashanGary
06-28-2008, 09:18 AM
I'm pretty sure a rookie salary scale of some kind is coming in the next CBA, with guarantees that some players are going to get that money that would ordinarily fill the pockets of somebody right out of college. The only person I've actually heard speak out against some sort of sanity in the rookie pay scale is Gene Upshaw, which confuses me.

Really, the only people who would be hurt by a rookie salary system are those top college athletes who are not yet drafted. However they are not team owners, nor are they NFL players and hence they are not represented by the NFLPA, so they really don't have any leverage in the coming CBA discussion.

Right on.

sheepshead
06-28-2008, 10:34 AM
I've been saying for years now. I'm glad Goodell is addressing this and he needs to make this happen by whatever means necessary. It will go along way in leveling out the playing field and adding fairness to the biggest hyped up overrated crap-shoot in all of sports: The NFL Draft!

sheepshead
06-28-2008, 10:38 AM
y'know, everyone complains about it - how did it happen??? Can someone enlighten me how we got to this point? It just doesn't make sense.

You obviously have not been paying attention. This time of year especially when you read about the contracts that get signed. Remember the first time you heard the word "slotting". That's when it got nutty. My favorite was Brady Quinn when his agents argued that he should be paid where he was "projected " to be picked. That was a beauty.

Patler
06-28-2008, 11:00 AM
My favorite was Brady Quinn when his agents argued that he should be paid where he was "projected " to be picked. That was a beauty.

The same thing was said by Aaron Rodgers' agent. What they really mean is that first round slots don't apply to QBs, because they are "special"!

pbmax
06-28-2008, 12:10 PM
There is a rookie salary cap pool that you cannot exceed, but the cap number only applies to the first year of the contracts. There are limits as to how much base salary can grow per year (25% I believe). However, it does not effectively limit bonuses after the cap limit expires. So agents and players get large bonuses paid to them after the first cap year is over. Many of the top first round contracts contain almost no singing bonus so they can max out the amount of base salary and then collect options and roster bonuses that may be guaranteed.

Second, comparatively speaking, the large contracts are for the first 15 or 16 picks of the first round. After that, they are very reasonable and can run as long as five years (six for the top of the draft I think, Patler can correct the details in a subsequent post :lol:). So this is not as big an issue as it seems if you were thinking ALL rookie contracts are out of whack.

Third, it will be a big deal to the Union even if veterans would agree to a stricter rookie wage scale. Without guaranteed contracts, football players short careers are best compensated by upfront money and any guarantees they can get. These first round deals DO represent real money and are a significant part of the total dollars teams spend on player costs each year. That figure is much more important than the idiotic numbers floated by agents and teams after a new contract is signed or the cap dollars a team is carrying. Player costs are checks actually written.

Florio thinks the Union is against a tighter rookie scale because agents would lose dollars with smaller contracts. I think that is a real, but secondary issue. The bigger issue is money paid to the players. If the savings from this were to go to actual player costs elsewhere, then it wouldn't be a problem. But there is nothing in any rookie wage scale proposal that says teams must spend the saved money on other players. If you tell a veteran that we are getting a new, more restrictive rookie wage scale AND you aren't going to see any new money, then he isn't as likely to vote for it.

The cap numbers for the rookie contracts are pretty low. The Packer draft salary cap pool for Hawk's rookie class was $6,647,633 for 12 players. That's peanuts cap wise. The real number everyone is worries about is actual cash spent on bonuses, etc.

A new rookie wage wouldn't seek to lower the cap numbers, it would seek to lower actual rookie player costs. And there has been no proposal I know of that would enable the union to ensure that even a portion of that saved money will go back to the veterans.


y'know, everyone complains about it - how did it happen??? Can someone enlighten me how we got to this point? It just doesn't make sense.

Merlin
06-29-2008, 08:29 PM
I've never been a fan of the huge contracts that rookies from the draft sign. The first things any employer look for in a newly acquired employee is if they show up for work, show up on time, and show up able to do the job with which they were hired for. If you hold out, see ya. If you are physically unable to perform, see ya. Teams that overpay created this mess and now the owners are whining. Seems to me though doth protest too much.

Scott Campbell
06-29-2008, 08:47 PM
A new rookie wage wouldn't seek to lower the cap numbers, it would seek to lower actual rookie player costs. And there has been no proposal I know of that would enable the union to ensure that even a portion of that saved money will go back to the veterans.


The saved money would go by default back to more veteran players. The CBA requires that roughly 60% of NFL total income goes to players. If the rookie pool becomes a smaller portion of that 60%, there is more leftover that Ted and others have to spend on free agents, or signing their own.

pbmax
06-30-2008, 11:03 AM
Not necessarily. For two reasons. One, the 60% figure is the number the owners want reduced.

But the more important reason is the the 60% of Total Revenue produces the cap number. Teams actually never spend just the cap amount in actual dollars, usually they are well over it. Think signing bonuses in year one and dead cap money for two examples.

Reducing the total amount of money a rookie deal can provide would be a precise way of reducing some teams expenditures without necessarily having ANY affect on the cap. The cap, in terms of actual money spent, is just an accounting tool, a way to count what you MAY spend, past, present and future on recent contracts.

But since the large money deals we are talking about happen for only the top half of the first round, this isn't going to benefit many veterans at all. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but the idea that vets will be all for it and the union can't oppose it is overestimating how much money and how many players this will affect.



A new rookie wage wouldn't seek to lower the cap numbers, it would seek to lower actual rookie player costs. And there has been no proposal I know of that would enable the union to ensure that even a portion of that saved money will go back to the veterans.


The saved money would go by default back to more veteran players. The CBA requires that roughly 60% of NFL total income goes to players. If the rookie pool becomes a smaller portion of that 60%, there is more leftover that Ted and others have to spend on free agents, or signing their own.

pbmax
06-30-2008, 11:04 AM
And the CBA does not require the teams to spend 60%, the minimum cap number is a lower percent.


The saved money would go by default back to more veteran players. The CBA requires that roughly 60% of NFL total income goes to players. If the rookie pool becomes a smaller portion of that 60%, there is more leftover that Ted and others have to spend on free agents, or signing their own.

Patler
06-30-2008, 01:32 PM
And the CBA does not require the teams to spend 60%, the minimum cap number is a lower percent.


The saved money would go by default back to more veteran players. The CBA requires that roughly 60% of NFL total income goes to players. If the rookie pool becomes a smaller portion of that 60%, there is more leftover that Ted and others have to spend on free agents, or signing their own.

In 2008, the minimum team salary is 86.4% of the team salary cap. It started at 84% in 2006, and was to go up 1.2% each year to a max of 90%.