NFL Teams honor contracts

Let us clear something up. With Marshawn holding out for 20 more lambos and Doug expressing the righteous outrage of the 'working class' I feel to compelled to put an end to a certain misconception.

When a player holds out we always hear this tired cliche, 'if NFL teams do not honor contracts, why should players be expected to?'

Well folks, NFL teams DO honor the contracts they sign with players. Part of the contract is the understanding that when a player signs, it is the guaranteed portions of a contract which are untouchable, and the non-guaranteed portions depend up the player making the roster. This sort of contract structure is a necessity given the violent nature of the NFL and the salary cap. This is not a conspiracy on part of the owners to screw over the poor players.

A player holding out is not the equivalent of a team cutting a player. A player holding out is more like a team or owner denying a player access to the facilities and medical staff in order to pressure them into returning a portion of their guaranteed money.

It's a business. There are rules to how it all works and BOTH sides are well within how the system operates. Lynch has a contract and if he chooses to not show up, he gets fined. If this continues, he can be forced to give back some of that "guaranteed money" he got in the form of a signing bonus. He's paying for the right to hold out.

As of now it's not hurting the team, so those who want to get worked up before the preseason games have even begun are really just wasting their time worrying over something that may never really be an issue by the time the season rolls around

How I look at it, when a team and player sign a contract between each other, the value of the contract is based on past and (mostly) future production.

When a player does not meet the expectations of his contract, a team will cut him, but if he plays ABOVE that level of expectation what is he suppose to do? Just say, hey boss I know I could be cut at any time for not playing up to my contract, but hey enjoy the added value of my talents for free..No.

There's a reason that holding out is a part of the business. Because teams can end contracts with players at any time, the players need a way to regain leverage with their contracts.

Let's say, for example, that the CPA had a rule set up that no player could demand a new contract if they exceed their current one (similar to rookie deal the first three years). The result would be that players and their agents would demand more in guaranteed money to play under those terms, but as you hinted at, that would be bad for the NFL. The product on the field would suffer from all that guaranteed money tied to aging, injured players.

The fair middle ground is what it is today. Teams can cut players if they don't like the terms of the contract any longer and players can demand a new contract when they don't like theirs either.

(I'm in the middle of writting a college paper, so I may not respond right away to any further posts)

Yep, I am tired of the players saying "but they can cut us, so why can't we hold out?"

Um, because the contract is structured so that the team can cut you at any time. If you would actually read the contract you just signed, Doug, maybe you would know that.

Pocketprotector nailed it: the team can cut the player at any time, as long as they pay the guaranteed portion. That's all they signed to in the contract.

A player cannot get out of their contract unless the team releases them from it. That's what they signed up for.

The player only has himself and his agent to blame if the guaranteed amount that the team agreed to pay them is too little for their liking. But they have every right to cut them at any time once the guaranteed portion has been paid out.

There have been plenty of times that a team could not cut a player because the financial ramifications of the cap hit would be too much. The player is underperforming and not earning the money they are making, but the team cannot release them because of the cap hit they would take. Maybe teams should be allowed to hold out from paying those players until they perform better. Then we'd be on even ground. But of course the players would whine nonstop about how unfair that is.

So sick of this.

...and the way the contract is structured, Marshawn Lynch is free to not attend camp or any of the games. He just gets fined for it. Therefore, he is also following his contract and the parameters therein. The OP's analogy doesn't work. This is merely a worker using the parameters of his contract as leverage to re-negotiate the contract.

The contract is not some ironclad document that the players have no escape from or leverage to re-negotiate. Lynch knows what he loses by sitting out within the confines of the contract. If the owners don't like that players hold out, they can always fully guarantee contracts in exchange for making holdouts illegal under the next CBA, but I won't hold my breath on that one.

so Lynch is already tops in guaranteed cash right? So it would be additional years that he wants? or is he just tired?

Teams do honor the contract (because the means are written that they can do these things), but it doesn't mean the double standard still isn't there. Not saying it's right or wrong to hold out, but I definitely understand it. Business is business.

Recon_Hawk":1p1apmn9 said:

When a player does not meet the expectations of his contract, a team will cut him, but if he plays ABOVE that level of expectation what is he suppose to do? Just say, hey boss I know I could be cut at any time for not playing up to my contract, but hey enjoy the added value of my talents for free..No.

Click to expand...

Did Lynch perform above his contract? I don't know exactly where Lynch ranked over the last 2 years specifically, but he signed the second largest RB contract in terms of per year and it was front loaded as well, I'd have to think he was top 3 at worst...especially considering he will be top 6 this year (heard he was top 5 before the Charles signing...). Lynch has been and is being adequately.

My question is, if this turns sour and Lynch decides to retire, how much of the signing bonus does he have to return?

heard danny say it was 15% returned. If the team asks for it.

training camp has started! 13 days till we lace em up in Bronchoville

I have no problem with a player holding out for more money as long as the raise is warranted and the dude brings it on Sundays. Nature of the business. Guys with rare and largely irreplaceable skill-sets are able to use that as leverage.

(though I feel like I've said this in two other threads on this issue)

Harvin only played something like 16 snaps last season right? He still got paid right?

kobebryant":wc59bobk said:

I have no problem with a player holding out for more money as long as the raise is warranted and the dude brings it on Sundays. Nature of the business. Guys with rare and largely irreplaceable skill-sets are able to use that as leverage.

(though I feel like I've said this in two other threads on this issue)

Click to expand...

They can only use those rare and irreplaceable skill sets when there is the possibility of a competing organization that requires those skills.

In this case there is no competition because there are still two more years on the contract. Lynch cannot talk to another team until his current contract expires.

Additionally, the market for Lynch's skills is deflated in the current NFL. It's a passing game; not a rushing one. The guy who is best in the world at repairing CRT televisions is still going to struggle to make ends meet in the flat-screen world.

I can understand an athlete holding out because he feels he's being paid under market value, but Lynch is at his market value - teams are just not paying much for running backs these days.

What point are you making here? There's a well established culture in the NFL of players holding out and teams cutting players at-will. Whether you think a player is being unreasonable in requesting a raise or guaranty is dependent upon the circumstances. Don't pretend that the make-up of the deal grants one side moral superiority over the other.

So your interpretation is if the player underperformed or isn't worth the cost at the end the team can void the contract but if the player overperforms the he can't sit out

Wow that is a one-sided interpretation

To me it is a gray zone. Jackson sitting out for the Eagles was right, them making him play out his final year for about $600k was wrong. Him asking for more money 1-2 years after his new deal was wrong. Players ignoring huge signing bonuses and saying I won't play for that amount is wrong.

Point being - both parties have legal rights. The player can opt not to play and in some cases I think they are right and in other cases I think they are wrong - but either way they have the right

HawkFan72":kh9jmwp3 said:

Yep, I am tired of the players saying "but they can cut us, so why can't we hold out?"

Um, because the contract is structured so that the team can cut you at any time. If you would actually read the contract you just signed, Doug, maybe you would know that.

Pocketprotector nailed it: the team can cut the player at any time, as long as they pay the guaranteed portion. That's all they signed to in the contract.

Click to expand...

There is actually a bit of a check on teams from signing and cutting players willy-nilly: cap penalties. Seattle could not have cut Marshawn Lynch after, say, one year was done on his deal without giving up a lot of cap room. If for some bizarre reason Seattle wanted to cut Percy Harvin today they would be unable to do so, because the guaranteed money that would normally be prorated through the first five years of the deal would then hit this year and put us over the cap. So there are some cases in which teams cannot cut players any time they would like to. (Hell, we probably wouldn't have been able to dump T. J. Houshmandzadeh after only one season if 2010 had not been an uncapped year.)

Also, contracts are not guaranteed but the usual tradeoff for that is the player getting more money up front. So while players run the risk of being cut toward the end of their contracts, they get more money at the beginning of the deal than they probably would if the contract was fully guaranteed.

So the current contract structures do have some benefits to the players.

In short: the team does not have to abide by the same rules as the player. They can cut him, but he cannot do what's needed to stop that from happening.


Got it.



The OPS defense works both ways.

/dumb argument.

pocketprotector":2r7hj8qr said:

Let us clear something up. With Marshawn holding out for 20 more lambos and Doug expressing the righteous outrage of the 'working class' I feel to compelled to put an end to a certain misconception.

When a player holds out we always hear this tired cliche, 'if NFL teams do not honor contracts, why should players be expected to?'

Well folks, NFL teams DO honor the contracts they sign with players. Part of the contract is the understanding that when a player signs, it is the guaranteed portions of a contract which are untouchable, and the non-guaranteed portions depend up the player making the roster. This sort of contract structure is a necessity given the violent nature of the NFL and the salary cap. This is not a conspiracy on part of the owners to screw over the poor players.

A player holding out is not the equivalent of a team cutting a player. A player holding out is more like a team or owner denying a player access to the facilities and medical staff in order to pressure them into returning a portion of their guaranteed money.

Click to expand...

Dude, I just made some of the same points in the marshawn holding out thread and then I saw your thread.

You are totally correct. Players agree to the contract that states the team can cut the player.

Teams are honoring the contract by exercising a clause written into the contract.

No I don't think there is any such thing as a player "over performing" . They do the job they were hired to do or they don't . If they do their job very well then they increase their value to the team come contract time. If they fail to perform in the short term they still get paid because they have a contract. If they fail to preform over the long term then they might get cut or moved. Harvin got paid last season but had no impact on it. He didn't give money back to the team. This season he is going to have a chance to show why he is worth that contract and the money it paid him to be a non factor last season. However another 26 play season from him would be a breach of contract type situation after which he would likely be let go.
Lynch has lived up to his contract so far. He already has a very good contract. He probably doesn't understand it though. He probably has no real understanding of how much his agent takes or how much his tax load is. Hopefully the office will be able to move some things around and make Lynch happy enough to play his contract. If he doesn't then the office has to cut him.

Shadowhawk":q8twxjiu said:

HawkFan72":q8twxjiu said:

Yep, I am tired of the players saying "but they can cut us, so why can't we hold out?"

Um, because the contract is structured so that the team can cut you at any time. If you would actually read the contract you just signed, Doug, maybe you would know that.

Pocketprotector nailed it: the team can cut the player at any time, as long as they pay the guaranteed portion. That's all they signed to in the contract.

Click to expand...

There is actually a bit of a check on teams from signing and cutting players willy-nilly: cap penalties. Seattle could not have cut Marshawn Lynch after, say, one year was done on his deal without giving up a lot of cap room. If for some bizarre reason Seattle wanted to cut Percy Harvin today they would be unable to do so, because the guaranteed money that would normally be prorated through the first five years of the deal would then hit this year and put us over the cap. So there are some cases in which teams cannot cut players any time they would like to. (Hell, we probably wouldn't have been able to dump T. J. Houshmandzadeh after only one season if 2010 had not been an uncapped year.)

Also, contracts are not guaranteed but the usual tradeoff for that is the player getting more money up front. So while players run the risk of being cut toward the end of their contracts, they get more money at the beginning of the deal than they probably would if the contract was fully guaranteed.

So the current contract structures do have some benefits to the players.

Click to expand...

You obviously did not read my whole post.