TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Issue Of Rookie Salaries Really Starting To Simmer
AP Photo
The Raiders shelled out a fortune for 2007 top pick Jamarcus Russell, with no idea if he'll ultimately be worth the investment.
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: May 11, 2008
TAMPA - You've worked hard for the money, learning your trade and succeeding in the marketplace.
But here comes that new hire, right out of college.
He hasn't graded his first test paper or run his first mail route, yet his paycheck is bigger than yours. He hasn't been chewed out by the boss or fought traffic to make that 8 a.m. meeting, but he's already got it made.
How would that sit with you?
It sounds zany, but that's the illogical system the NFL has in place regarding rookie contracts.
The top picks in last month's draft will each be showered with millions of dollars in guaranteed money before ever proving themselves at the pro level.
"I'll take it," says Boston College quarterback Matt Ryan, selected by Atlanta with the No. 3 overall choice. "I see both sides of the argument. Maybe in 20 or 30 years and I'm a GM, I'll take the other side."
This $7 billion sports juggernaut has been reluctant to change an unfair playing field, but the issue of rookie salaries is now simmering on the front burner.
It's about time.
While the NFL Players Association appears reluctant to back down from these exorbitant rookie wages, the ridiculous money is affecting draft strategy.
"Trades are a unique thing in the first round anymore because of the cost of the top 10 picks financially," Colts president Bill Polian said. "To take on that cost ... is almost counterintuitive."
Teams owning the top overall pick usually entered the draft wielding considerable clout, but the first is now last in terms of comfort level. And finding a trade partner eager to vault to the top never has been more challenging.
In 2003, Cincinnati's Carson Palmer signed a rookie contract that included $16.4 million guaranteed. The Raiders guaranteed No. 1 choice JaMarcus Russell $29 million in 2007, a bump of 77 percent.
And lest we forget, Russell missed Oakland's training camp in a contract dispute, setting back his pro career.
By paying these youngsters lavishly, based on potential rather than performance, NFL clubs run the risk of alienating core veterans.
These are the same leaders asked to provide guidance for the new millionaires, showing them how to be a professional.
"We've come to one of the few places where you actually make a lot of money before you produce," Indianapolis coach Tony Dungy said. "I think it would be fair to pay veterans more, but this is the system we have right now. It's something we ought to take a look at."
Commissioner Roger Goodell doesn't want to take a look - he wants to take a chisel to a deeply flawed salary structure.
"I do believe this is something we should address because it's not necessarily saving dollars, but putting dollars to the players who should get them," Goodell said.
Here's the starting lineup for this looming skirmish:
On one side are NFL owners, executives and veteran players.
Those who like the status quo include agents, rookies and union head Gene Upshaw.
"Clubs want the players to pay for mistakes they make in drafting," Upshaw said. "We'll never agree to a rookie wage scale in such a short-career sport."
Not every NFL administrator is convinced the current system needs to be scrapped.
"Some of the rookies deserve their contracts, and then some," Bucs GM Bruce Allen said. "It depends on the player. If you get a great player, they will earn that contract, and then some."
Even if the league shifted to an NBA-style wage scale for rookies, there's little reason to believe first-year players would be exploited. Any player who outperforms his initial contract can expect to cash in down the line.
That's the way it works in the real world. Gene Upshaw needs to get real.
You work and you get paid.
Not the other way around.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
Reader Comments
Posted by ( ValricoRick ) on May 11, 2008 at 2:29 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Per Diem comes to mind for first round players. Play to earn, if you prefer. “Will give you a 15 million guaranteed roster bonus, paid in thirds at the beginning of each year, and five hundred thousand for every game you start, each year for three years.” Meaning if the player never breaks the starting lineup he still walks away with $15, if he makes the team every year for three years. If he washes out after two years he still took home ten million. You could include other incentives like pro-bowl selection or what not, but that’s nearly 40 million dollars if they can contribute right away. If it was a quarterbacks contract and you sit him for the first year, he’s still got 5 million for a loaf a bread and some bologna, and if he develops well enough to start in the second year he still has the ability to earn nearly 30 million over three years. If they don’t get a grip on it soon what will happen to the fan base when the cheapest seat in any stadium is $250, and all the games are pay-per-view because the networks can’t get the advertisers to pay Super Bowl prices for spots in a regular season game where the opponents have one win between them and the season is more than half over? I don’t care if these kids get rich, but how much if enough, and how long before professional football can no longer support the weight of the financial monster it is creating?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( daisy4444 ) on May 11, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
A college grad. deserves more pay than a non grad., even if the non grad. has worked there for 20 yrs.. That is what college is all about, an education. Talent is what the teams are paying for, every team is making millions of dollars each year. The more talent that a team has, the more successful that they are. The same is true for business, the more talent, the more money that they make. If this were not true, why go to college???
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( japerez ) on May 11, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
daisy4444, what in the world does what you said have to do with the discussion? Both veterans and rookies were exposed to college. Some graduated, some didn't. That has nothing to do with it.
The question is, if educated the same, why would a new employee with no pro experience make more than a star in the pros? Makes NO SENSE!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drdneast ) on May 11, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
You make some good points, but of course your naivity about NFL business matters flaws your thinking. You say, "there's little reason to believe first-year players would be exploited. Any player who outperforms his initial contract can expect to cash in down the line." Players were exolited for years by owners always crying broke when paying minimal salaries and now that they that they have to share more than 50 percent in revenue, they are still making tons of money. Wouldn't you call players in the pre 90's exploted. And what about those players who will be paid down the line. Do you think Cadillac Willaims will fit in that mold or others like him who suffered early career ending injuries? You sound like a Republican who proably hates unions. Remember this age old business axiom, "The fish rots from the head down." GM moved a large majority of thier plants to Mexico for cheaper labor. The cars they built were even worse than before and they certainly didn't get cheaper. Take those Repulican covered glasses off.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( CoachShreve ) on May 12, 2008 at 12:34 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I think that rookies get payed way to much at first. They should get paid on how they perform on a professional playing field. It is totally ridicalous
to offer a rookie 10's of millions of gaurented money without knowing what he can really do. Let them know how much they can make if they really earn it.Because if you give them all that money at first "it's theirs" What do they have to prove? They are 40 MILLION
DOLLARS richer and they didn't have to play one game yet. I guess what I'm saying is have them earn that big money before you give it to them. You will probly see more players produce a whole lot faster.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Henry58 ) on May 12, 2008 at 6:59 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Kaufman and others act as if the money owners pay for rookies belongs to them. Owners of NFL franchises don't tell you how to spend your money, and it's none of your business or the league's business how they spend theirs. Whether they spend it wisely is another matter and is for them to worry about.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( tatmanfish ) on May 12, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
if you draft a player and they hold out your out a pick. teams are forced to offer the big dough. thats why teams try to trade out of the top 5 or 10. 30 mil waterboy or next hall of famer. nba currently uses a sliding scale that allows rookies to make x amount of dollars. that leaves more money to reward vetrans who have proven themselves. why cant the nfl do this? who would you pay more peyton manning or matt ryan? rookies get paid way to much.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JayBuc ) on May 12, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
drdneast, you exemplify the lack of clear logic of bleeding heart liberals. As a socialist leaning union lover it would seem that you would want the best for all the union members. If you follow that logic then you would see that in a union the ones that make the most money are the ones that have proven themselves over time. The NFL players are hardly oppressed, they are instant millionares. The ones that you, as a liberal, should be rooting for are the veterans that get cut while they can still produce and the NFL retirees that can't afford to live on their measely pensions while unproven wet-behind-the-ears brats earn enough in their first contract to never have to work another day in their lives. Feel sorry for the rank and file real union worker than can't afford to buy a ticket to root for his favorite team.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BUSHSUX ) on May 12, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
JAYBUC, obviously then , you must be a "CONSERVATIVE RETHUGLICAN AZZHOLE".
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( tatmanfish ) on May 12, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
how did politics get in here? socialism is part of our government. haha repubs. our mail system is a perfect example. unions are corporate driven entities. haha dems. who cares if ur rep. or dem. all the problems are the same and need taken care of regardless of political ties. politics suck suck suck. this is a bucs forum. lets talk about them and not the money driven political system we are all victims of. by the way, the min. nfl salary is like 200,000 per year. how could these rookies survive on a salary like that? they could only afford one escalade and 2000-3000 sqft home. such living conditions are unheard of.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( CoachShreve ) on May 12, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Thats what they should get "min.nfl salary" for the first season and maybe the second if they don't prove their selves by then. If you can't live off $200,000 dollars the 1st year or 2 you've got a problem. Some of us has to live off $20,000 a year for the next 10 or so years. They just might have to downgrade from a escalade to something cheaper and live in a 1500 sq. foot home
untill they can prove their selves. And if it so happens they get hurt ya they should be taken care of and their family.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( greg20 ) on May 12, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Looks like attempt at unfair restraint of trade. Even if NFL Players Union signs off on rookie salary schedule, a good agent will bring the owner to heel.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( clairvoyantent ) on May 12, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
everyone's assuming that a rookie payscale would have to be a dramatic cut to what the players are making now. It's really only the top ten or fifteen picks that are out of hand and would be effected. The NBA has a good system that's effective to both player and team - smaller money, but also smaller contract time. Players are able to hit free agency after 3 or 4 years in the league and get max money. Under that plan - NFL players would hit free agency at the age of 25 or 26 - and be able to cash in. This would help 90% of the players drafted. Think of the low third round pick who signs a 6 year deal out of school for 1/20th what a top ten pick got and goes on to become a solid star (think Tanard Jackson). He's stuck making far less than he deserves, while a player like Cedric Benson lives fat and happy and does nothing. With a system like the NBA's: tanard gets rewarded after 3 years and Cedric gets a contract more along the lines of what he deserves. It's a no-brainer. the sdalary cap stays the same - meaning teams are spending more on quality vets and less on unproven rookies.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drdneast ) on May 12, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I always have to laugh when capitalistic Republicans start telling people how much money they should be allowed to make. That, my freinds, is socialism. Capitalism is market place driven economics. The NFL is a perfect place for market drive economics and capitalism. If you don't like it, move to Veitnam. You know, the place we tried to save for capitalism where they now make Nike shoes, pay thier labor about a $1 a day use about $1 in materials and turn around and sell the product for $150. No one is telling Phil Nike how much he should sell his shoes for. If he can find morons to pay over $100 for his shoes because some gentic abnormality endorses them, more power to him. That is also capitalism. Noones twisting these owners arms behind their backs as they laugh all the way to the bank after charging $8 for a beer and $5 for a hot dog.
Report Inappropriate Comments