“And The Dollars, Too”
ROOKIE SALARIES HAVE THE NFL UP IN ARMS
FITSNews – July 2, 2008 – We like Atlanta Falcons’ rookie quarterback Matt Ryan. He’s definitely the best young gunslinger to enter the NFL in several years, and as far as we know, he doesn’t run an illegal dogfighting ring like the last Falcons’ quarterback did.
Oh, and he also beat Clemson last year, in case any of you had forgotten.
Yet while Ryan had a remarkable college career and is no doubt equipped to excel in the professional ranks, he still hasn’t played a single down in the NFL. On the other hand, New England Patriots’ signal-caller Tom Brady has won three Super Bowls, and as much as we hate to admit it, he ranks right up there with Joe Montana as the best big-game quarterback in football history. Which is probably why he gets so much train smoke hot ass.
Anyway, our question is this – why is an untested, unproven rookie like Matt Ryan getting paid more this year than three-time Super Bowl Champ Tom Brady?
Apparently it’s also NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s question, too:
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 made his comments during a question-and-answer period at the end of a week-long sports symposium at the Chautauqua Institution.
Goodell referred to Michigan tackle Jake Long’s five-year, $57.75-million US 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. “Now, with the economics where they are, the consequences if you don’t evaluate that player, you can lose a significant amount of money.
Goodell has a point. Just ask the San Diego Chargers, who bet the House on quarterback Ryan Leaf in 1998.
Of course it’s not the team losing money that’s the issue, it’s the fact that these ridiculous rookie salaries are costing veterans their spot on a roster.
Ryan, who signed a six-year, $72 million deal ($35 million of which is guaranteed), said he understood Goodell’s concerns.
“You can also understand the other side of it, the concern of veterans who have been in the league 10, 12 years and proven themselves but not seen the money,” Ryan said in a phone interview with the Canadian Press Tuesday. “I can understand both sides.”
NFL Players Union leader Gene Upshaw was less understanding, siding with the rookies and reportedly alienating more than a few veteran players in the process.
“If the owners want to stop paying the rookies, all they have to do is stop,” Upshaw said in an interview with Bloomberg Radio’s `On the Ball’ program. “Nobody puts a gun to their head and forces them to pay what they pay.”
True that, but our guess is that the vast majority of Upshaw’s constituency probably agrees with the Commissioner on this one.
Comments
By Truth Seeker on July 2nd, 2008 at 7:18 am
Man I agree 1000% percent. These guys may have been exceptional college players and may one day be great NFL players, but they should have to prove sonething first. I am certainly not opposed to them getting some coin, baseball style, where you get a nice signing bonus based on your draft pick and then prove the rest. Gene Upshaw is right…sorta…no one is literally putting a gun to the owners heads, but these greedy agents are advising their clients not to sign and go for the jugular, and eventually a team is going to sign their top pick beacuse the next draft is next year. Didn’t Master P, aka Percy Miller negotiate a contract for Ricky Williams with the Saints that was incentive based? That’s how it should be, at least as I see it.
By Rob W. on July 2nd, 2008 at 7:33 am
There’s nothing wrong with the system. The market (for football players, in this case) will correct itself- if rookies end up costing teams more than they’re worth, the teams will stop spending so much money on them. Another Ryan Leaf-style flop will send the money straight back to Brady and the veterans.
I’d like to point out that my mind can’t really comprehend the difference between a $72 million contract and a $25 million contract. That’s a ton of cash either way.
By CL on July 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 am
I find it hard to believe the league can’t get a rookie wage scale from the players’ association. Veterans resent the huge rookie salaries more than anyone, and a wage scale (without lowering the overall cap) would mean more money for veterans. The only people with a reason to oppose a scale are the agents.
By sid on July 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 am
What’s the difference between speculating a rookie is going to be good, and paying him tons of money, and speculating a veteran is going to stay at the top of his game (or injury free), and paying him tons of money? In either case, you’re taking a gamble. Granted, a veteran may have proven himself over a couple seasons, but why should the NFL set the ground rules for how much risk a team is allowed to take? If some teams want to take the risk, and some don’t, that’s up to them. As #2 said, the market will correct itself, if there is a problem. And as he also said, these guys make plenty of scratch. This has nothing to do with being able to make a living, and everything to do with egos. Some twelve-year vet griping his $3 mil-a-year contract is less than a rookie’s $6 mil-a-year contract means nothing to me, other than a guy griping he’s being treated unfairly because he feels he’s so much better/deserving. Veterans griping about not making as much as rookies, when they are already making far more in a year than many people make in a lifetime, is not going to get much sympathy from me. Besides, this is a red-herring from the owners/Goodell. As someone on ESPN commented this AM, this issue has never been raised by owners/Goodell before, and looks more like an attempt to gain public sympathy for their efforts as they negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement. Get rid of the players’ union (and all unions, for that matter), and let the owners run their businesses as they see fit. They’re the ones taking most of the risk. If the team sucks, and fans stop showing up, they lose money, not the players. As for Brady, he’s not even the highest paid player on his own team, so why should anyone worry about what someone on another team makes, compared to him? If he’s that important, and he clearly is the most important player on his team, should the NFL step in and adjust his salary to make sure nobody else on the team makes more than him? And what about other QBs who make more than him, but produce less? Should that be addressed, too?
By Crooner on July 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Owners taking all the risk? Bullshit. Name a franchise that has lost value over the last 30 years. None have, because owning a football team gets you into the most prestigious fraternity in the world.
As for veterans grumbling about rookie signing bonuses, that’s also untrue. They understand that the rising tide lifts all ships, and rookie pay factors into their contract negotiations. It also figures into “franchise player” designations, which require the player to be paid based upon the other highest paid players at that position.
I love it when a bunch of free-market capitalists (the owners) try to socialize their work force. It drips with irony.
By sid on July 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Read it again, Crooner. I said “most of the risk,” and pointed out that IF the team loses money, it’s the owner’s money. Players still get paid the same, no matter what revenue the team generates. Owning an NFL franchise is a good investment, but it’s not a guarantee.
As for a franchise that has “lost value,” that’s a rather simplistic way of looking at an investment of this sort, but if that’s what you want, the Lions “lost value” from ‘98-’99, and the Browns “lost value” from ‘06-’07.
You may say veterans grumbling is untrue, which it may be, but others say it is true. And those “others” are actually involved in the business, not just some random fan posting on a political site. There are any number of factors that work into what guys get paid, but if you actually think the majority of NFL players truly understand it all, then you are nuts. Their agents understand, but not most of the players. Most of them see someone (rookie or seasoned veteran) sign a fat contract and start wondering why they aren’t getting more, even though they just signed a big contract a year or two earlier.
Finally, if you think owners want to socialize their work force, then you are, once again, nuts. They’re just playing the cards handed them. Owners did not move for the players to unionize (socialize). That was the players, Einstein. Now that there is a union, the owners deal with it as they see fit. But these “free-market capitalists” would be happy to dissolve the union.