Should NFL contracts be for one or two years max and be fully guaranteed?

[theguru]

What do you think?

 

I would like to see all NFL players (I would have to think about Rookies but I am thinking two years would be about right) only be able to sign one or two year deals and the full amount of the contract is guaranteed no matter what.

 

Thoughts?

 

Would this be good or bad for the NFL? The players?

[mcpapa]

Players Union would never give in to that one.

[theguru]

Players Union would never give in to that one.

 

Maybe they should.

[plantmanky]

No.

[Clyde]

Maybe they should.

 

Why?

[theguru]

I want to add I think each year of guaranteed signed contracts should also include a lifetime annuity for the player that increases with years of service.

 

Something like 2K a month for life for every Rookie contract signed and 1K a month more for each year. This would also eliminate the need for any type of retirement system. This would be the retirement system for NFL players and it would include everyone that ever signed a NFL contract.

 

The NFL makes plenty of money and they need to take care of their players. Brain damage is serious stuff, not to mention all the other physical tolls on your body and in many cases placing football ahead of academics. In other words, the NFL benefits from players going all out their entire lives to get to the NFL and that kind of commitment needs to be rewarded with money.

[theguru]

Why?

 

Because it is fair to both sides.

 

What difference does a long term contract make if the team in question can cut you at any time. Additionally, all these players that want to renegotiate will be able to do so.

[CincySportsFan]

What difference does a long term contract make if the team in question can cut you at any time.

 

Yeah, I've never agreed with the way they toss around the term "contract" in the NFL. To me, a contract should be binding for BOTH sides. With the current set up the owners can walk away at any time.

[theguru]

Yeah, I've never agreed with the way they toss around the term "contract" in the NFL. To me, a contract should be binding for BOTH sides. With the current set up the owners can walk away at any time.

 

Right, so the contracts should be guaranteed but being fair to both sides not for numerous years.

 

"Me thinks" someone outside of the actual players wouldn't benefit from this.

 

The longer I pay attention to the NFL the more I think it is corrupt from top to bottom.

[CincySportsFan]

Just tossing this out for consideration...what if, instead of guaranteeing the entire contract, you put a limit of 3 years for any maximum length of contract (that way you're not back at the negotiating table every or every-other year), but have a "buyout" clause should ownership want to cut ties? Make it a percentage, based upon how much of the contract is still left.

 

This would keep the owners from chewing up and spitting out someone without any monetary repurcussions. Granted, most owners may still go ahead with most of the cuts, but at least it wouldn't leave the players high and dry.

[Clyde]

My "why" was aimed at the reasoning the NFL would consider this.

 

Why would the NFLPA agree to this?

 

Why can't we let businessmen/women make their decisions and have to live with them?

[mcpapa]

Right, so the contracts should be guaranteed but being fair to both sides not for numerous years.

 

"Me thinks" someone outside of the actual players wouldn't benefit from this.

 

The longer I pay attention to the NFL the more I think it is corrupt from top to bottom.

 

Perhaps. And yet you and I will always watch.:thumb:

[theguru]

My "why" was aimed at the reasoning the NFL would consider this.

 

Why would the NFLPA agree to this?

 

Why can't we let businessmen/women make their decisions and have to live with them?

 

I would like to see those same business people hire an outside financial consulting firm to determine what is in the best interests of the players.

[Clyde]

I would like to see those same business people hire an outside financial consulting firm to determine what is in the best interests of the players.

 

Why? What's in it for owners?

[theguru]

Why? What's in it for owners?

 

I thought you meant the business people that allegedly represent the players.

 

I am sure the owners don't want to change anything because they are almost completely in control.