Man he sure would love Daniel Snyder. I think the Texans are going to back themselves into a corner where the demand is too high, but the return for a high calibre player is also too low when teams refuse to be high balled. They won't want to settle in the middle and they're going to drag it into the regular season. Watson hurts his playing career a TON by sitting out. The Texans were going to suck next year with or without him. Without him they'll land the top pick. So it's really much worse for the player to sit out than for the team.
The NFL "Free" Agency set up is really nothing more than a feudal system, where the "peasants/players are "free" only on paper, but in reality they're tied to their lords/owners. I get that the owners really want to be able to continue their old "slave" method of having total and exclusive control over players, but this is really just "free" in name only. A player should be able to walk away once their contract is completed, no strings attached, and further, if they are willing to renounce all benefits of a contract - forfeiting any unpaid salary, and returning any bonuses (prorated for time played), they should be allowed to walk. Of course, I doubt very few, if any, players would agree to give up money, but they should have that choice. There is no argument that owners can make that they have to be allowed to recoup their "investment", if that "investment" is returned to them. It's not like they developed these players., like baseball with a minor league system - their "development" costs are paid by colleges and high schools. The players have to share blame though because they've agreed to this feudal system. Until they get enough courage to hold out until the owners yield, they'll continue to be shackled to teams even when they're supposedly "free" agents.
I'd shed a tear for NFL players if they were making $60,000/year and being handcuffed by the poor owners. But they're not and this analogy is ridiculous. Professional athletes, especially super athletes, have the most negotiating power of any profession in the world. They're hardly peasants and your analogy is extremely flawed. But they should get rid of the franchise tag and the teams should be in favor of replacing that system with something that models the bird rights model of the NBA. Franchises will then get an option to offer more money to a homegrown player than the competition and maybe omit X amount of those dollars from the cap. Not sure how it would work because the NBA is all guaranteed money. As far as it pertains to Watson, he's under contract and signed his contract. I'd assume your response is regarding Marcus Maye. Watson shouldn't have signed his extension if he didn't plan on living out his contract. He can sit out if he wants but the NFLPA agreed to increased fines for doing so on the last CBA. So again, I won't shed a tear for a guy who just signed a deal for $73 million guaranteed for injury as well as long as he shows up.
How do they have the most negotiating power in the world, specifically NFL players? If that were true, Watson could rescind his signing, give back the money and walk free and clear, but even if he offered to do that, the Texans wouldn't agree nor would they be compelled to. If a "civilian" wants to leave his job, he's free to do so. The employer can't tell him "Oh no, you can't leave! You're here until your contract expires". The amount of money an athlete receives doesn't change that equation. And in the NFL, there is no such thing as a "homegrown player" - there's no minor league or developmental league or academy. A team just happens to get lucky and drafts a guy who was developed by a college and high school, and maybe private coaching in the case of QBs. Where's the "homegrown" element? As far as Watson, do you know all the details of the contract he signed? Do you know for certain that he wasn't told that he would have input into who would be hired as GM/CS? Because he claims he was given this promise. If so, then he has every right to feel was lied to and that the contract he signed was reneged upon by the team. Worst case, if he feels like he can't trust the team any longer and wants to leave, if he's willing to give back his signing bonus and any unearned salary, then he should be able to walk away.
What makes you think they won’t settle in the middle, which will be a huge haul for Watson? It’s in every parties’ best interest for the Texans to get as much as possible this year and begin rebuilding their roster now, and they will still likely get a top 3 pick next year, if not 1st overall.
Whether he was told if he'd have input or not is irrelevant. Unless it's in his contract, it's just a hand shake agreement. Superstar athletes negotiate their own contracts for millions of dollars and can leverage their way out of the situation for the most part as Watson is trying to do. The contracts are structured so that they are locked in, that's not the teams fault, that's the way the system works. There aren't a ton of professions in the world that you can leverage leaving the organization to get a $3-4 million raise. I guess you're right though, employees at lower tiers can walk away from a job a bit easier to go to a competitor. As far as homegrown players, read up on bird rights. The NBA rarely sees stars come from developmental leagues. But they have the ability to offer players more money if they drafted the player or I believe if they have X number of service years with the organization (I'd have to check on the latter). It's the reason that a team like the Bucks were able to retain Giannis in a smaller market as compared to him leaving for Miami or LA, which are bigger markets and more desirable cities for a young person to live in than freezing cold small-town (relative) Milwaukee. It'd be difficult to work in the NFL because the NBA has max deals and then "super-max" deals that cap a players contract earnings. It'd have to be off-cap money or something and I don't know how that would work. But there is a lot of envy from the NFL players as they see what players in other leagues (MLB included as well) make.
But who created the system? The teams (owners). And because the players didn't have a lot of leverage they agreed to it. And what really makes the owners position almost unbeatable is that the NFL is exempt from antitrust laws. Remember when the players actually did hold out, and the NFL brought in scabs? The players finally had to back down because they really had no leverage. Here's an article in the Washington Post that outlines how the NFL is endowed with power that allows it to crush any player opposition: How the government helps the NFL maintain its power and profitability - The Washington Post "To understand just how the government has helped the NFL on its meteoric rise, here are the top three ways: An antitrust exemption: In 1961, Congress approved legislation that allowed professional football teams to pool together when negotiating radio and television broadcasts rights. The law, signed by President John F. Kennedy, was the first action by the federal government that would spur the growth of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise, academics say. The idea was to support the fledgling sports league...Today, however, the NFL makes an estimated $7 billion in revenues just from their television deals. Hands down, NFL games are the most popular programming on television. Last fall, 34 of the 35 most-watched TV shows were NFL games. “Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic. Tax-Free: At the same time the NFL was given an antitrust exemption, the Internal Revenue Service expanded its definition of non-profit entities to include “professional football leagues.” That special status, added to Section 501(c)6 of the Internal Revenue Code, means the NFL’s headquarters in New York led by Goodell is spared tax payments that some estimate to be $10 million annually...” highlighting the power of the NFL’s lobbying operations. The NFL defends its status, saying its individual teams are profit-making and do pay taxes. Stadiums, Facilities: Local subsidies have helped NFL teams fund new stadiums and all the infrastructure around them. About 30 stadiums have been built with some or all-public financing,...Today, the city of Cincinnati is still reeling from its decision in 1996 to use an increase in sales taxes to build and maintain stadiums for the Bengals and baseball team, the Reds. Sales taxes didn’t cover the expenses, and the city is struggling with $43 million in annual expenses to maintain the stadiums." With all this money and power, the owners can afford to weather almost any strike by the NFLPA. Coupled with that however is the reality that NFL players aren't unified by the a common resolve. Some of the biggest stars don't want to risk any of their big contracts, and many of the lower paid players don't have enough money set aside to weather a strike and their careers are already short compared to "normal" workers in unions who might be able to work for 10 or 20 years to recoup whatever they lost during a strike. Here's a long, but really good article laying out the history of the NFLPA and its fights with the NFL: The 1987 NFL Players Strike Created The Modern NFL (deadspin.com) The bottom line is that until the players really get unified like the MLBPA did, they're going to have to suffer at the hands of the owners.
The problem is that you're defending the highly paid players that have the most power and not the lower tier players that are really treated like shit. The guys that get cut 4 times in a year and will be lucky to get a game check with no injury guarantee. The CBA has been negotiated a bunch since the aforementioned holdout in the 80s. The leverage back then is much different then the leverage now. What sort of leverage does any employee (even unionized employees) have over the owner of a company? They're employees of an organization just like you or me. If they'd like to do something else, then they should retire and choose a different profession. The more "power" the players end up holding like you're advocating for, the more the league is going to be ruined by a lack of parity like the NBA. And it's already trending that way with these power grabs that only benefit the top 1% of NFL players. Do you really want players to be able to force their way out of franchises routinely when they don't get what they want? And then that franchise is handcuffed because they don't get back an equitable return for the talent they're giving away. That's speaking to the NBA, and it's why gutter franchises are gutter franchises forever.
Where did I say this? My "defense" is for ALL the players, especially the lower paid ones. I didn't say they players should have "leverage over the owners", I said they should leverage to negotiate equitably with the owners, in the same sense that they can walk away from their job if they're not happy, and aren't held hostage. But this doesn't HAVE to happen. The owners and players could agree to work out something that works for both parties, more like MLB did. It's not an either/or situation. But until the players get enough guts to stand up for themselves, they're stuck with the system they have.
I disagree that it would be worse for Watson than the Texans. They would alienate teams and burn bridges in being too greedy. They probably would wind up with the #1 pick next year and will take a QB. Then Watson's trade value will plummet. Watson isn't going to change his mind. Things will get nastier with the media and the fanbase. McClain has already said that they should go ahead and move Watson. He probably will become increasingly negative and critical, as will others in the local, Texas, and national media. Watson give his body a good rest from the pounding he has taken over the last 4 years, work to further strengthen his ACL and legs and work on flexibility, and as another poster suggested, could focus on business opportunities. Teams will still want Watson, but the Texans will have even less leverage than they do now.
I totally agree. The system is heavily slanted to the owner/team. Teams can cut players on a whim. They may have cap charges, but they don't have to pay the player any additional moneys that were specified in the contract. What's good for the goose, should be good for the gander. Players ought to be able to terminate their contracts and walk away from teams. There should be some equitable system where contracts can be terminated by either side without repercussions for either. If a player quits on a team and terminates his contract, the team shouldn't have to pay any dead money cap charge. I think all the roster bonuses, signing bonuses, workout bonuses are garbage and make things unnecessarily complex and they get in the way. There should be straight contracts with yearly salaries. Contracts should be either binding for both sides or for neither side. Players should not be considered "property" of the team/owner. Teams take a financial risk, but players are endangering their future health and well being. The players union needs to grow a pair. If need be they need to all sit out for a year or two if that's what it takes to get the owners to be reasonable.
A situation where every play was a free agent every year would work totally in the favor of the teams. Salaries have gotten to where they have because only a small fraction of the talent each year is actually free to move. This makes their talents particularly valuable and leads directly to them getting overpaid when they are on the market. The top guard on the market generally gets paid what the top guard in the NFL is getting paid because he is available and can be signed, whereas the top guard is under contract at the time. Over time player salaries rise because their cause is being fought on both an actual talent level, with the top guard signed at a very high figure by his current team, and on an availability level with a top 10 guard paid alongside him each year at a value approaching the top guard' contract. Even mid-level guards get a real boost in salary when they hit the market after their first contract expires. Now if every player was free every year the teams would have a much easier system of ranking players and more leverage to not overpay - even at the top levels. Guard #1 signs a deal based on the leverage that all his suitors have to go get one of guards #2-10. It's a good deal but it is not a huge deal because the choice for suitors is not just him or a rookie or a bottom half guard. All the other guards are under similar pressure as the the music keeps playing and they keep circling the table. Eventually when it stops 8 of the 64 starting guards are going to be out of a job as rookies fill those spots. So the pressure is on all levels of the spectrum and drives guards to sign the best contract they can as soon as they can before the music stops. This is a Charley Finley theory that he expanded upon as his A's were getting torn apart in free agency. He was a jerk, which is why they were getting torn apart, but he was right that the scarcity of talent available in free agency was what was driving their prices beyond his point to compete. Bill James did a wonderful essay on this in one of his Baseball Abstracts in the 80's and he described the scenario so well that it has stuck with me for 35 years now.
The anti-trust legislation/protection should be stripped from the NFL. They should be paying taxes and they shouldn't have that kind of power over the playeres. Cities should build no more stadiums. Owners should be told that if they want a new stadium, THEY will pay for it, not the city or state.
The only way they're "held hostage" is of the franchise uses the franchise tag. Otherwise, they have every right to walk in free agency. In Watson's instance, he didn't play that out. He signed the contract. You want leverage to negotiate after the negotiates have been settled through an agreed upon contract? I don't get it. Don't sign the contract extension and move towards free agency. It's pretty simple.
To take a two year gap in between playing, especially non-ibjury related, is always bad for the player. Different positions but we just watched it with Bell and will watch it this year with Mosely. There is no amount of personal workouts that equate to being in the facility, studying film, being on the practice field, etc. He loses all of his career upward momentum and will be heavily fined.
How do you figure? You just watched Tom Brady play for the superbowl for the 10th freakin time by the way
