DescentBB

I realize I'm opening myself up for abuse for talking about something sports-related in E&C, but here's something I've been seeing/hearing/reading a lot about lately, and I'm curious about people's perspectives.

For those who don't follow them, both the NBA (basketball) and the NFL (football) will be re-negotiating their respective CBAs (Collective Bargaining Agreement) this off-season, pitting employees/players vs owners/teams.

Recently, there have been some big stories about star players who want to move to another city/team, which has resulted in some very heated reactions from fans who feel strongly about team loyalty. I personally have a bit of empathy for the employee/player, because I've made a similar move in real life (we wanted to live in Denver, so I asked my employer at the time for a transfer, which evoked mixed reactions).

Anyway, the NBA is considering a rule that the NFL has had for a while: The ability to "franchise tag" a player, effectively restricting their ability to move to another team but ensuring them a lucrative contract.

As a fan in a smaller market, it seems like a good idea to be able to force a top player to stay even if they want to move elsewhere. But from an employee/employer contract perspective, it seems overly restrictive, and I'm not sure I see it working outside the sports world.

...Thoughts?

I think this is similar to NHL. I think if a player decides to sign a 5 year 20 million dollar contract, then he should be forced to stick it out whether his team is good or not. HE signed that contract, no one forced him to. Otherwise, what they should do is limit all NHL/NBA/NFL contracts to 2 years maximum. This way if you aren't happy you can leave after 2 years and have no quams and the fans can't complain. There is no loyalty in anything anymore. It's always who will pay top dollar. This is even true in Private sector and Gov't.

I agree it probably will not work out side of professional sports. the NBA and the NFL are a business that crosses state lines. while they are still individual franchises each franchise is not independent and rely on each other the be solvent to survive. if they did not employ the use of contracts then there would be 6 teams. small market teams like the NBA's Blazers, Jazz, Bucks just for starters would fold since all the top players would choose LA, Boston, NY, Miami. I have little sympathy for many professional athletes. they knew when they signed those contracts and what they involved. again while I have no problem with LeBron "taking his talents to South Beach" since his contract was expired. I do have a problem with the way he held Cleveland hostage in doing so, and how he dumped his "Girl Friend" on National TV for the world to see. again the conduct of many of the athletes today mirror's society as a whole, it's a lack of Character on and off the Court or field

Foil wrote:Anyway, the NBA is considering a rule that the NFL has had for a while: The ability to "franchise tag" a player, effectively restricting their ability to move to another team but ensuring them a lucrative contract.

As a fan in a smaller market, it seems like a good idea to be able to force a top player to stay even if they want to move elsewhere. But from an employee/employer contract perspective, it seems overly restrictive

Keep in mind that the players' contracts are with the league, rather than with an individual team. If a player is traded from Cleveland to Portland, they keep the same employment contract. It's not like when you go from Google to Microsoft and you get an entirely new contract with a different salary, different benefits, different work hours, etc.

Viewed within that framework, a "franchise tag" is like if a big company decides that department heads can block transfer requests if they deem someone critical to the department. You can still quit and work for someone else (possibly for a lot less money -- a "franchise player" can always go play Canadian football, or go be a grocery clerk!) But you can't stay under the same employment contract *and* leave your department in the lurch.

I think it makes a lot of sense within the context of professional sports. Part of what makes the leagues viable (and therefore lets the players be so rich) is having some degree of parity -- giving small markets the ability to field competitive teams, which includes giving them the ability to hold on to star players or get good value from them. The league as a whole retains control over player contracts and labor rules -- including things like setting a max salary and trade rules. A "franchise" tag isn't particularly more restrictive than those other things, which players agree to when they decide to play in the NBA instead of Euroleague.

Lothar wrote:I think it makes a lot of sense within the context of professional sports. Part of what makes the leagues viable (and therefore lets the players be so rich) is having some degree of parity -- giving small markets the ability to field competitive teams, which includes giving them the ability to hold on to star players or get good value from them. The league as a whole retains control over player contracts and labor rules -- including things like setting a max salary and trade rules. A "franchise" tag isn't particularly more restrictive than those other things, which players agree to when they decide to play in the NBA instead of Euroleague.

Pretty much this. One of the biggest problems with baseball right now is that there isn't an effective system to create this sort of parity, as there is in the NFL. As a result, you wind up having very clear-cut haves and have-nots, with a few teams swimming in the middle somewhere. It's difficult to field a competitive team when someone like the Yankees is able to pick-and-choose from among your best players and throw more money at them.

I look at this a bit differently. A "contract" employee to me smacks too much of being akin to a sub-contractor in the construction industry. Once you sign the contract, even if it is just for labor and not materials, you have obligations to finish that contract or face penalties. In light of the sport player who signs a contract, how is it he even needs a union? You are getting the contract based on your star attraction (or lack there of). So how does a Union, that in most cases is notorious for setting a level of mediocrity among the worker pool, become part of the contract process? Especially considering the player will have a agent doing the negotiations for him and not a union rep.

Typically with union workers their real loyalty lies with the union and not the employer. In sports it would seem, relationships are more like one would find down the rabbit hole.

I'm taking the liberty of bumping this thread because I'm curious to see what folks who follow the NFL think of the apparent collapse of the league/union CBA negotiations.

Personally, I'm not sure what to think. It's strange to see the union asking to see the league's detailed financial records, but it's also strange that the league is asking for an extra billion $ over the previous agreement while giving little information to back up their claims about financial losses.

[Edit: It's official: Negotiations failed, the players' union has decertified, allowing it to pursue anti-trust charges against the league. ]

This just in: the NFL is "modern-day slavery."

It's a joke. They all make too much money.

The non-cynical part of me tends to side with the players, but not far a good reason.

just like I tell my guys at work. "you have something that many people in life don't have. a choice" if the players dont like it their working conditions, then they have a choice. the CFL or Europe
the irony is that professional sports is the ultimate performance pay based system that exists. if you want more money, get better at what you do.

CUDA wrote:if the players dont like it their working conditions, then they have a choice.

Conversely, the owners have a choice as well. If they feel the players/union are asking too much, they can go get other players. Heck, this is an era of free-agency in sports, so fans are somewhat used to player turnover.

Personally, I think both sides are acting a bit like greedy pricks. I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL's dominance in popularity (in the U.S., that is) drops quite a bit, especially if the lockout continues into the season.

And I'm hoping that it helps the NHL out.

snoopy wrote:And I'm hoping that it helps the NHL out.

You don't see this kinda stuff in the PBR.

SilverFJ wrote:

snoopy wrote:And I'm hoping that it helps the NHL out.

You don't see this kinda stuff in the PBR.

I went to a rodeo once. It was a good time, except for the bull rider that got his foot stuck in the stirrup for a couple of laps. I *think* he was okay but it sure was scary.

Well it isn't whether or not you get hurt riding bulls, it's how bad.

"Laps"?? lolx5

My abstract point was, these guys in the NFL need to realize they have a sweet deal, they're not sweatshop workers, and guys that do PBR put their asses on the line every ride, for the love of the game, as opposed to quarterbacks who care more about their rating than completing a drive. Hell, there's more rules nowadays protecting them than I can keep track of. I wish as sportsmen they would care more about the sport than pay.

SilverFJ wrote:...these guys in the NFL need to realize they have a sweet deal. ... I wish as sportsmen they would care more about the sport than pay.

True, and it applies to the owners as well. They may not play, but there are times their decisions are driven by $ over the good of the team/players.

For example, here in Denver the ownership pushed drafting a QB who is flawed but incredibly popular (he fills seats and $ell$ tons of merchandise!). People say he has potential, but it was clearly driven by financial gain.

I think if either side were really motivated by anything other than $$, the negotiations would have been much better.

Foil wrote:True, and it applies to the owners as well. They may not play, but there are rare times their decisions are driven by the good of the team/players over $.

Fixed it for you.

I also think that we, as consumers, have our role to play. People here in Philly have been complaining about Andy Reid for years now, to no effect. I have a really simple answer to getting rid of Reid: every season ticket holder should refuse to renew, and send a letter to the organization that they won't spend another dollar until Reid is fired... that would make it happen really quickly.

If next season is sub-par because of this crap, I hope we do to them what we did to MLB. If nothing else, it'll remind all the other sports to mind themselves and remember that ultimately we write their checks.