Rookie Pay Scale

by primetime 07 on May 20, 2008 9:32 PM CDT

It's my contention that the NFL should go to a rookie pay scale similar to the NBA where each player's contract is determined by their draft order. #1 overall gets X amount of money, #2 gets Y amount of money, etc. All contracts are pre-determined. If you don't like it? Then don't play. The incoming rookies need the league more than the league needs them.

It seems to work well in the NBA, as rookies aren't given outrageous contracts as has become the norm with the top 10 in the NFL draft.

It makes no sense as to why the league wouldn't slot the rookie pay like the NBA. The only players that could conceivably be opposed to the idea would be the incoming rookies. Who have no vote in matters regarding the NFLPA and the NFL by-laws.

Of the $8 billion in revenue created by the league each year, 59.25% (or about $4.5 billion) has to go to player costs. That money has to be spent per the current CBA.

So, if the rookie pay is cut then teams will be left with a surplus of money that has to be spent. And if that money is not going to the rookies then it's going to the veterans. Those who actually vote in matters regarding the NFLPA and the NFL by-laws.

So, my question to everyone is: Why in the world hasn't the NFL slotted it's rookie pay scale like the NBA? It's a situation I've researched a bit and can't understand the reasoning behind it.

The only possible scenario I have come up with is that NFL agents are somehow against this and used their influence to deter the league from considering this (but, as CAA agent Ben Dogra would tell you, agents have no influence). But many of these agents represent veterans as well, and they would be benefiting as well. So the agents wouldn't be losing money.

So, again I ask, what's the deal?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

1 word.

Positions.

Greater variety equate to massively different pay scales by position. That would be why Ryan’s contract is larger than #1 pick Jake Long who signed before the draft. Dorsey will get a huge contract, probably at least in the high end of your $7-10 million scale. We definitely freed up some money in the off-season, but yeah, its a huge gamble, that’s part of the youth movement.

by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on May 20, 2008 11:02 PM CDT 0 recs

Good Point

this should be a no brainer for two sides(players and owners) who can’t agree on anything. More money for vets and less risk for the franchise. What if agents are secretly giving bribes to the players association. Who votes on the player association? How big is the board?

by chiefsfan1384 on May 21, 2008 1:01 AM CDT 0 recs

I Hate Unions! The Leadership is Always Corrupt! Screw Upshaw!

by chiefsfan1384 on May 21, 2008 1:03 AM CDT 0 recs

Union member here

Unions are not all bad but, rookies that are unproven should not get this kind of money based on potential. That is like a pre-apprentice coming in and getting journeymans wages, just because the potential is there does not mean he is going to pan out. They should have to earn the big bucks.

by Eric Allen on May 22, 2008 8:29 AM CDT 0 recs

Just to clarify

I’m not against members of unions, I didn’t mean to be so vague. But, I think union leaders are overpaid and sometimes do dirty deals. Upshaw makes like 4 million a year.

by chiefsfan1384 on May 22, 2008 1:26 PM CDT up 0 recs

First round pay is ridiculous

Nick Athan lists what I think are some common sense solutions in his recent WP post.

http://kan.scout.com/2/756590.html

by sunny D on May 22, 2008 8:38 AM CDT 0 recs

Upshaw says

They will never agree to a rookie pay scale because of the risk to the players from the get go. I can see where he’s coming from here, even though I believe there should be a scale. From his perspective, this protects the young players and may keep players coming to the NFL rather than the NBA or MLB…. both which pay considerably higher wages and are less physically taxing/destructive.

Think about David Pollack of the Bengals. Breaks his neck in his second season and is likely never going to play again. He was a 1st round pick who had great potential to play in the league for a long time. He no longer has the ability to earn an NFL wage as a player. It’s not that he didn’t have the talent… which is where most of the argument for slotting comes in. When you have a bust in the NFL in the top 10… it hurts and it hurts for a long time. Slotting protects teams from suffering the setback that comes from a poor pick. If Pollack were forced in to a “rookie” contract and had to wait for bigger bucks, he would now be hosed.

I like the article and agree with the top 16 w/5% annual increase for rookies. I think there should also be cap relief for retaining veteran players on a squad. There should be a scale where after a certain age, that player’s contract counts less toward the cap. Like after 30 it’s 90% of the normal cap hit and scale it back as they get older. It may have to be modified based on position considering the average career length varies positionally (K, P, QB > RB, LB). They would probably have to allow a few more heads on the roster to accommodate this as well and I also wish they would ditch the “Dress 45” rule.

Now, everybody poke holes in my argument!!

by Ochophosphate on May 23, 2008 10:09 AM CDT 0 recs