The NFL needs a Rookie Pay Scale

[gswhoops]

One thing that always bugs me about the NFL draft is the HUGE sums of money that the top 5-10 picks always make. $25 million in guaranteed money for someone who has never played a snap in the NFL seems rediculous. Nate Clements got $22M guaranteed and he's a proven top 5 player at his position, and people howled that he was being overpayed. That same story with different names and numbers can be repeated over and over again. How come people don't apply the same logic to draft picks? Why do players who have proven literally nothing in the NFL instantly become some of the most well-payed players in the league?

The solution: adopt a Rookie Pay Scale similar to the NBA's. A pay scale would set how much a specific pick should make over how many years. Typically it means that a player is locked up cheaply for 3-4 years (sometimes with team options for the later years). This would eliminate top picks making $20+ million before they even stepped on the field. Also, the beautiful thing about the pay scale idea is that it would be easy to impliment in the NFL's CBA. The owners would support it, because it means they get to save money on untested, high risk players. The Player's Union would support it because less money being spend on rookies means more money being spent on veteran FAs.

[UTMCretin]

I have to agree, its ridiculous how players with no experience come into the league as some of its highest paid players despite proving nothing at a professional level. If there's enough hype surrounding a player, then he's suddenly making as much money as Peyton Manning (minus the numerous endorsement deals). Top picks are looking for over $10 million a year, well over what some of the best players in the league get. However, the rookie scale would have to modified from the NBA scale to reflect the likeliness that someone will breakdown in the NFL due to injuries, maybe with greater sums of guaranteed money or a shorter rookie scale.

[gswhoops]

I have to agree, its ridiculous how players with no experience come into the league as some of its highest paid players despite proving nothing at a professional level. If there's enough hype surrounding a player, then he's suddenly making as much money as Peyton Manning (minus the numerous endorsement deals). Top picks are looking for over $10 million a year, well over what some of the best players in the league get. However, the rookie scale would have to modified from the NBA scale to reflect the likeliness that someone will breakdown in the NFL due to injuries, maybe with greater sums of guaranteed money or a shorter rookie scale.

I agree that the sums of money and years would be different, but the general idea was borrowed from the NBA's pay scale for rookies.

[WashWiz54]

Not until guaranteed contracts are introduced.

[Pierce 4 3]

One thing that always bugs me about the NFL draft is the HUGE sums of money that the top 5-10 picks always make. $25 million in guaranteed money for someone who has never played a snap in the NFL seems rediculous. Nate Clements got $22M guaranteed and he's a proven top 5 player at his position, and people howled that he was being overpayed. That same story with different names and numbers can be repeated over and over again. How come people don't apply the same logic to draft picks? Why do players who have proven literally nothing in the NFL instantly become some of the most well-payed players in the league?

The solution: adopt a Rookie Pay Scale similar to the NBA's. A pay scale would set how much a specific pick should make over how many years. Typically it means that a player is locked up cheaply for 3-4 years (sometimes with team options for the later years). This would eliminate top picks making $20+ million before they even stepped on the field. Also, the beautiful thing about the pay scale idea is that it would be easy to impliment in the NFL's CBA. The owners would support it, because it means they get to save money on untested, high risk players. The Player's Union would support it because less money being spend on rookies means more money being spent on veteran FAs.

You make a very good point, and that's not saricasm.

[UrbanLegendMD]

Not until guaranteed contracts are introduced.

[JohnnyK]

First of all, I agree with the idea that the top draft picks should not be among the best-paid players and that a pay scale is a good idea.

However, with the way the salary cap has increased recently, you'd have a hard time getting the players to accept it IMHO, since there seems to be enough money available to take care of most guys.

If a pay scale is ever introduced, it would prolly have to be with very short, fully guaranteed contracts, after which players could become restricted FAs.

[NO-KG-AI]

If the owners want to pay the players, why should they be denied that?

What if someone came to your job, and forced you to take a HUGE paycut, and then you can get a big salary, IF you do really well, in 4 years?

[Fatty]

I'd work really hard for 4 years? Which is what rookie NFL players should do.

[UTMCretin]

If the owners want to pay the players, why should they be denied that?

What if someone came to your job, and forced you to take a HUGE paycut, and then you can get a big salary, IF you do really well, in 4 years?

If I was making millions of dollars a year, I don't think I would care

[gswhoops]

However, with the way the salary cap has increased recently, you'd have a hard time getting the players to accept it IMHO, since there seems to be enough money available to take care of most guys.

A pay scale appeals to the players' self interest. Take the $109M cap. If you are spending $3M on a rookie (as opposed to $10M) that means there are $7M more dollars under the cap to be spent on veteran players (who make up the NFLPA, not the incoming rookies). So it would be in the best financial interest of the Players' Association to support this.

If a pay scale is ever introduced, it would prolly have to be with very short, fully guaranteed contracts, after which players could become restricted FAs.

I agree - no more than 3 years, and all of the money should be guaranteed.

[gswhoops]

If the owners want to pay the players, why should they be denied that?

What if someone came to your job, and forced you to take a HUGE paycut, and then you can get a big salary, IF you do really well, in 4 years?

Here's another way to look at it (from the player's perspective):

Say you had worked for a big company for 5 years, making let's say $50,000 a year. Good money, but not rolling in dough. All of a sudden, your company hires a Harvard Business School hot shot and immediately gives him a corner office with a window, a company BMW, and a $5M a year salary. Before he's ever done anything for the company, he's making more than someone who has proved their worth for years. This guy could be the worst worker in the office, and he'd still be better off than you. How is that fair?

(obviously substitute the Harvard guy with the top pick, the company with the team, etc.)

[JohnnyK]

-= original quote snipped =-
A pay scale appeals to the players' self interest. Take the $109M cap. If you are spending $3M on a rookie (as opposed to $10M) that means there are $7M more dollars under the cap to be spent on veteran players (who make up the NFLPA, not the incoming rookies). So it would be in the best financial interest of the Players' Association to support this.

Oh, I agree with that - in theory. In practice, even with those huge rookie contracts, you rarely see guys getting pushed out of the league because of financial reasons. They might be cut from one team, but if they can still perform, they'll be signed by another.
Unless the salary cap stops going up every year, I don't see the players voting for something that often enables them to take care of their families with their first contract.

[Rooster]

If they get cut by one team and signed by another, though, it tends t obe for significantly less. Especially with a hard cap, there's only so much money to go around and the more that goes to rookies, the less there is for vets. Players' unions protect the vets.

The only group of players I can see not liking this are high picks and there aren't enough of them to override everyone else so I think that from a negotiation standpoint, this shouldn't be too tough to pull off.

NO-KG-AI, with the high frequency of busts and injury-ruined careers among young NFL players, I don't think it's fair to pay them so much. Or was it fair money for Ki-Jana Carter to be making so much when his ACL had the texture of shredded wheat?

[J.Kim]

Uhh...

You guys are kidding me right?

A rookie is more likely to see less than a third of his original contract value. Even the guaranteed money. First off, $25 Mil + Signing bonuses, is not as much as you think it is. Staggered over 6 years, Mario Williams' Guaranteed $26.5 Mil Signing bonus is only $4.42 Mil per year.
And I'm more than willing to bet that his non-guaranteed salary is hugely backloaded.

So when he re-structures his contract in 4-5 years, he'll have received probably around 4/6ths, 5/6ths of his guarnateed money, and probably only around $4-5 Mil of his non guarnateed money (His Base Salary, and not accounting for NOT Likely to be reached bonuses, which even then is probably around only $1-2 Mil for each).

If I have calculated right, and that is the case, then over the duration of his rookie contract (4-5 years, pre-restructuring) he'll have received around $22 to $27 Million dollars of his $54 Million Dollar Contract, and staggered over 4-5 years, that's around $5.5 Mil a year.

That $5.5 Mil a year figure is less than what an NBA's #1 overall rookie would make under the rookie pay scale.
Andrea Bargnani, with his options and QO (which the Raptors are more than likely to pick up, barring some catastrophic injury), would make $29.53 Million over the duration of his rookie contract, which is 5 years, which is around $5.9-6 Mil a year.

Look beyond the stated, media-friendly, sensationalist numbers, and you'll see that NFL players are actually paid A LOT less than NBA, MLB and in some cases NHL players.

[Teen Girl Squad]

Uhh...

You guys are kidding me right?

A rookie is more likely to see less than a third of his original contract value. Even the guaranteed money. First off, $25 Mil + Signing bonuses, is not as much as you think it is. Staggered over 6 years, Mario Williams' Guaranteed $26.5 Mil Signing bonus is only $4.42 Mil per year.
And I'm more than willing to bet that his non-guaranteed salary is hugely backloaded.

So when he re-structures his contract in 4-5 years, he'll have received probably around 4/6ths, 5/6ths of his guarnateed money, and probably only around $4-5 Mil of his non guarnateed money (His Base Salary, and not accounting for NOT Likely to be reached bonuses, which even then is probably around only $1-2 Mil for each).

If I have calculated right, and that is the case, then over the duration of his rookie contract (4-5 years, pre-restructuring) he'll have received around $22 to $27 Million dollars of his $54 Million Dollar Contract, and staggered over 4-5 years, that's around $5.5 Mil a year.

That $5.5 Mil a year figure is less than what an NBA's #1 overall rookie would make under the rookie pay scale.
Andrea Bargnani, with his options and QO (which the Raptors are more than likely to pick up, barring some catastrophic injury), would make $29.53 Million over the duration of his rookie contract, which is 5 years, which is around $5.9-6 Mil a year.

Look beyond the stated, media-friendly, sensationalist numbers, and you'll see that NFL players are actually paid A LOT less than NBA, MLB and in some cases NHL players.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THANK YOU! This is exactly right when it comes to the issue. Its quite an ingenious system the NFL has. Massive numbers stroke the ego and casual fans think they're loaded but they really don't get much of those inflated numbers at all.

[NO-KG-AI]

If they get cut by one team and signed by another, though, it tends t obe for significantly less. Especially with a hard cap, there's only so much money to go around and the more that goes to rookies, the less there is for vets. Players' unions protect the vets.

The only group of players I can see not liking this are high picks and there aren't enough of them to override everyone else so I think that from a negotiation standpoint, this shouldn't be too tough to pull off.

NO-KG-AI, with the high frequency of busts and injury-ruined careers among young NFL players, I don't think it's fair to pay them so much. Or was it fair money for Ki-Jana Carter to be making so much when his ACL had the texture of shredded wheat?

Hey, it's the owners own faults, they are the ones who give the rookies more and more every year. With the money they rake in, I can't feel sorry for them when a player goes down.

[Rooster]

Uhh...

You guys are kidding me right?

A rookie is more likely to see less than a third of his original contract value. Even the guaranteed money. First off, $25 Mil + Signing bonuses, is not as much as you think it is. Staggered over 6 years, Mario Williams' Guaranteed $26.5 Mil Signing bonus is only $4.42 Mil per year.
And I'm more than willing to bet that his non-guaranteed salary is hugely backloaded.

So when he re-structures his contract in 4-5 years, he'll have received probably around 4/6ths, 5/6ths of his guarnateed money, and probably only around $4-5 Mil of his non guarnateed money (His Base Salary, and not accounting for NOT Likely to be reached bonuses, which even then is probably around only $1-2 Mil for each).

If I have calculated right, and that is the case, then over the duration of his rookie contract (4-5 years, pre-restructuring) he'll have received around $22 to $27 Million dollars of his $54 Million Dollar Contract, and staggered over 4-5 years, that's around $5.5 Mil a year.

That $5.5 Mil a year figure is less than what an NBA's #1 overall rookie would make under the rookie pay scale.
Andrea Bargnani, with his options and QO (which the Raptors are more than likely to pick up, barring some catastrophic injury), would make $29.53 Million over the duration of his rookie contract, which is 5 years, which is around $5.9-6 Mil a year.

Look beyond the stated, media-friendly, sensationalist numbers, and you'll see that NFL players are actually paid A LOT less than NBA, MLB and in some cases NHL players.

Please point out in my post where I said that NFL players are paid more than NBA players or than a NFL rookie scale would have the same payout as the NBA one.

NO-KG-AI, you can only let people dig a hole to a certain extent, right? Besides, I think my "protecting the vets" point (really the main one for the NFLPA) has merit, wouldn't you think?

[J.Kim]

-= original quote snipped =-



Please point out in my post where I said that NFL players are paid more than NBA players or than a NFL rookie scale would have the same payout as the NBA one.

NO-KG-AI, you can only let people dig a hole to a certain extent, right? Besides, I think my "protecting the vets" point (really the main one for the NFLPA) has merit, wouldn't you think?

Not replying to your post in particular, but to the posters who think that $25 Mil guaranteed over 6 years is too much for a player.

[Rooster]

-= original quote snipped =-



Not replying to your post in particular, but to the posters who think that $25 Mil guaranteed over 6 years is too much for a player.

OK, it's all good then.