Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
your argument would be a lot better if they didn't get a large part of the money in a signing bonus. Then it would be mediocre. Players don't sign long-term contracts for $100k. They sign them for big bucks, and then get pissed that their training partner on another team got even bigger bucks, because he signed a month or a year later.
|
Your argument would be a lot better if you didn't ignore the fact that contracts can be terminated without cause by only one side.
Sure both sides sign bad contracts. Sure the market shifts after they've signed what they thought were good contracts. But only one side is expected to respect their agreement. And that is bullshit.
The guaranteed money that comes with the signing bonus has addressed this problem to some extent, but you arguing that the teams, relative to the players, aren't at a huge advantage is just ridiculous.
Now, if you argued that teams have to be able to terminate long, large contracts because of how risky football is, it would be a different story. But then I would ask why the players should bear that risk, especially when their careers are so short.
TM
