Darnell Dockett Calls Out The Media

What happens if you somehow can mandate (and why are people uninvolved so eager to interfere with something that is between a player and and team owner cutting his paycheck?) that NFL contracts are guaranteed?

The obvious thing I can think of is that you'd have to expect teams to offer way fewer multi-year contracts, with a net effect that is similar to what already exists. In a sport with the risk of injury that the NFL has, wouldn't all but the best superstars end up having to play year by year for their next guaranteed paycheck? It's way riskier than it is with other sports to hand out guaranteed money, when typically careers don't last long.

Also, there is nothing stopping players from trying to negotiate guaranteed contracts. It's not like guaranteed contracts are somehow illegal in the NFL. For example, Jay Cutler signed a deal last year with a ton of guaranteed money (as have other skill players). There is nothing stopping any other player from trying to negotiate that kind of deal. But with how competitive most non-skill-position roster spots are, and the risk of injury in football, I think what a lot of people miss is that most players don't have the needed leverage to make that a negotiating demand. This is about leverage, not about someone being "unfair." The big defensive tackle often is not that unique. There is another player about as good as he is who was just waived by someone else. I remember Leigh Steinberg writing something about this a few years ago, also -- there actually had been a pretty good increase in guaranteed money in NFL contracts, so I'd suggest that players that actually have the leverage to get their contracts guaranteed use it already.

Also, the way the collective bargaining agreement exists in football, they basically end up fighting every once in a while over a revenue split. Currently, the players get about 47 percent, if I am remembering correctly. You can argue whether that is a little light (and it probably is), but once they hammer that part out between themselves, it's really more on the players themselves about how they are going to divvy up what they won in their negotiations, isn't it? The players know exactly what they are doing. Take that 47 percent of revenue, and mandate guaranteed contracts of certain lengths, for example. You are not increasing the pool of money available -- it is still 47 percent of revenue -- so what you have to do is redistribute it from established players to unestablished players. It means that the veteran quarterback is going to get less and the unproven second year safety is going to get more -- which comes from what the established player is currently earning. The problem is, you'll have to pry it out of the hands of the established player.

The players who have established themselves don't want that. They had a deal before this, in which unproven rookies were coming in and signing big contracts with guaranteed money up front -- and that money was costing established players in their negotiations. So they purposely set up something now that limits how much new players earn and makes them have to stick around for a while before they can get their pay day. That is basically what you would be mandating away by mandating guaranteed contracts -- it would change the dynamics in a way people don't understand. The players could do it on their own, but they really don't want to. The guys who hace stuck around (against the odds) don't want to be taking a beating to better the finances of undrafted free agents who are not going to stick.