“Scaling” down NFL Rookie Contracts

Posted on April 28th, 2009. Written by Emmett Jones.

As I’m sure everyone knows by now, the NFL draft happened this past weekend.  The Detroit Lions chose Georgia QB Matthew Stafford with the first pick, signing him to a 6-year, $78 million dollar deal with $41.7 million in guaranteed money.  The deal represented the largest amount of guaranteed money for any player in NFL history.   Matthew Stafford, who hasn’t taken a snap in the NFL, has more guaranteed money in his contract than an established NFL star, ala Haynesworth, and established NFL superstars at his position, ala Peyton Manning & Tom Brady.

What’s wrong with this picture?

The NFL rookie contract scale…oh wait! There isn’t one.  Talk of an NFL Rookie Contract Scale seems to arise every year around NFL draft time, in large part because the lottery picks end up with better contracts than 95% of the league, and they haven’t played a snap.  This year of course, was no exception, with Stafford’s deal guaranteeing more money than any player in NFL history.  I’ve discussed some of the abnormalities of the NFL rookie contract previously, and I, more than ever before,  believe that rookie contracts need to be scaled down or they’re will at some point kill the league.

Why?

The Detroit Lions are not a good football team, their 0-16 record last year shows this.  Can they afford to pay Matt Stafford on average of $7 million a year in guaranteed money if he’s a bust?  Especially when, if he’s a bust, they’ll have other future lottery picks and they’ll be paying those picks some amount (probably a larger amount) of guaranteed money in the future?  The Lions would essentially be in a cycle of paying one player an obscene amount of money, relying on that player to bail out the entire team, and being strapped for cash salary-cap wise.  I think Joey Harrington, Charles Rogers, Mike Williams, and Roy Williams would agree; that might not be the best way to run a football team.

Of course, maybe an actual rookie pay-out scale isn’t the best idea either, as Dan Wetzel points out when he compared the NBA’s current rookie pay scale to a potential NFL rookie pay scale,

The most obvious development is that after the NBA created the salary scale in the late 1990s, there was no longer a financial incentive for players to remain in college and improve their draft status.

When the difference between the 15th pick and the first is say, $20 million, then a player will stay on campus another year and try to move up to get that kind of deal. When it’s significantly smaller, they just go pro as soon as possible to get the clock ticking on becoming a free agent, where the big money awaits…

Pre-salary scale, the top 10 picks of the 1994 NBA draft spent an average of 3.3 years in college. Post-salary scale, the top 10 picks of the 2004 NBA draft spent 2.0 years in college.

Assuming college football players followed the same logic as college basketball players, what’s the NFL to do?  A pay scale is necessary, unless you want every #1 pick making contract history, yet you obviously don’t want ill-equipped college players entering the league early, because it dilutes the NFL as a product.

Why not just set one maximum salary for rookies, and not an entire pay scale?

If the NFL had established a 6 year, $50 million dollar contract, with $20 million guaranteed as a maximum contract for NFL rookies, wouldn’t that solve both problems?  There isn’t a contract record being broken every year and ill-equipped college players don’t leave early, due to the pay-scale dilemma.  Just allow every rookie the opportunity to obtain the maximum contract, which a team MAY pay, if they see fit.

There has to be some huge problem with this that I’m missing.  Leave your thoughts in the comments.

Yahoo! Sports — NFL needs to think before acting

1 Responses »

Additional comments powered by BackType